STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CITY OF NEWBERRY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0752
) WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. ) and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )
)
Respondents. )
) CITIZENS FOR WATERMELON POND, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0753
) WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. ) and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Notice was provided, and on July 12-14, 1995 and January 9-12, 1996, a formal hearing was held in the above-styled cases. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing location was Gainesville, Florida. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: S. Scott Walker, Esquire
(City of Watson, Folds, Steadham, Tovkach, Newberry) Walker and Marston, P.A.
Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32601
For Petitioner: Patrice Boyes, Esquire (Citizens for Boyes and Jester, P.A. Watermelon Post Office Box 1424
Pond, Inc.) Gainesville, Florida 32602
For Respondent: William C. Andrews, Esquire (Watson Scruggs and Carmichael, P.A. Construction One Southeast First Avenue Company, Inc.) Gainesville, Florida 32601
For Respondent: Jefferson Braswell, Esquire (Department of Department of Environmental Protection Environmental 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Protection) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Is Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson), entitled to a general permit allowing it to operate a construction and demolition debris facility in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On February 15,1995, Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), gave notice that it did not intend to object to Watson using a general permit to operate a construction and demolition debris facility in Newberry, Florida. This followed an initial notification by Watson on July 21, 1994 that Watson intended to operate a construction and demolition debris facility by use of a general permit, which intent was rejected by DEP on August 19, 1994 through a statement of intent to deny the use of a general permit. Watson had reapplied on January 16, 1995 seeking permission to use a general permit. Through this reapplication, revisions were made which convinced DEP to notice its lack of opposition to the use of the general permit.
A general permit may be used for off-site disposal of construction and demolition debris (a C&D facility).
On August 12 and 16, 1994, the Petitioners had stated opposition to Watson's initial request to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. Additional petitions were filed in February 1995 stating opposition to Watson's use of the general permit to operate the C&D facility.
The Petitioners having opposed the permission to use a general permit, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 21, 1995 to conduct a formal hearing to resolve the issues in dispute concerning the C&D facility. The hearing was conducted on the aforementioned dates.
At hearing, the Petitioners presented the witnesses, Robert Windschauer, P.G.; Barbara Denahan, P.G.; Nicholas Albergo, P.E.; Grady Hartzog; David Morris; and Dr. Mark Stewart, P.G. Dr. Stewart's testimony was by deposition. The testimony of Dr. Walter Schmidt, P.G. and Dr. Rodney DeHan was not allowed. The Petitioners were permitted to file a written summary of the testimony that would have been presented through those witnesses.
Having considered the Motion to Strike the proffer summarizing the testimony from Drs. Schmidt and DeHan and the response to the motion, the Motion to Strike is denied.
The Petitioners' exhibits Composite 1, consisting of 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1- F, 1-G, and 1-H; 5, 7, Composite 9, consisting of 9-A, 9-B, 9-C, and 9-D; 10-A, 18, 19-C, 20, Composite 21; 101, 102 and 103 were admitted into evidence. The
Petitioners' Exhibits 104, 105, 106 and 107 were denied admission.
Watson presented the witnesses Larry Watson, Ralph Eng, P.E.; Kenneth L. Hill, P.E.; Dr. Douglas Smith, P.G.; Dr. Thomas Patton, P.G.; and Charles O. Swallows, P.E.
Ralph Eng, P.E. and Kenneth Hill, P.E. were presented as Petitioners' witnesses, as well as those of Watson.
Watson's Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 11-A, 11-B, 11-C, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112 were admitted into evidence.
DEP did not present witnesses. DEP joined in the sponsorship of Watson's Exhibits 1, 2 and 11.
The parties filed a prehearing stipulation.
Official recognition was given to Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-
522, 62-550, and 62-701, Florida Administrative Code.
The hearing transcript was filed on February 23, 1996. Proposed Recommended Orders were filed on May 15, 1996. Consequently, the deadline for preparing the Recommended Order within 30 days from the transcript filing date has been waived. See Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code. The fact proposals by the parties are addressed in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
On July 23, 1996, Petitioners moved to supplement the record by submitting correspondence dated July 12, 1996, concerning a possible violation of the Florida Administrative Code by the applicant for placing unauthorized debris at the proposed site. That motion was denied by separate order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
DEP, in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is responsible for enhancing the beauty and quality of the environment; conservation and recycling of natural resources; prevention of the spread of disease and creation of nuisances; protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and provision for a coordinated statewide solid waste management program. It accomplishes these tasks, in part, by regulatory oversight directed to entities who operate solid waste facilities in Florida. That oversight includes permitting the activities by the facilities subject to compliance with statutory and rule requirements.
Watson wishes to operate a solid waste facility in Newberry, Florida. In particular, Watson seeks to operate a C&D facility for off-site disposal of C&D debris to be placed where sand has been mined. Watson would pursue this enterprise by using a general permit, as allowed by DEP.
Petitioner, City of Newberry (the City), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It opposes Watson's use of a general permit to conduct business as a C&D facility, based upon the belief that Watson has not demonstrated compliance with regulatory provisions that would allow Watson to use a general permit.
Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. (Citizens), is a corporation constituted of persons who oppose the use of the general permit for the same reasons expressed by the City.
On July 21, 1994, Watson noticed DEP that it intended to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility.
On July 29, 1994, a notice was published in the Gainesville Sun, a local newspaper, concerning the pendency of the use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility in Newberry, Florida.
On August 12 and 16, 1994, the Petitioners filed petitions seeking an administrative hearing on the use of a general permit by Watson to operate the C & D facility.
On August 19, 1994, DEP issued a Notice of Denial of the permission to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. This permit request was under an arrangement between Watson and a co-applicant, Whitehurst.
Following the Notice of Denial, no further action being requested by the applicants, DEP issued an order closing its file.
In December 1994, in its name only, Watson resubmitted an application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility in question. The level of consideration at that time was as a pre-application review. This was followed by a formal notice by Watson and application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. The formal application was filed on January 17, 1995.
On January 24, 1995, notice was published in the Gainesville Sun concerning the more recent intention to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility.
On February 6, 1995, Citizens filed a verified petition opposing the use of the general permit contemplated by the January 17, 1995 application. Two days later, the City filed a verified petition in opposition to the most recent request to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility.
On February 15, 1995, DEP gave notice that it did not object to Watson's use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility.
Watson's most recent request to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility was made on a form provided by DEP in accordance with Rule 62- 701.900(3), Florida Administrative Code. The application to use a general permit was sealed by a professional engineer.
The legal description of the property in question is described in the application. It is located in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida.
The site location for the proposed C&D facility is one and one-eighth mile south of Southwest 46th Avenue on the east side of County Road 337 in Newberry, Florida.
Documentation has been provided which identifies the legal authorization to use the property as a C&D facility.
The C&D facility has a planned active life of 50 years.
It is intended that the sand that is excavated will be replaced by C&D debris at a similar grade.
The mailing address and telephone number of the C&D owner and operator is identified. Watson is the owner/operator.
There are 158 acres within the proposed site. Approximately 143 acres would be used in the C&D operation by mining sand as a prelude to recontouring the site by placing the C&D debris. It is intended to excavate tan sand and silty sand to a depth of 20-30 feet. Although Watson anticipates excavating sand to a depth of 30 feet, bore hole data reveals the existence of sand below that depth. Watson does not intend to excavate below 62 feet mean sea level (MSL). In any event, it is not the intention to excavate below the interface of the sand and underlying sandy clays. Once the sand has been excavated, it is anticipated that the bottom of the C&D disposal area will be approximately 15 feet above the piezometric water table associated with the Floridan Aquifer, according to the applicant.
The proposed site is located in rolling terrain, whose elevations range from approximately 80 feet MSL to 100 feet MSL.
To support the use of a general permit, Watson has provided a site plan with a scale not greater than 200 feet to the inch, which identifies the project location, with proposed disposal areas, total acreage of the site and of the proposed disposal area, and other relevant features that exist on or within
500 feet of the site.
The property boundaries are identified. The site would be fenced. Access to the facility would be controlled by a locked gate on County Road 337. The gate would be open during daily operations.
The site does not contain surface water.
There being no surface water, the C&D facility does not require a surface water management permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. The site does not present a problem with stormwater runoff.
A potable well is located within 500 feet of the property boundary. However, placement of C&D debris would be offset by a 500-foot buffer from the well.
Wetlands are located 2,100 feet from the southern edge of the proposed site in the eastern part of the adjacent Whitehurst parcel. Within 3,000 feet of the proposed site is an old phosphate mining pit on the Whitehurst parcel, and 6,200 feet from the proposed site is the northern-most unnamed pond associated with Watermelon Pond.
The site is not susceptible to flooding at present.
The sand mined at the proposed site would be used to build roads and for foundations for houses and other buildings. Clay removed from the building sites to make room for the sand would be placed in the C&D facility. The material that is removed from building sites and substituted by sand fill is clay with a high shrink and swell factor. That material, together with flint rocks, tree limbs and stumps, would be transported to the C&D facility by Watson's dump trucks. At present, Watson has 20 dump trucks. The dump trucks hold 20 yards each.
In addition to those materials removed from Watson job sites by dump trucks, Watson has approximately 36 roll-off dumpsters which hold 20 yards each. Two Watson trucks are available to transport the roll-off dumpsters to the C&D facility. The roll-off dumpsters are placed on construction sites, not
exclusively Watson's, and construction materials not used in the building process would be placed in the roll-off dumpsters for disposal at the C&D facility.
Approximately 70 percent of the fill material to be placed in the C&D facility would be unsuitable soils, trees, limbs and stumps. The remaining material would be the C&D debris from construction at sites where the dumpsters have been placed.
The dump trucks that hold the clay, limbs and stumps would be loaded by Watson employees, who can control what is placed in the trucks. Watson would not control what is placed in the roll-off dumpsters at other construction sites.
The Watson dump trucks from job sites directly related to its activities would arrive at the C&D facility and dump their loads for compaction. Those loads would not be spotted for unsuitable fill materials.
By contrast, the roll-off dumpsters would be examined at the construction site by the Watson driver. If the driver discovers excessive amounts of material not classified for C&D fill, contact would be made with the Watson office and the material taken to the Alachua County landfill for disposal.
If the driver picks up the dumpster at the construction site and there are limited amounts of material not suitable for disposition at the C&D facility, the dumpster would be taken to the C&D facility. The material would be spread out, and a spotter would segregate materials that are not suitable for C&D fill. The unsuitable material would be placed in temporary containers at the disposal site and transported off-site to a permitted landfill or other appropriate facility.
Some material brought to the landfill would be recycled. Woods, such as pine or hardwood would be recycled. The limbs and stumps would be placed in the pit as fill. Copper, aluminum, steel, iron, and any other metal would be recycled. The metals would be sold to a scrap-iron facility. An employee at the landfill would keep the money earned from recycling. Metal embedded in broken concrete would be used as fill.
The C&D facility would be operated by two persons: one, a loader/operator who loads the dump trucks with the sand that is being excavated; the second individual, a bulldozer operator who pushes the dump truck loads of clay, limbs, and stumps into the fill area and spreads them. He would also spot the roll-off dumpsters and segregate the fill material from unsuitable material. The sorted construction material to be used as fill would be pushed into the working face of the pit, where the tree limbs, stumps and clay would have also been placed.
It is anticipated that six to ten roll-off dumpsters with C&D material would be brought to the C&D facility on a daily basis. The amount of unsuitable material that must be sorted from the dumpsters would vary with the individual loads.
Watson operates an existing C&D facility in Alachua County, Florida. The proposed C&D facility would be similar in its operation. Based upon the experience in the existing facility, there is no indication that the proposed C&D facility could not be adequately operated by two employees, taking into account the need to segregate unsuitable material before filling.
The spotter would receive verbal training concerning his duties. The training provided the spotter is on-site training. He would be reminded once a week of the need to do an adequate job of looking for unsuitable materials.
At present, Alachua County inspects the existing C&D facility on a weekly basis and reminds the spotter at that facility what is appropriate for placement and what is not. The expectation is that the same function would be performed at the proposed facility.
If sinkholes are encountered in excavating the sand, the equipment operator would contact the Watson office. In turn, Watson would contact its consulting engineer to address the problem, to include placing a plug or cap to repair the breach caused by the sinkhole. In the event that limerock is encountered in the excavation, a clay cap will be placed to prohibit leachate from flowing into the ground water. Areas where limerock is located at higher elevations and not covered by clay present the greatest risk for sinkhole formation.
The period between excavation and fill will be approximately two years, leaving the site exposed at the level of excavation before fill is replaced.
When the site is closed, the front-end loader operator and bulldozer operator will spread 24 inches of soil as a cap and grade the site in preparation for planting of pine trees. The soil material would be constituted as six inches of top soil suitable for planting pine trees. The remaining 18 inches would contain clay with high shrink/swell properties. The planting of pine trees would be done through a contract forester.
The equipment operated at the facility would employ approved muffler systems.
Odor generated by the facility is not anticipated to be a problem, in that household garbage, if found, would only be temporarily maintained, pending placement in an appropriate landfill.
The site will be examined on a weekly basis to remove blown "litter".
Proper provision is made for maintenance of slopes and compaction of fill material as it is placed.
Through the application process noticing DEP that Watson intends to use a general permit to operate its C&D facility, DEP has been informed of the location of the proposed site. DEP would have permission to inspect the site during normal business hours.
In response to Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, Watson conducted a geotechnical investigation and prepared a report to support the application for a general permit.
In support of the application Kenneth J. Hill, P.E. investigated the subsurface conditions at the proposed site through drilling activities. The drilling was done at the site and adjacent to the site. In May, 1995, Douglas
L. Smith, Ph.D., P.G., conducted an electrical resistivity study (ER) at the site to investigate the subsurface conditions. Thomas H. Patton, Ph.D., P.G. and Charles Swallows, P.E. assisted in the investigation of the subsurface conditions at the site.
Ralph E. Eng, P.E., signed and sealed the application for general permit for the proposed C&D facility.
In rendering a report following his investigation of the subsurface conditions, Mr. Hill signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation. Likewise, Dr. Smith signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation associated with the ER study, together with Anthony F. Randazzo, Ph.D., P.G. The contribution by Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows to the geotechnical investigation did not include signing and sealing a report and documentation. Nonetheless, Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows, when testifying concerning the permit request, as with other professional witnesses, were found qualified to offer testimony consistent with their professional credentials and factual knowledge. 1/
A foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the fill material revealed that the weight of the construction debris was approximately 70 pounds per cubic foot, whereas the weight of the existing sand to be excavated is approximately 100 pounds per cubic foot. Thus, the placement of fill material following excavation would impose less stress on the subsurface than before. No significant settlement of the fill materials is expected to occur, resulting from its weight.
The nature and fate of leachate promoted by the placement of fill at the site, in an environmental susceptible to bio-chemical and physical influences in transport through the subsurface, has the potential to adversely impact ground water. Those impacts could possibly cause violations of water- quality standards, ground-water standards, and drinking-water standards. These issues are considered based upon facts associated with the imperatives which must be properly addressed through the geotechnical investigation. That process anticipates gaining an understanding of subsurface conditions, to include the soil stratigraphy and ground-water table conditions. The ground-water table conditions involves estimations of the average and maximum high ground-water table. The geotechnical investigation should also explore the possibility of and address the existence of any sinkholes on the site.
No specific testimony was given concerning the degree to which leachate, when present in the ground water at the Floridan Aquifer, might promote water-quality violations. Leachate properties and constituents were described in general terms of water-quality considerations, for example, hardness, nitrates, nitrites, alkalinity, presence of ammonia, chlorides, iron manganese, phenols, barium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, TDS and sulfates, urea formaldehyde, plaster, creosote, glues, and mastic hardeners.
The evidence presented concerning the parameters for water quality did include a reference to barium, ranging from .5UG/L to 8UG/L in basically similar circumstances.
The fill material can influence the natural PH by creating acidic conditions causing the PH to fall from a neutral 7.0 to 5.5 to 6.5.
The process that takes place over time with the fill material also releases gases, such as methane, hydrogensulphide, and carbon dioxide.
Rainwater falling on the ground's surface forms the basis for transporting the leachate through the subsurface. Only the Floridan Aquifer is potentially at risk, there being no surface water bodies or surficial aquifer at the site.
Taking into account rainfall disposition by evapotranspiration, storm- water runoff, and subsurface infiltration, without certainty as to the amounts in those processes, it can be said that a significant amount of rainfall is available through infiltration to recharge the Floridan Aquifer and to transport leachate promoted by the fill. This is borne out by the absence of surface water bodies and a surficial aquifer on the site.
To gain basic information concerning the subsurface conditions, Watson had 14 standard penetration test borings conducted by Mr. Hill and his firm. Those borings were advanced to depths of 35-72 feet. Additionally, three auger borings were performed to a depth of 40-50 feet.
The auger borings were at sites A-1, A-2, and A-3, performed on April 17, 1993.
In July of 1993, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4.
In April of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8. In September of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-14.
The borings that were performed at the proposed site were at B-2, B-5, B-6, B-9, B-10, and B-14, for a total of six borings. The other borings were performed on the adjacent parcel. The borings at the proposed site were widely dispersed over the 143 acres contemplated for excavation and fill. The borings on the adjacent parcel, referred to as the Whitehurst parcel, were widely dispersed over 475 acres.
Logs of the soil borings were prepared depicting the findings in the subsurface.
The soil stratigraphy found in the borings was varied with sand, clayey sand, sandy clay and limerock present in some but not all borings.
The sands that have been described are Aeolian. The sands are remnants of an ancient coastal dune system.
Soil permeability tests were conducted on a limited basis at boring B-
9 at a 25-foot sample depth. The tan and orange clayey sand described had a co- efficient for permeability of 1x10-6. That sample and others described were obtained through a split-spoon. At B-12, at 35 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 2.6x10-8. At B-13, at 30 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found and tested as 2.0x10-8 for the co-
efficient for permeability. At B-14, at 30 feet, tan and orange sandy clay was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 9.6x10-9. In describing the soils, sieve analysis was not performed to more precisely classify the sediments encountered.
This description of the strata is by appearance and texture.
The clayey sand and sandy clay found in the borings retard discharge of the leachate to the ground water in the Floridan Aquifer based upon the permeability in those soils.
Generally stated, the tan sands described have a co-efficient for permeability of 10-1 to 10-4. These sands are highly permeable, presenting an easy opportunity to convey the leachate contained in the infiltrating rainwater.
Anomalous findings concerning soil permeability are shown at B-4, an off-site location, which portrays only sand in the boring. Also, B-9, which was drilled four to five feet east of a known sinkhole at the site is noteworthy in that the boring log describes tan and orange sandy clay, with trace limerock below 30 feet. This is in contrast to the field notation by the driller of the "p" for push and drilling rod "free fall" from 38 feet BLS to 42.5 feet BLS before encountering limerock, connoting a possible cavity in the 38-foot BLS to 42.5-foot BLS region. The karst feature that is located in the area where boring B-9 was conducted will be surveyed and marked with fence posts prior to excavation. No excavation will be conducted within 200 feet of that site. In addition to the phenomenon at the B-9 boring area, sinkholes at the surface were observed one-half to three-quarters of a mile northeast of the site.
Sinkholes can occur when the placement of fill changes the hydraulics and loading in a karst environment.
Finally, at B-6, limerock was encountered above the 46.9 feet MSL regional piezometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer. That limerock is considered part of the aquifer system. The head pressure at that location was not sufficient to force the ground water from the Floridan Aquifer.
The more typical experience was as shown in B-5, where the surface of the limerock was lower than the regional piezometric surface. In B-5, ground water was not encountered until the clayey layer was breached and water rose in the drill hole. On occasions, such as the experience in B-5, there was an indication that Artesian conditions existed at those places.
At the locations where the Artesian conditions were experienced, the Floridan Aquifer is confined. At B-6, where the limestone rises higher than the regional piezometric surface, the Floridan Aquifer is not confined.
The bore hole at B-2 was terminated before breaching the clayey layer, and ground water was not encountered.
Watson's consultant Hill considered that the ground-water table was found within the Floridan Aquifer at the site whose regional potentiometric surface was 46.9 MSL. He perceived that the findings showed ground water at 45 feet MSL constituting the average for the site. Watson estimated that the "seasonal high" ground-water table at the site was 48 feet MSL. The term "seasonal high" is equated to maximum high. Watson claims that the fluctuation in the ground-water table would be only a few feet. This would mean that the 45 feet MSL from bore hole data would represent not only the average across the
site but the average value at the site at any point in time during the year. Watson makes this assertion notwithstanding that the borings were made over two years during different seasons. The basis for the estimate of maximum high ground-water table is not evident.
In Dr. Patton's remarks in the application, there is a reference to the fact that the lowest encountered elevation for the Floridan Aquifer was 45 feet MSL and the highest was 55 feet MSL, making the average 50 feet MSL. This runs contrary to the remarks by Hill in which Hill said the elevation in the region was 46.9, the elevation detected was 45, and that the seasonal high would be 48.
The only borings that were made in which the log reflects the MSL elevation and the boring depth are borings that were conducted in April 1994.
On that date, the boring depth at which ground water was encountered varied from 37-43 feet and the MSL depth varied from 39-47 feet. If only the information for B-5 and B-6 on the site proper is used, those two data points associated with the borings on April 1994 reveal ground water at an excavation depth of 37 feet and between 45-47 feet MSL, respectively.
Overall, without reference to MSL, the depths at which the ground water was encountered in the borings varied from 19-44 feet, if encountered. Although it is not shown in the boring log what the relationship is to MSL, at B-9, water was found at a drilling depth of 38 feet; at B-10, at a depth of 36 and one-half feet; at B-2, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of
50 feet; at B-14, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 35 feet; at B-1, water was encountered at a level of 44 feet; at B-3, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-4, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-11, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 31 and one-half feet; at B-12, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 19 feet; at B-13, water was encountered at a drilling depth of
21 and one-half feet.
Where elevations were measured for the water table in the bore holes, the holes were left open until the drillings had been concluded. Then the measurements were made. In this project, the consultant did not equilibrate the ground-water table by the traditional method of leaving a piezometer in the bore hole to maintain its integrity for a day before making the measurement.
Watson has not provided sufficient information and explanation to determine a proper estimate of the average and maximum high ground-water table across the site.
Returning to the ER investigation, it involved 39 soundings, which is roughly equivalent to drilling bore holes. The sounding profiles were determined through Wenner-Array Sounding and Lee-Directional Equipment. This technique involves the passing of an electrical current underground and measuring its resistance to flow. The expectation is that earth materials, for example, clay, sand, limestone, and cavities will resist the flow of electrical current differently. Substantially greater contrast in the degree of resistance, anomalies, is used to identify and locate earth materials, as well as the presence and shape of cavities. The sounding measurements reveal two- dimensional detail below the surface at progressively-greater depths. Lee- Directional measurements determine the direction of higher or lower resistivity along the survey line. While in the field, electrodes are placed in the ground at equal distances from one another. After a measurement, this distance is increased in an orderly fashion. The greater distance between the electrodes,
the greater the depth of penetration. The ER equipment's electrical current has the capacity to penetrate through clay and into lower features in the subsurface.
Subsurface from depths five to 100 feet were examined in this study.
Within the 39 groundings surveyed, various soils were encountered. Generally, a thick cover of unconsolidated sand was found overlying clayey sand, with a clay layer varying in thickness and limestone found in some soundings, but not others. Where limestone was detected, it was at deeper levels in the southwestern part of the site.
Because ER cannot distinguish between clayey sand and sandy clay, the area where those soils are found is referred to in the report as a thinner clayey sand layer. Also, in some places the upper surface of limestone has suffered weathering or deterioration and may appear as the lower part of the clay unit in terms of its electrical properties. The general portrayal in the ER study concerning the soil stratigraphy, wherein reference is made to dry sand up to 30 feet in thickness overlying a thinner clayey sand layer, approximately
10 feet in thickness, overlying a relatively thick clay layer from 10-60 feet and then limestone, does not coincide with the complexity in the stratigraphy found in the soil borings.
In the ER study, at stations 8 and 10, voids were encountered. The nature of those voids is unexplained by this investigative process. At station 8, the void was found at approximately 100 feet deep. At station 10, the voids were at 50 feet and 100 feet deep.
At station 14, anomalous findings were explained as the placement of fill and organic material during land-clearing operations.
The suggestion in the written report, which summarizes the findings in the ER investigation, that a water table was encountered at approximately 40 feet deep, coinciding with the top of the clay layer, is contrary to the findings in the soil borings. To the extent that finding is intended to suggest that there is a perched water table or surficial aquifer above the clay layer, that view is contrary to other evidence adduced at hearing and is rejected.
Like the soil borings, the ER soundings examined very discreet areas, but revealed less discreet information. This investigative process is not designed by itself to resolve disputes concerning the character of the subsurface, taking into account statutory and rule requirements for issuing a general permit.
To portray the subsurface conditions, in June 1995, Petitioners undertook another basic study by employing ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to reveal the subsurface conditions. Again, GPR, like ER, affords limited insight into the conditions in the subsurface. More precise information than is revealed in the results from the GPR study would be needed to understand the subsurface conditions.
GPR is comprised of several pieces of equipment that are connected with cables and a power source. This equipment is mobile. It uses a transmitter and receiver antenna that essentially glides along the ground surface. A signal is emitted through the transmitter. It perpetrates into the ground. It is reflected off materials of different electrical properties back to the receiving antenna and charted. The record that is made is continuous.
Unlike ER, GPR is capable of detecting small anomalies in the subsurface.
In employing the equipment in this investigation, Petitioners' consultant was looking for either stratigraphic or water-table reflectors and anomalous conditions. The experience at this site was comparable to the experience at other sites in gaining an understanding of how geologic materials are deposited.
The GPR investigation covered approximately 10 percent of the site. Four lines were traversed east to west. Two lines were traversed north to south, and two other lines were traversed on a diagonal.
GPR will not significantly penetrate clay. Its ability to penetrate is dependent in some measure upon the nature of the clay unit encountered. However, GPR reveals contrasts in the conductivity of clay, when compared to the overlying sand. The greater the contrast, the greater the reflection event. In this connection, the presence of moisture can slow or prohibit the electromagnetic energy generated by GPR.
The GPR study revealed a substantial number of subsurface anomalies that might be indicative of possible access for leachate generated by the placement of fill to enter the Floridan Aquifer. These anomalies might represent sand columns and cover subsidence sinkholes.
Any sinkholes on the site would be expected to be "cover subsidence"- type sinkholes. Those sinkholes occur through a process in which overlying strata slowly subsides into the sub-adjacent karst feature, rather than suddenly collapsing.
Sinkholes develop rarely, but pose more risk of development in areas where sinkholes have occurred previously. Sinkholes are not always seen at the land surface.
Sinkholes can present a risk to ground water in the aquifer in view of solution cavities found in the limestone which is part of the aquifer, thus allowing leachate to flow through the cavities into the ground water.
Some anomalies found in the GPR study were more significant. One that was observed in the third traverse was 100 feet wide by 80-90 feet deep. There is an indication that this area might be filled with sands, creating a more ready access to the lower subsurface than would be expected with other soils.
Another anomaly discovered was 200-300 feet long and 400-500 feet wide, approximately 50 feet below the surface.
Overall subsurface conditions are not readily understood. Watson, through its consultant, suggests that the site is part of the Newberry Sand Hills region of the Brooksville Ridge system. As such, karst activity has proceeded in a slower manner than other places in Alachua County, with no presently active karst conditions. In opposition, Petitioners assert that the site is part of the Brooksville Ridge System, which is an internally-drained area of karst-dominated highly fractured terrain, according to its consultants. If Petitioners are correct, those circumstances lead to solutioning of the
limestone and are not indicative of area of continuous impermeable clay layers found at the site as part of the Hawthorne formation that Watson's consultant surmises.
The exact nature of the site concerning factors that must be considered in this permit application have not been adequately resolved in this record. While it is sufficiently evident that the Floridan Aquifer is not confined, it is unclear whether the circumstances at the site present unacceptable risks to the ground water, in view of existing subsurface conditions. From the record, the proper manner to resolve the issue would be to perform more soil borings on the site proper to identify the subsurface conditions concerning soil stratigraphy and ground-water location.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioners have standing to challenge DEP's intent to grant the general permit to Watson to operate the C&D facility. See Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, and Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
To prove its entitlement to a general permit for those purposes, Watson must provide necessary reasonable assurance that it has complied with applicable statutes and rules. That proof is offered in view of Petitioners' attempt to show that reasonable assurances have not been granted. See McDonald
v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) and Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
While Watson need not show that it has employed every means in all places on the site to demonstrate reasonable assurance that it will comply with law, it must show that there is a substantial likelihood of compliance by providing sufficient explanation through scientific means that the statutes and rules will not be violated by this project. See Booker Creek Preservation, Inc.
v. Mobile Chemical Co., 481 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Part IV, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, entitled "Resource Recovery and Management", describes the regulatory requirements for facilities that deal with solid waste, to include C&D facilities.
Section 403.702(2)(e), Florida Statutes, declares the general purpose for addressing solid waste:
Promote the application of resource recovery systems which preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources.
Section 403.703(13), Florida Statutes, describes solid waste: 'Solid waste' means sludge unregulated under
the federal Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act,
sludge from a waste treatment works, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, or garbage, rubbish, refuse, special waste, or other discarded material,
including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural,
or governmental operations. Recovered materials as defined in subsection (7) are not solid waste.
Section 403.703(17), Florida Statutes, more specifically defines construction and demolition debris, which may be placed in a C&D facility:
'Construction and demolition debris' means materials generally considered to be not water soluble and nonhazardous in nature, including, but not limited to, steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt roofing material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from
the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project, and including rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project, including such debris from construction of structures at
a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste, including material from a construction
or demolition site which is not from the actual construction or destruction of a structure, will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris.
Section 403.703(11), Florida Statutes, defines a solid waste disposal facility:
'Solid waste disposal facility' means any solid waste management facility which is the final resting place for solid waste, including landfills and incineration facilities that produce ash from the process of incinerating municipal solid waste.
A C&D facility is among the categories of solid waste disposal facilities.
Section 403.703(10), Florida Statutes, defines solid waste management facility:
'Solid waste management facility' means any solid waste disposal area, volume reduction plant, transfer station, materials recovery facility or other facility, the purpose of which is resource recovery or the disposal, recycling, process, or storage of solid waste. The term does not include recovered materials processing facilities which meet the require- ments of s. 403.7046(4), except the portion
of such facilities, if any, that is used for the management of solid waste.
A C&D facility is among the categories of solid waste management facilities.
Rule 62-701.200(73), Florida Administrative Code, further defines solid waste. That definition encompasses construction and demolition debris.
Rule 62-701.200(19), Florida Administrative Code, further defines construction and demolition debris.
Rule 62-701.200(74), Florida Administrative Code, further defines solid waste disposal facilities. That definition includes a C&D facility.
Rule 62-701.200(77), Florida Administrative Code, further defines solid waste management facilities to include a C&D facility.
A C&D facility is not a landfill. The definition for landfill, found at Rule 62-701.200(42), Florida Administrative Code, excludes solid waste disposal facilities which are permitted through the general permit process, as required by Section 403.707, Florida Statutes. A C&D facility is permitted, pursuant to Section 403.707, Florida Statutes.
The general authority for DEP to pass rules to regulate solid waste management facilities and to grant permits to operate those facilities is set forth in Section 403.704(15) and (16), Florida Statutes, respectively.
Section 403.707(1), Florida Statutes, generally makes it incumbent for a solid waste management facility to hold an appropriate and currently-valid construction permit to operate, maintain, construct, expand, modify, or close that facility.
However, permit requirements for a C&D facility are different. Those requirements are set forth in Section 403.707(2)(d), Florida Statutes, which states:
(2) Except as provided in s. 403.722(6), no permit under this section is required for the following, provided no public nuisance or any condition adversely affecting the environment or public health is created and the activity does not violate other state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, or orders:
(d) Solid waste disposal areas limited solely to the disposal of construction and demolition debris, provided that all such areas must be covered, graded, and vegetated as necessary
when disposal is completed. For situations where the department determines that additional regulation of offsite disposal is appropriate, the department shall, by December 31, 1988, initiate rulemaking to provide for a general permit pursuant to s. 403.814 for disposal of construction and demolition debris for offsite
disposal areas. The department shall not require the applicant to publish the notice described in
403.814(3). The exemption under this paragraph is superseded by such general permit 90 days after implementing rules become effective, and shall
remain superseded so long as these rules remain in effect. The department is authorized to delegate its authority under this paragraph to local governments where appropriate. Such general permit shall include, at a minimum,
the following requirements:
Public access to the disposal site is controlled through fencing or other appropriate means until the site is closed as provided for in subparagraph 4.
Provisions must be made for proper disposal of solid waste which is not construction and demolition debris.
The department must have been advised of the location of the site and must have been given permission to inspect the site during normal business hours.
Provisions must be made for final cover, grading, and vegetation to prevent erosion.
The issuance of a general permit, consistent with Section 403.707(2)(d), Florida Statutes, is exclusive, provided a C&D facility meets the terms for obtaining a general permit. In that instance the applicant need not comply with other provisions set forth in Section 403.707, Florida Statutes, pertaining to construction permits for other forms of solid waste management facilities. Nonetheless, Watson would always be held to comply with Section 403.707(3), Florida Statutes, dealing with environmental permits and the necessity to conform to the requirements set forth in Sections 403.087 and 403.088, Florida Statutes.
Section 403.814(1), Florida Statutes, creates that authority for all forms of general permits for projects which are perceived to have minimal adverse environmental effect. That provision calls upon DEP to enact rules which specify design or performance criteria which, in application, would result in compliance with those standards appropriate to obtaining the general permit.
Consistent with its mandate, DEP promulgated Rules 62-4.510-4.540, Florida Administrative Code, setting forth procedures for obtaining a general permit.
Rule 62-4.520, Florida Administrative Code, defines a general permit:
Definition. A general permit is a permit issued by rule of the Department pursuant to Section 403.814(1), Florida Statutes, which authorizes persons to undertake certain activities which cause minimal adverse environmental impact when performed in accordance with specific requirements and practices set forth in the general permit.
A general permit also constitutes water quality certification pursuant to Section 401, Public
Law 92-500, 33 USC Section 1341, for the activity described in the general permit when the activity is performed in accordance with all applicable rules of the Department.
Rule 62-4.530(1), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth procedures for obtaining a general permit, including the necessity to present information to ". . . describe the proposed project, and include supporting documents depicting the proposed project, its location, and other pertinent information as required by Rule to demonstrate that they qualify for the requested general permit". This indicates that only that information clearly required by a rule need be submitted. DEP is without discretion concerning the opportunity to require compliance with a rule unrelated to general permits, when deciding to grant or deny a general permit.
Rule 62-4.530(2), Florida Administrative Code, creates a caveat against the issuance of a general permit, where it states:
A proposed project which may be reasonably expected to violate air quality standards, water quality standards, or drinking water standards or which will not meet the public interest requirements set forth in Chapter 403, F.S., shall not be entitled to use of a general permit.
While evidence was presented which generally describes constituents in the fill materials subject to release as leachate, which are matters of concern in addressing water-quality standards and drinking-water standards, no specific information was produced as to the amount of those constituents to create a reasonable expectation that water-quality standards and drinking-water standards would be violated. This conclusion is reached with an awareness that there is a possibility that those constituents may have ready access to ground water. However, without a definitive understanding of the amount of those constituents to be introduced into the ground water, the risk cannot be determined. The proof at hearing concerning these constituents was in conclusory legal terms that water-quality standards and drinking-water standards would be violated, in contrast to the necessary empirical measurements that would be needed to address this rule. No indication was given that this project would be contrary to the public interest, provided it meets other permit requirements.
Reference by Petitioners to those provisions at Rule 62-4.530(4), Florida Administrative Code, that would allow DEP to suspend or revoke a general permit are inapplicable. Those provisions only have pertinence in the instance where permits have been issued. Other provisions that are discussed constitute the basis for considering the entitlement to the general permit.
Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, regulates solid waste management facilities. Within the chapter, Rule 62-701.300, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits certain activities.
Rule 62-701.300(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the disposal of solid waste in a manner or a location that causes violations of water-quality standards or criteria of receiving waters. Again, it has not been shown that contaminants will be introduced at levels violative of standards or criteria.
Rule 62-701.300(2), Florida Administrative Code, limits the areas in which fill may be disposed of, where it states:
In an area where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the solid waste;
In any area where the absence of geological formations or subsurface features would allow for the unimpeded discharge of waste or leachate to ground or surface water. A person may dispose of solid waste in such an area upon demonstration to the Department that permanent leachate control method will result in compliance with water quality standards under Chapters 62-302 and 62-520, F.A.C.;
* * *
(f) In any natural or artificial body of water including ground water;
It has not been shown that the placement of the fill is in an area which will not support the solid waste. There is a risk that unimpeded discharge of leachate may enter ground water. This risk is presented because the information developed about subsurface conditions fails to sufficiently explain the subsurface conditions to discount the possibility that sandy soils and voids proliferate to the extent that pathways connect to the Floridan Aquifer that provide no meaningful impedance to the discharge of the leachate. The definition in Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, refers to unimpeded as "not impeded" and the term "impede" as "to stop progress; to obstruct; hinder". Black's Law Dictionary defines "impede" as "to obstruct; hinder; check; delay". In the context of this rule, the existence of sand and the presence of a void do not equate to impedance.
A limited number of sites were sampled by soil borings to gain an understanding of the subsurface conditions. Only six soil borings were made at the site, which is 148 acres in size. The supporting information was gained on the adjacent Whitehurst parcel from eight soil borings with three auger borings. That site is even larger. When taking into account that the borings that were made revealed great variety in the subsurface conditions concerning soil stratigraphy, the attempt to portray the overall experience at the proposed site by these limited findings does not constitute a substantial likelihood of compliance with the prohibition against unimpeded discharge of the leachate into ground water.
The ER studies are a gross measurement of conditions at the site, the results of which do not tend to coincide with the experience found in the soil borings. Neither the soil borings nor the ER results reasonably explain or refute the findings in the GPR study, which shows numerous anomalies that may represent karst activity in the subsurface that would allow for unimpeded discharge of the leachate to ground water. Watson has failed to provide reasonable assurance that leachate will not be discharged unimpeded into ground water.
In reference to Rule 62-701.300(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, Watson did not propose the alternative of use of permanent leachate control
methods to meet water-quality requirements set forth in Chapters 62-302 and 62- 520, Florida Administrative Code, in the event there was an unimpeded discharge of leachate to ground water.
The information developed concerning the ground-water table is so imprecise that Watson has not created reasonable assurance that the fill will not be placed in ground water.
Rule 62-701.320(6), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the requirements for the engineer of record and other consultants to prepare and submit plans, reports, and other information supporting the application:
Engineer of record and professional certification. All engineering plans, reports, and information supporting the application shall be compiled by the engineer of record who shall be responsible for assurance that all technical components have been prepared under the direction and supervision and signed and sealed by the professional regis- tered in Florida in each contributing technical discipline. The engineer of record's signature and seal on the application shall assure that
all appropriate technical professional disciplines have been employed in development of the appli- cation. . . .
Watson has complied with this provision to the extent necessary to allow the plans, reports, and information in support of the application to be presented at the hearing de novo. Whatever oversights may have been at issue when DEP reviewed the permit application, consistent with this provision, they need not be examined on the occasion where the contribution by those professionals who support the application has been subject to scrutiny through the contested hearing. The function in this instance is not to consider whether DEP adequately reviewed the application in arriving at its preliminary agency decision to grant the general permit.
Rule 62-701.320(9)(d), Florida Administrative Code, reminds the applicant that the permit would be denied if reasonable assurances are not provided that the requirements of Chapter 62-4, Florida Administrative Code, which have been discussed, and Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, which are being examined, are not met.
Rule 62-701.803, Florida Administrative Code, describes additional requirements for off-site disposal of C&D debris, where it states:
Notification. The owner or operator of the construction and demolition debris disposal facility shall notify the Department in writing on Form 62-701.900(3) of the intent to use this general permit. Owners or operators of solid waste management facilities which have a permit under Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., to receive con- struction and demolition debris are exempt from this requirement. The notification shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer and shall include:
A site plan, of a scale not greater than
200 feet to the inch, which shows the project location and identifies the proposed disposal areas, total acreage of the site and of the proposed disposal area, and any other relevant features such as water bodies, wetlands, or potable water wells on or within 500 feet of the site;
A geotechnical investigation which meets the criteria of Rule 62-701.420, F.A.C.;
A general description of the facility operations, including equipment and personnel planned for the operation and closure of the facility;
A boundary survey and legal description of the property from the county tax assessor's office;
The planned active life of the facility and the design height of the facility;
Closure plans and cross section details of the final cover;
The mailing address and phone number of the owner and operator; and
Documentation that the applicant either owns the land or has legal authorization from the land owner to use the land for a disposal facility.
Other requirements. The requirements of Rules 62-701.330 through 62-701.630, F.A.C., do not apply to construction and demolition debris disposal facilities, provided that none of the prohibitions contained in Rule
62-701.300, F.A.C., or the water quality standards contained in Chapters 62-3 and 62-302, F.A.C., shall be violated.
Stormwater. Stormwater shall be controlled in accordance with Chapters 62-25 and 62-330, F.A.C. A copy of any permit for stormwater control issued by the Department, or documentation that no such permit is required, shall be submitted to the Department
before the facility receives waste for disposal. Applicants should be aware that other government agencies may also regulate stormwater management and may require separate permits.
Temporary storage. The disposal facility shall have equipment for temporary storage and transport for solid waste, other than construction and demolition debris, to an authorized disposal facility. Such solid waste which is accepted by the facility shall be segregated and disposed of in accordance with Department rules.
Compaction. Construction and demolition debris shall be compacted and sloped as neces- sary to assure that the requirements of sub- section (9) of this section can be met.
Access. Access to the disposal facility shall be controlled during the active life of the facility by fencing or other effective barriers to prevent disposal of solid waste other than construction and demolition debris.
Inspection of waste. At least one spotter shall be on duty at all times when the site is operating to inspect the incoming waste. Any prohibited material, including buckets or cans containing tar, paint, glue, or other liquids, shall be removed from the waste stream and placed into appropriate containers for disposal at a permitted facility. This provision is applicable to all construction and demolition debris disposal site after July 2, 1994.
The intent to use the C&D permit was submitted on the appropriate form.
An adequate site plan was submitted. A general description of the facility and the operations was provided. A boundary survey and legal description were provided. The planned active life of the facility was established and the design height of the facility was established. Closure plans and cross-section details of the final cover were provided. The mailing address and telephone number of the owner and operator were provided. Adequate documentation as to land ownership was provided.
Compliance with Rule 62-701.300, Florida Administrative Code, and water-quality standards, contemplated by Chapter 62-3 and 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, have been discussed.
The stormwater circumstances at the site are adequately addressed.
The temporary storage issue is adequately addressed.
No indication has been given that the compaction and slopes associated with the placement of the C&D fill will interfere with inspection at the facility, as contemplated by Rule 62-701.803(9), Florida Administrative Code.
Adequate access is provided to the facility.
Adequate provision has been made for inspection of waste by personnel at the facility and for removal of inappropriate waste.
Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, describes the requirements for geotechnical investigation, where it states:
Geotechnical site investigation. The geotechnical site investigation required by Rule 62-701.330(4), F.A.C., shall be conducted
by or under the supervision of a professional engineer with experience in geotechnical engineering. Prior to any construction on the landfill site, the engineer shall define the engineering properties of the site that are necessary for the design, construction, and support of the landfill and all instal- lations of the facility and shall:
Explore and describe subsurface conditions including soil stratigraphy and ground water table conditions;
Explore and address the presence of muck, previously filled areas, soft ground, lineaments, and sinkholes;
Evaluate and address fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas as described
in 40 CFR 258.13, 258.14 and 258.15.
Include estimates of the average and maximum high ground water table across the site; and
Include a foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the landfill. It may include geotechnical measures necessary to modify the foundation to accommodate the imposed loads and stresses. The foundation shall be analyzed for short-term, end of construction, and long- term stability and settlement conditions. Considering the existing or proposed subgrade conditions and the landfill geometry, analysis shall include:
Foundation bearing capacity;
Subgrade settlements, both total and differential; and
Subgrade slope stability.
Report. The geotechnical site investigation report shall describe the site subsurface condi- tions and shall include, at a minimum, the methods used in the investigation, all soil boring logs and laboratory results, analytical calculations, cross sections, interpretations and conclusions.
Report verification. The report and supporting documentation shall be signed and sealed by the professional engineer.
The geotechnical study was conducted by and under the supervision of a professional engineer, with experience in geotechnical engineering. The consultant defined the engineering properties of the site necessary for the design, construction and support of the landfill. Exploration and description was made of the subsurface conditions, to include soil stratigraphy and ground- water table conditions. However, those explanations concerning the soil stratigraphy and ground-water table conditions were not sufficient for reasons previously explained. The exploration and attempt to address the presence of sinkholes was not adequate for reasons explained.
The anomalies found do not appear to constitute fault areas, seismic impact zones, or other similar unstable areas.
The attempt to provide estimates of the average and maximum ground- water table across the site were imprecise and inconclusive.
The foundation analysis was adequate.
To the extent that the geotechnical investigation was made, it was sufficiently reported and verified by signature and seal from the professional engineer.
Reference to the necessity to comply with Rule 62-701.410, Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to hydrogeological investigation requirements, does not pertain to a general permit for C&D facilities, in accordance with Chapter 62-4, Florida Administrative Code, setting out general permit requirements, or Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, more specifically detailing general permit requirements for C&D facilities. 2/
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Watson the use of a
general permit to operate the proposed C&D facility.
DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1996.
ENDNOTES
1/ The requirement at Rule 62-701.320(6), Florida Administrative Code, for sealing of the application concerning plans, reports, and information supporting the application by the professional engineer and other professionals, is a means for the Department, upon its review, to verify the application status. It does not prohibit the ability of qualified professionals to speak to the matters contemplated by the permitting process through testimony elicited at the hearing, provided that the experts are duly qualified to offer that testimony.
2/ On June 1, 1996, Committee Substitute for House Bill 1905 [Ch. 96-381] became law without the Governor's signature. That law amended Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, pertaining to permits for C&D facilities. Petitioners have noticed the amendments by providing the text and arguing that the amendment
should be used as supplemental authority in determining the outcome in the present dispute.
Section 403.703(17), Florida Statutes, 1996 CS/HB 1905 amended the definition of "construction and demolition debris" to include:
Clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from a construction project:
Effective January 1, 1987, except as provided in s. 403.707(13)(j), unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from facilities manufacturing material used for construction of structures or their components and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste where generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and
De minimis amounts of other nonhazardous wastes that are generated at construction or destruction projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the industry.
Should the applicant in this proceeding be granted a permit to operate a C&D facility it would be expected to recognize the additional materials that fall into the category of construction and demolition debris identified in the amendments. That would not impact the record that has been made in addressing the permit application, thus requiring the record to be reopened to consider those changes to the law. Nor would the changes influence the discussion in the proposed recommended orders and recommended order as a means to assist in determining the outcome of the application process.
Under the amendments set forth in 1996 CS/HB 1905, Section 403.707(2)(d), Florida Statutes as it previously existed has been repealed in the language which stated:
2.(d) Solid waste disposal areas limited solely to the disposal of construction and demolition debris, provided that all such areas must be covered, graded, and vegetated as necessary when disposal is completed. For situations where the department determines that additional regulation of offsite disposal is appropriate, the department shall, by December 31, 1988, initiate rulemaking to provide for a general permit pursuant to s. 483.814 for disposal of construction and demolition debris for offsite disposal areas. The department shall not require the applicant to publish the notice described in s. 483.814(3). The exemption under this paragraph is superseded by such general permit 90 days after implementing rules become effective, and shall remain superseded so long as these rules remain in effect. The department is authorized to delegate its authority under this paragraph to local governments where appropriate. Such general permit shall include, at a minimum, the following requirements:
Public access to the disposal site is controlled through fencing or other appropriate means until the site is closed as provided for in subparagraph 4.
Provisions must be made for proper disposal of solid waste which is not construction and demolition debris.
The department must have been advised of the location of the site and must have been given permission to inspect the site during normal business hours.
Provisions must be made for final cover, grading, and vegetation to prevent erosion.
In place of the general permit process the legislature intends for DEP to impose a new permitting scheme which is described in Section 403.707(13), Florida Statutes, 1996 (CS/HB 1905) as:
(13) The department shall establish a separate category for solid waste management facilities which accept only construction and demolition debris for disposal or recycling. The department shall establish a reasonable schedule for
existing facilities to comply with this section to avoid undue hardship to such facilities. However, a permitted solid waste disposal unit which receives a significant amount of waste prior to the compliance deadline established in this schedule shall not be required to be retrofit with liners or leachate control systems. Facilities accepting materials defined in section 403.703(17)(b) must implement a groundwater monitoring system adequate to detect contaminants that may reasonably be expected to result from such disposal prior to the acceptance of those materials.
The department shall establish reasonable construction, operation, monitoring, recordkeeping, financial assurance, and closure requirements for such facilities. The department shall take into account the nature of the waste accepted at various facilities when establishing these requirements, and may impose less stringent requirements, including a system of general permits or registration requirements, for facilities that accept only a segregated waste stream which is expected to pose a minimal risk to the environment and public health, such as clean debris. The Legislature recognizes that incidental amounts of other types of solid waste are commonly generated at construction or demolition projects. In any enforcement action taken pursuant to this section, the department shall consider the difficulty of removing these incidental amounts from the waste stream.
The department shall not require liners and leachate collection systems at individual facilities unless it demonstrates, based upon the types of waste received, the methods for controlling types of waste disposed of, the proximity of ground water and surface water, and the results of the hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations, that the facility is reasonably expected to result in violations of ground water standards and criteria otherwise.
The owner or operator shall provide financial assurance for closing of the facility in accordance with the requirements of s. 403.7125. The financial assurance shall cover the cost of closing the facility and 5 years of long-term care after closing, unless the department determines, based upon hydrogeologic conditions, the types of wastes received, or the ground water monitoring results, that a different long-term care period is appropriate. However, unless the owner or operator of the facility is a local government, the escrow account described in s. 403.7125(3) may not be used as a financial assurance mechanism.
The department shall establish training requirements for operators of facilities, and shall work with the State University System or other providers to assure that adequate training courses are available. The department shall also assist the Florida Homebuilders Association in establishing a component of its continuing education program to address proper handling of construction and demolition debris, including best management practices for reducing contamination of the construction and demolition debris waste stream.
The issuance of a permit under this subsection does not obviate the need to comply with all applicable zoning and land use regulations.
A permit is not required under this section for the disposal of construction and demolition debris on the property where it is generated, but such property must be covered, graded, and vegetated as necessary when disposal is complete.
It is the policy of the Legislature to encourage facilities to recycle. The department shall establish criteria and guidelines that encourage recycling where practical and provide for the use of recycled materials in a manner that protects the public health and the environment. Facilities are authorized to recycle, provided such activities do not conflict with such criteria and guidelines.
The department shall ensure that the requirements of this section are applied and interpreted consistently throughout the state. In accordance with
20.255(6), the Division of Waste Management shall direct the district offices and bureaus on matters relating to the interpretation and applicability of this section.
The department shall provide notice of receipt of a permit application for the initial construction of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility to the local governments having jurisdiction where the facility is to be located.
(j) The Legislature recognizes that recycling, waste reduction, and resource recovery are important aspects of an integrated solid waste management program and as such are necessary to protect the public health and the environment. If necessary to promote such an integrated program, the county may determine, after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to December 31, 1996, that the wood material described in s. 403.703(17)(b) shall be excluded from the definition of "construction and demolition debris" in s. 403.703(17) within the jurisdiction of such county. The county may make such a determination only if it finds that, prior to the effective date of this act, the county has established an adequate method for the use or recycling of such wood material at an existing or proposed solid waste management facility that is permitted or authorized by the department on the effective date of this act.
The county shall not be required to hold a hearing if the county represents that it previously has held a hearing for such purpose, nor shall the county be required to hold a hearing if the county represents that it previously has held a public meeting or hearing that authorized such method for the use or recycling of trash or other non-putrescrible waste materials and if the county further represents that such materials include those materials described in s.
403.703(17)(b). The county shall provide written notice of its determination to the department by no later than
December 31, 1996: thereafter the wood materials described in s.
403.703(17)(b) shall be excluded from the definition of "construction and demolition debris" in s. 403.703(17) within the jurisdiction of such county. The county may withdraw or revoke its determination at any time by providing written notice to the department.
At present no indication has been made concerning the manner in which DEP shall establish a separate category for solid waste management facilities accepting only C&D debris. From the language set forth in the mandate DEP has the authority to establish requirements for existing facilities and prospective facilities. Until it undertakes the establishment of regulations for existing and prospective facilities, should existing facilities and prospective facilities be treated differently? No they should not. A prospective facility such as the Watson facility should not be allowed to operate without any regulatory oversight, nor should it be denied the opportunity to operate pending DEP's establishment of the permitting process contemplated by the amendments to the statute. The proper disposition in this case is to employ the terms of the preexisting permitting scheme in determining the applicant's rights to operate a C&D facility pending the establishment of regulations pertaining to the applicant, existing facilities and other prospective facilities. For that reason the recommended order has been prepared by employing a policy which utilized the preexisting permitting scheme to determine the applicant's rights to engage in the business of solid waste management of C&D debris.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by the parties.
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
1. Subordinate to facts found.
2-3. Rejected in the suggestion that proof is definitive concerning the circumstances at the site related to unimpeded discharge and stability.
4-7. Subordinate to facts found, other than that the suggestion that the case may not proceed to hearing de novo to resolve the issues in dispute.
8-12. Rejected in the suggestion that the standing by Watson's consultants in their need to comply with DEP rules constituted deficiencies disallowing the application de novo.
13-23. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
24-69. Addressing design and operation of the facility are rejected in the suggestion that the manner in which the facility would be designed and operated is deficient, with the exception that the applicant has not sufficiently addressed subsurface conditions related to stratigraphy and ground water.
70-92. Rejected in the suggestion that the site description has been adequately characterized as to subsurface conditions by these proposed facts.
93-97. Subordinate to facts found.
98-100. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 101-102. Subordinate to facts found.
103-117. Accepted in the suggestion that rainfall is available for aquifer recharge.
118-119. Constitute legal argument.
Relies upon facts not in the record.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Constitutes legal argument.
Constitutes legal argument and contains facts not in the record.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
125-127. Subordinate to facts found in discussing the properties related to soils and the ability to impede discharge.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Contrary to facts found.
Subordinate to facts found.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Neither method is the best choice. Drilling is the best choice. 133-135. Subordinate to facts found.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Subordinate to facts found. 138-139. Constitute legal argument.
140-144. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Subordinate to facts found.
The subsurface conditions have not been established. The remaining facts are contrary to facts found.
See discussion related to paragraph number 146. 148-155. Subordinate to facts found.
156. Rejected in the suggestion that the permeability test performed by Watson's consultants was inadequate.
157-159. Rejected in the suggestion that the case may not proceed de novo to consider the adequacy of the application.
160Constitutes legal argument.
161-171. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 172-177. Subordinate to facts found.
178-179. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
180. Subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the implications of the anomalies found as to the time for fluid transport was not established by GPR.
181-185. Subordinate to facts found.
186-187. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 188-199. Subordinate to facts found.
200-204. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Rejected in the suggestion that the facility foundation is inadequate.
Subordinate to facts found.
Rejected in the suggestion that the circumstance related to the connection between the fill material and the ground water is known.
208-217. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Subordinate to facts found.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 220-222. Subordinate to facts found.
223-244. Subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the suggestion that Watson's expert did not reliably employ the ER investigative method is rejected.
The facts concerning the risk of migration by the leachate are unresolved.
Constitutes legal argument.
247-248. Rejected in the suggestion that wells are at risk as circumstances are unknown.
Constitutes legal argument.
Subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the estimated rate of migration is rejected, in that it is unestablished.
See discussion above.
Rejected in the suggestion that no information was provided about ground water flow.
Rejected in the suggestion that the permit application is for a construction permit alternative and not a general permit only.
254-259. Subordinate to facts found pertaining to features associated with the leachate.
260. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
261-264. Rejected in the suggestion that the materials received are inappropriate.
265. Contrary to facts found.
266-272. Rejected in the suggestion that information sufficiently specific to this site has been developed in the record to demonstrate violations of various water-quality rules, especially taking into account the differences in the facilities about which the witness Albergo had knowledge and the unresolved issue of the subsurface conditions.
273-278. See discussion above.
It was not incumbent upon the applicant to provide water-quality data to compare against future impacts to obtain a general permit.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Watson's Proposed Findings of Fact
1-5. Subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the last sentence to paragraph 5 is unresolved.
6-28. Subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the nature of the clay present in the subsurface is not well described.
29. Subordinate to facts found.
30-32. Rejected in the suggestion that sufficient information is known concerning the possibility of the existence of sinkholes.
Subordinate to facts found.
Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Subordinate to facts found, with the exception that its suggestion that the site is confined by clay layer is unresolved and the suggestion that sandy sediments provide significant retardation is rejected.
Subordinate to facts found in its rendition of the information provided by the applicant. The establishment of the ground water table is inadequate.
37-39. Subordinate to facts found.
40-41. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute
42-64. Subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the suggestion that the GPR studies fail to identify numerous anomalies whatever their exact explanation may be.
65-66. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 67-75. Subordinate to facts found.
DEP Proposed Findings of Facts
DEP facts are included in the Watson's fact proposals, with the exception that paragraphs 18 and 26 are different. Paragraph 18 is rejected in the suggestion that the findings in the soil borings are clearly defined. Paragraph
26 is subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the opportunity for discharge of waste or leachate to ground water is unresolved.
COPIES FURNISHED:
S. Scott Walker, Esquire
Watson, Folds, Steadham, Tovkach, Walker & Marston, P.A.
Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, FL 32601
Patrice Boyes, Esquire Boyes & Jester, P.A. Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, FL 32602
William C. Andrews, Esquire Scruggs & Carmichael, P.A. One Southeast First Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601
Douglas A. Beason, Esquire
Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Perry Odom, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the agency written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to 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 |
|---|---|
| Apr. 19, 1999 | (P. Boyes, J. Braswell) Notice of Settlement (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 22, 1999 | Notice of Agency Appeal filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1999 | Stipulation for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 09, 1998 | Joint Notice of Available Dates for Hearing (Notice Agency Appeal of Appeal) filed. |
| Dec. 09, 1998 | Joint Notice of Available Dates for Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 27, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1996 | (Watson Construction) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Aug. 08, 1996 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to Motion to Supplement the Record; Notice of Supplemental Authority and Memorandum of Law filed. |
| Aug. 07, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 07/12-14/95 and 01/09/96. |
| Aug. 05, 1996 | Respondent`s Watson Construction Co., Inc., Response to Motion to Supplement The Record; Notice of Supplemental Authority, And Memorandum of Law (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 24, 1996 | (Petitioners) Motion to Supplement the Record; Notice of Supplemental Authority, and Memorandum of Law filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | (DEP) Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| May 15, 1996 | Petitioners` Joint Proposed Recommended Order; (Watson Construction Company) Notice of Filing Recommended Order; (Proposed) Recommended Order; Disk filed. |
| May 15, 1996 | (DEP) Notice of Filing; (Proposed) Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | Order sent out. (Proposed RO's due 5/15/96) |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | (Petitioners) Motion for Continuance (w/exhibit A) filed. |
| Mar. 29, 1996 | (Petitioners) Motion for Continuance (w/exhibit A) filed. |
| Mar. 15, 1996 | Order sent out. (Re: Proposed RO's are due 4/15/96) |
| Mar. 13, 1996 | (Petitioners) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1996 | Petitioners` Response to Department`s Motion to Modify filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1996 | Order sent out. (Parties proposals are due by 4/1/96) |
| Mar. 07, 1996 | Petitioners` Response to Department`s Motion to Modify w/cover sheet filed. |
| Feb. 28, 1996 | Order sent out. (Re: Proposed RO's) |
| Feb. 27, 1996 | (DEP) Motion to Modify The Order of The Hearing Officer Concerning The Schedule for Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | (V. Johns) Notice of Filing (Re: Transcript) filed. |
| Feb. 23, 1996 | (14 Volumes) Transcript of Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | Petitioners` Response to Department`s Motion to Strike filed. |
| Feb. 05, 1996 | (DEP) Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioners Proffer of Evidence filed. |
| Jan. 19, 1996 | Petitioners` Notice of Filing Proffer filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Nov. 02, 1995 | Order Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 10:00am on January 9, 1996 and 9:00am on January 10 through 12, 1996; Gainesville) |
| Nov. 01, 1995 | (DEP) Response to Hearing Officer`s Request for Available Dates to Reconvene Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Oct. 09, 1995 | Order sent out. (case to be reset for hearing) |
| Oct. 06, 1995 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1995 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10:00am on October 9 and 10, 1995 at the Doyle Conner Bldg and at the Alachua county Courthouse on October 11 through 13, 1995 at 9:00am) |
| Jul. 27, 1995 | (DEP) Response to Hearing Officer`s Request for Available Dates to Reconvene Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1995 | CASE STATUS DOCKETED: Hearing Partially Held, continued to date not certain. |
| Jul. 12, 1995 | Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.`s, Notice of Expedited Service of Responses to Interrogatories Propounded by Respondent, Watson Construction Co., Inc. filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1995 | Deposition of Ralph E. Eng ; Deposition of Kenneth Hill (documents filed w/HO at hearing) filed. |
| Jul. 10, 1995 | (Joint) Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Jul. 07, 1995 | Petitioners` Joint Response to Motion to Compel Discovery filed. |
| Jul. 07, 1995 | (William C. Andrews) Motion to Compel Discovery; Letter to HO from William C. Andrews Re: Motion to Compel Discovery and to request a telephone hearing filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1995 | Order sent out. (motion denied) |
| Jul. 05, 1995 | Respondent Watson`s Objections to Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc`s Second Request to Produce; Respondent Watson`s Response to Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc`s Second Request to Produce; Respondent Watson`s Response to Pet |
| Jul. 05, 1995 | Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.`s Notice of Propounding its Second Request to Produce on Respondent, Watson Construction Co., Inc.; Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Supplemental Responses filed. |
| Jul. 05, 1995 | Order sent out. (motion denied) |
| Jul. 03, 1995 | (William C. Andrews) Notice of Continuing Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 30, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Interrogatories; Petitioner Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.; (Newberry) 4/Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 28, 1995 | Letter to Kevin Daly from Patrice Boyes (cc: HO) Re: Request to Produce filed. |
| Jun. 27, 1995 | Petitioners` Motion for Summary Order or, Alternatively, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Petitioners` Renewed Motion for Entry on Property w/exhibits filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1995 | Petitioner City of Newberry`s Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Answers to Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jun. 23, 1995 | (City of Newberry) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Notice of Taking Video Deposition filed. |
| Jun. 22, 1995 | Petitioner`s, City of Newberry and Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc., Joint Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent, Watson Construction Co., Inc. w/cover letter filed. |
| Jun. 22, 1995 | Petitioners`, City of Newberry and Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc., Joint Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent, Watson Construction Co., Inc. filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1995 | Stipulation Between Petitioner Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. and Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc. filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Telephone Hearing; Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.`s, Motion to Expedite Discovery filed. |
| Jun. 15, 1995 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance; Joint Request by Petitioners, City of Newberry and Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. for Entry Upon Land filed. |
| Jun. 15, 1995 | Order sent out. (motion to continue is denied) |
| Jun. 14, 1995 | Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.`s, Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Answers to Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.`s, First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1995 | Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.`s Motion to Reduce Time to Respond; Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.`s Notice of Propounding its First Request to Produce on Respondent, Watson Construction Co., Inc.; Notice and Certificate |
| Jun. 09, 1995 | Notice of Service of Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.'s,Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.; Notice of Service of Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.'s, Second Set of Interrogatories to |
| Jun. 08, 1995 | Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.`s Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories Propounded by Citizens for Watermelon Pond,Inc. filed. |
| May 30, 1995 | Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc.`s Response to Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.`s Motion for Leave to Propound Interrogatories in Excess of Thirty to Petitioners filed. |
| May 19, 1995 | Notice of Service of Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.'s,First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner City of Newberry; Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.'s, Motion for Leave to Propound Interrogatories in Exc ess of Thirty to Petit |
| May 11, 1995 | Notice of Service of Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc.`s,First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. filed. |
| May 11, 1995 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| May 10, 1995 | (DEP) Motion for Prehearing Conference filed. |
| May 05, 1995 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Watson Construction Company, Inc.; Notice of Service of Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection filed. |
| Mar. 27, 1995 | (Watson Construction Co) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Mar. 24, 1995 | Order of Consolidation And Notice of Hearing sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-752, 95-753; hearing will be held July 12, 1995 at 10:00am; July 13 and 14, 1995, at 9:00am; Gainesville) |
| Mar. 20, 1995 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Feb. 23, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Feb. 21, 1995 | Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record; Agency Notice of Application for A General Permit; Petition for Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Feb. 21, 1995 | Notice of Related Case and Motion to Consolidate by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (with DOAH Case Nos. 95-0752 & 95-0753) filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 19, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 07, 1996 | Recommended Order | Insufficient information provided to justify granting a general permit to operate a construction and demolition debris disposal facility. |
