STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
KATE WRIGHT, ESTEBAN MORIYON, | ) | |||
JOETTE HILL, AND JIMMY WALKER, | ) ) | |||
Petitioners, | ) | |||
) | ||||
vs. | ) | Case | No. | 08-4546 |
) | ||||
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF | ) | |||
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES | ) | |||
MANAGEMENT, AND TLA-CAMBRIDGE, | ) | |||
LLC, | ) ) | |||
Respondents. | ) | |||
| ) |
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice this cause came on for formal proceeding and hearing before P. Michael Ruff, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. A formal hearing was conducted on January 21 and 22, 2009, in Miami, Florida. The appearances were as follows:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: John J. Quick, Esquire
Michelle D. Vos, Esquire
Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L.
525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
For Respondent Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management:
Peter S. Tell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County
111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128
For Respondent TLA-Cambridge, LLC:
David S. Dee, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A.
225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether a permit should be issued, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, authorizing TLA-Cambridge, LLC (“Cambridge”), to construct and operate a “waste processing facility” (“facility”) on a site (“site”) located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On January 4, 2008, Cambridge filed an application for a Permit with the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). On August 18, 2008, DERM gave notice of its intent to approve the application (draft permit). On September 4, 2008, 18 Petitioners filed a petition challenging DERM’s proposed agency action. Subsequently, 15 Petitioners voluntarily dismissed their claims and were
dismissed from this proceeding. Only three Petitioners remain as parties.
The Petition was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On September 29, 2008, Cambridge filed a motion to strike certain immaterial and irrelevant allegations in the Petition. On October 14, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (Bram D.E. Canter) issued an order granting the motion and striking allegations concerning: land use and zoning issues; whether the Facility required an air general permit; truck traffic; and noise. The case subsequently was transferred to the undersigned ALJ on October 3, 2008, and an Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was entered. On December 2, 2008, Cambridge filed a Motion in Limine concerning the Petitioners’ allegations about the public interest. A discovery dispute also engendered a Motion to Compel by the Respondent and an Order was entered on December 16, 2008, granting it and imposing an additional discovery schedule. On January 7, 2009, the ALJ issued an order granting Cambridge’s Motion in Limine.
On January 21 and 22, 2009, a formal administrative hearing was conducted pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Cambridge called four expert witnesses: Leonard Enriquez (accepted as an expert concerning the planning, development, and implementation of solid waste management facilities, including transfer stations); Kenneth
Cargill (accepted as an expert concerning the design, construction, operation, and permitting of solid waste management facilities); David Buff (accepted as an expert concerning air pollution issues); and Hardeep Anand (accepted as an expert concerning solid waste management issues, including the procedures used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) when evaluating applications for a solid waste permit pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701). Cambridge introduced 65 exhibits into evidence (Exhibits 1-52, 56A and 56B, 59, 63-65, and 67-73). DERM did not call any witnesses or introduce any exhibits. The Petitioners presented the testimony of the three Petitioners and one expert witness, Joseph Fluet (accepted as an expert in the design of solid waste facilities, the permitting process for solid waste facilities, and the analysis, application, and interpretation of applicable DEP rules). The Petitioners introduced 11 exhibits (Exhibits 1- 6, 9, 19, and 22-24). With regard to all of the exhibits admitted by Petitioners and Cambridge, the parties stipulated to the authenticity of the exhibits, and further stipulated that the exhibits were admitted into evidence pursuant to exceptions to the hearsay rule, without the necessity of calling witnesses to establish the foundation for the hearsay exception.
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the parties ordered a transcript of the proceeding, which was filed on February 2,
2009. The parties filed timely Proposed Recommended Orders on February 23, 2009. The Proposed Recommended Orders have been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioners (Kate Wright, Joette Hill, and Jimmy Walker) are individuals who live in Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, DERM, is a division of Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, Cambridge, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in Florida.
On January 4, 2008, Cambridge filed an application with DERM pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710, for the Permit authorizing the construction and operation of the facility. Cambridge’s application was reviewed by DERM pursuant to an agreement (“Operating Agreement”) that delegates certain authority from DEP to Miami-Dade County. The Operating Agreement requires DERM to follow DEP’s rules and procedures when determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility. On August 18, 2008, DERM issued its ("Intent to Issue") the Permit to Cambridge.
The Site
Cambridge intends to construct and operate the facility on a site that is approximately 5.7 acres in size and located at 3250 N.W. 65th Street, in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida. The site is owned by Florida East Coast Railway L.L.C.
(“FEC”). Cambridge has entered into a 20-year lease agreement with FEC that authorizes Cambridge to use the site for the proposed facility.
The site is located in an industrial warehouse district. Warehouses are adjacent to the north, south, and west sides of the site. The warehouses are served by trucks and railcars. A railroad track is adjacent to, and enters the south end of the site. Other warehouses, rail yards, and railroad tracks are located west of the site. The industrial district extends north, south, and west of the site.
The eastern side of the site is bounded by N.W. 32nd Avenue, a four-lane road that runs in a north-south direction. Across the street from the site, on the east side of N.W. 32nd Avenue, is a business district. Even farther to the east is a residential area where the Petitioners live.
The site previously was paved with asphalt and enclosed with a chain-link fence. An old gatehouse is located at the entrance to the site, where N.W. 65th Street dead-ends into the site.
The Facility
Cambridge intends to construct: (a) a one-story building (“transfer station”) that will be used to receive and process construction and demolition (“C&D”) debris; (b) a one- story office building; (c) a weigh station for weighing trucks;
(d) extensions of the existing railroad tracks; and (d) a new railroad track that will pass through the transfer station. Cambridge also will renovate the gatehouse. The existing pavement on the site will remain intact, except where the new improvements will be located. The chain-link fence will be retained and enhanced to restrict access to the site. Trees and shrubs will be planted along N.W. 65th Street and N.W. 32nd Avenue to screen the public’s view of the facility and to help alleviate airborne dust.
The Transfer Station will be approximately 30,000 square feet in size. It will have a roof, 4 walls, and a concrete floor that is 10 inches thick. The north side of the transfer Station will have 10 bay doors to allow access for trucks and one smaller utility door. There also will be one door on the southeast side and one door on the west side of the Transfer Station to allow railcars to move through the building. Proposed Operations
C&D debris is the material that is generated when a building is constructed, renovated, or demolished. C&D debris includes concrete, lumber, wallboard, asphalt shingles, metal pipes, glass, plastic, and similar materials. Other types of solid waste cannot be accepted by the facility; they are prohibited by the Draft Permit.
Cambridge’s customers will deliver C&D debris to the facility in trucks. The trucks will approach the facility from the west (i.e., the industrial district) on Northwest 65th Street and they will enter the site at the gatehouse. There will be no access to the site from Northwest 32nd Avenue.
A trained attendant will perform a preliminary visual inspection of the trucks and interview the truck drivers at the gatehouse to determine whether the trucks are carrying C&D debris. If the gatehouse attendant determines that the truck is hauling garbage or other types of solid waste that cannot be accepted at the Transfer Station, the truck will be denied access to the site.
Upon entering the site, some trucks will be weighed on the truck scales and then directed to the transfer station. Trucks that do not require weighing will proceed directly to the transfer station. A Cambridge employee will direct the truck to an appropriate bay door for entry into the transfer station.
The truck then will back up an inclined grade into the transfer station, the tarpaulin (tarp) will be removed from the truck’s load, and the truck will dump the load onto the floor (i.e., “the tipping floor”) of the transfer station. The unloading and processing of C&D debris will only occur inside the transfer station.
Cambridge will employ trained spotters and operators to process the C&D debris. DEP’s rules require that at least one spotter and one operator must be present whenever C&D debris is received at the facility. By comparison, Cambridge typically will have 4 to 6 spotters present whenever the facility is receiving C&D debris.
Cambridge employees will spread the load on the tipping floor with mobile equipment and then determine how the load should be processed. “All incoming C&D debris shall be tipped, processed and stored entirely under roof in the enclosed building . . . and . . . evaluated through visual inspection by trained spotter(s) for any unacceptable solid waste (e.g., furniture, tires, etc.) or prohibited wastes (e.g., garbage, treated or painted wood, hazardous wastes, etc.)” in compliance with the Draft Permit. Unacceptable and prohibited wastes will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in separate containers (e.g., metal dumpsters), which will be removed from the site and taken to appropriate disposal facilities. Dense non-recyclable material (e.g., asphalt shingles) will be moved to an area on the tipping floor where it will be loaded directly into a railcar for transportation to a disposal site. Potentially recyclable material will be processed in a shredder, which will reduce the material to a size of approximately 12-inches by 12- inches. After the material is shredded, smaller pieces will be
removed from the C&D debris with a mechanical screen and placed in a bunker with non-recyclable material. The remaining, larger materials will be placed on a conveyor belt. Recyclable materials (e.g., aluminum, copper, ferrous metal, clean lumber) will be removed from the conveyor by hand, placed in separate bunkers, and then hauled off-site and sold to recycling facilities. Materials that are not removed from the conveyor will be placed in a bunker with other non-recyclable materials. If necessary, Cambridge employees will drive a compactor over the non-recyclable materials to reduce the size and increase the density of the material. The non-recyclable materials will then be loaded into railcars inside the transfer station.
The facility is designed to process C&D debris at a rate of 100 tons per hour, which equates to 1,000 tons (approximately 4,000 cubic yards) during a 10-hour operating day. The Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from accepting more than 4,000 cubic yards per day.
The facility has the capacity to process all of the C&D debris on the same day that it is delivered to the facility, so that the tipping floor can be empty at the end of each day. The Draft Permit requires Cambridge to process all of the C&D debris within 48 hours after it is delivered to the facility. .
Recyclable and non-recyclable materials will be removed from the site quickly. Each container of recyclable
material will be removed from the site when the container is filled, which typically will occur several times each week. When a railcar is filled with non-recyclable material, the railcar will be removed from the transfer station and staged on a railroad track on the south end of the site. The filled railcars will be removed from the site by FEC on a daily basis, Monday through Friday.
The railcars will be taken to a landfill in Alabama where the C&D debris will be disposed. If rail service to the facility is interrupted and cannot be resumed in a timely manner, any railcars that are staged on the site will be taken back inside the transfer station. Cambridge will unload the cars and arrange for the C&D debris to be shipped by truck to an appropriate disposal facility. Under such circumstances, Cambridge will stop receiving C&D debris at the facility until rail service is resumed.
Cambridge expects to recycle at least 9% of the C&D debris and hopes to recycle as much as 30%. The exact amount of material that will be recycled will depend on market conditions— i.e., whether there is a viable market for the materials in the C&D debris.
Garbage
The facility will receive only “de minimis” amounts of garbage as essentially accidental, very minor contents of loads
of C&D debris. Cambridge’s gatehouse attendant and spotters will reject any truck that contains identifiable quantities of garbage. Nonetheless, a bag or small quantity of garbage may be hidden in a load of C&D debris that is dumped onto the tipping floor. If that occurs, the garbage will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in an enclosed container inside the transfer station. If garbage is mixed with a load of C&D debris on the tipping floor, the affected part of the load will be placed in an enclosed container. The garbage will be taken off-site for disposal, as quickly as necessary to ensure that the garbage does not generate objectionable odors. In all cases, Cambridge must remove the garbage (“Class I waste”) from the site within
48 hours, in compliance with the Draft Permit and related rules.
Odors
The facility will not cause objectionable odors in any off-Site areas because the C&D debris, recyclable materials, and non-recyclable materials received at the facility will not generate objectionable odors. Incidental garbage could be a potential source of objectionable odors, but garbage is prohibited at the facility, the facility will receive very little garbage, and Cambridge’s plan to segregate and quickly remove garbage will ensure that objectionable odors are not created inside the transfer station. In the unlikely event that objectionable odors occur outside of the transfer station,
Cambridge will use a deodorizing or odor-neutralizing agent to treat any odorous portions of the tipping floor. If necessary, Cambridge also will use the "DustBoss," water-misting machines to spray odor control agents throughout the transfer station.
The Petitioners’ expert witness, Joseph Fluet, agreed that Cambridge’s odor control plan, as described in the Respondent's testimony by Mr. Enriquez, would be adequate, if implemented.
This is in addition to the operational plan proposed to DERMA and should be required to be implemented as a permit condition. Vectors
The facility is not expected to attract rats, bugs, or other disease-carrying vectors because C&D debris is not a food source for vectors. Nonetheless, Cambridge will hire a professional pest control firm to take all necessary measures to control vectors on the site. These measures, combined with the other components of Cambridge’s operations plan, will control disease-carrying vectors on the site and thus ensure that the facility does not pose a public health hazard.
Dust
The Draft Permit provides that “dust resulting from the processing operation is not allowed beyond the property boundary [of the site].” The term “dust” in the Draft Permit is synonymous with “visible emissions” or “particulate matter” (“PM”). The Draft Permit also provides that a “dust control
system shall be utilized to eliminate dust throughout the storage and working areas [inside the transfer station].” Cambridge will comply with these requirements by implementing a comprehensive dust control program at the facility.
Dust Control Inside the Transfer Station
The transfer station is fully enclosed on four sides and thus it can effectively control any dust that is generated by the activities conducted inside the transfer station. In order to minimize the potential for dust to escape from the transfer station, Cambridge will: (a) keep all of the transfer station’s doors closed at night and when the facility is not operating; (b) minimize the number of doors open during operations; and (c) require its staff to be judicious when deciding whether to open doors, and to give due regard to wind direction and velocity. Only three bay doors will be open during normal conditions when the facility is receiving and processing its maximum C&D volume of 1,000 tons per day (i.e., an average of approximately 15 trucks per hour). Fewer doors will be open when there are fewer delivery trucks or the wind hinders Cambridge’s ability to control the dust generated inside the facility.
Cambridge will use two "DustBoss" machines to eliminate dust generated inside the transfer station. The DustBoss machines will spray a fine mist (fog) of water, which
will physically impact and knock-down the dust in the air. The DustBoss machines will be deployed inside the transfer station, near the bay doors, but they can be moved within the building to where they are most effective. The DustBoss machines are fully adjustable--they can oscillate automatically or be directed toward a specific location where dust is being generated. The amount of mist generated by the DustBoss can be increased or reduced, as necessary. Each DustBoss machine is designed to blow mist up to 200 feet and control dust in an area up to 20,000 square feet. The two DustBoss machines in the transfer station will have the combined capacity to control dust in an area of approximately 40,000 square feet, which is substantially more capacity than is needed in the transfer station (30,000 square feet).
Dust Control Outside Of The Transfer Station
In order to minimize the potential for dust outside of the transfer station, Cambridge normally will require a hauler to keep its load of C&D debris covered with a tarp until the hauler’s truck is completely inside the transfer station. Cambridge may allow a hauler to remove its tarp immediately before the hauler’s truck enters the transfer station, but this will only occur if there are trucks waiting to enter and the winds are calm. The removal of a tarp, by itself, will not release a significant amount of dust because any dust that may
have been on the tarp at a job site will be blown off while the truck is driving to the facility.
To further minimize the potential for dust, Cambridge will use a piece of mobile equipment to collect and remove dust from the pavement outside of the building. This mobile equipment will be fitted with a moist broom and a water tank, thus allowing it to function like a street sweeper. Cambridge will use this equipment as often as necessary to control dust outside the transfer station. Mr. Fluet, the Petitioner's expert, agreed that using a "moist broom" to remove soil and mud on the site “would deal with virtually all the issues” concerning the control of dust outside the transfer station. Dust From Railcars
Railcars will enter and leave the transfer station through two doors. These doors normally will be open only when Cambridge is bringing railcars into the building for loading or taking them outside after they are filled. The DustBoss misting system will prevent dust from escaping out of these railroad doors.
The C&D debris will not be loaded above the sides of the railcars and thus will not be exposed to the wind when the railcars are taken outside the transfer station. In addition, the filled railcars will be covered with a mesh tarp before they are taken outside. The mesh tarp will prevent dust from blowing
out of the railcars while they are staged on the railroad track next to the transfer station.
The Ventilation System
The transfer station will be equipped with an emergency ventilation system to prevent the build-up of carbon monoxide (“CO”) or nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”) on the tipping floor. The ventilation system will discharge CO and NO2 through exhaust fans located approximately 30 feet above the tipping floor on the north wall of the transfer station. Fresh air will be drawn into the building through louvers located approximately 27 feet above the tipping floor on the south side of the building.
The ventilation system will turn on automatically if CO or NO2 sensors detect unsafe levels on the tipping floor. It is anticipated that such levels will not be reached and the ventilation system will operate “rarely, if ever.” The ventilation system also could be operated manually, but Cambridge does not intend to do so.
Dust will not be emitted from the louvers at the transfer station. The DustBoss misting system will knock-down the dust inside the transfer station before the dust reaches the louvers, which are high above the tipping floor. Moreover, the louvers will be covered with a mesh that will further reduce the potential for dust emissions. Finally, the prevailing winds at the site are from the south/southeast and they will blow into
the louvers (not out) most of the year, thus preventing dust from escaping.
Reasonable Precautions To Prevent Fugitive Emissions
DEP Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), requires “reasonable precautions” to be used to control fugitive emissions of PM, such as the dust generated by truck traffic on the site. Cambridge will satisfy this requirement by: (a) having pavement on the site in areas where there will be truck traffic; (b) using mobile equipment and a moist broom to remove dust from the paved areas of the site; (c) planting vegetative buffers on the site; (d) placing mesh tarps on the railcars before the railcars are taken outside the transfer station; (d) limiting the height of the C&D debris in the railcars; and (e) keeping tarps on the delivery trucks when the trucks are outside the transfer station during windy conditions.
Analysis Of Potential Airborne Emissions
Dust may be generated inside the transfer station when C&D debris is unloaded, moved, processed, or loaded into trucks or railcars. Dust may be generated outside the station by vehicular traffic on the site.
Cambridge quantified these potential PM emissions by using standard procedures and reference documents approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Cambridge’s analysis was based on conservative (“worst-case”) assumptions,
which were designed to overestimate the actual emissions from the facility. Using this approach, Cambridge determined that the maximum emissions of PM from the entire facility will be approximately 4 pounds per hour during those hours when the facility is operating.
Four pounds per hour is approximately one ounce per minute. The insignificance of this emission rate can be appreciated by imagining three people standing in the bay doors of the transfer station (i.e., one person in each of the three open bay doors during normal operations) while each person pours one-third of one ounce (1/3 oz.) of flour into the air over a 60 second interval. This emission rate will result in total annual emissions of approximately 6 tons per year (TPY), but the instantaneous emissions will be negligible.
Facilities that emit less than 10 TPY of PM are exempt from the DEP requirement to obtain an air permit. Consequently, Cambridge will not need a DEP air permit for the facility. A comparable facility would be a fast food restaurant, which has airborne emissions from cooking, but is not required to obtain a DEP air permit.
The facility’s emissions of PM will be so small that Cambridge will not be required by DEP to prepare an analysis of the facility’s impacts on ambient air quality. An impacts
analysis would not be required unless the facility’s PM emissions were expected to be greater than 250 TPY.
There are no ambient air quality standards or other DEP requirements applicable to the airborne emissions from the facility, except for the requirement to use reasonable precautions to control fugitive emissions in the areas of the site located outside of the transfer station. There are no DEP emission limits or other standards applicable to the CO and NO2 emissions, if any, from the facility’s ventilation system. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.711 governs crushing and grinding operations in certain areas of the state, but this rule is not applicable in Miami-Dade County. Similarly, DEP does not consider tailpipe emissions from mobile equipment and trucks on the site when DEP evaluates the airborne emissions from the facility.
DERM will regulate the opacity (visible emissions) of the facility’s PM emissions (dust) at the property line. DERM also will regulate the mass emissions from the facility. The applicable DERM limit for opacity is 20% and the limit for mass emissions of PM is 40 pounds per hour. The facility will comply with these DERM standards. As noted above, there will be no visible emissions of PM at the property line or beyond and the mass emissions will be no more than 4 pounds per hour under worst-case conditions.
The facility will have an insignificant impact on air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue. The facility’s impacts on the ambient air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue will not be measurable or discernable.
The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County are from the east and southeast most of the year. When the wind is from the east or southeast, the wind at the site will blow away from the Petitioners’ residences, which are located east-northeast of the site. For these reasons, it will be physically impossible for any dust or odor from the Site to reach the Petitioners’ residences approximately 90% of the time.
The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County blow from the north only about 4% or 5% of the year. Consequently, 95% or 96% of the time the facility will have no impact on the air quality at the Martin Luther King Park, which is located south of the site.
Petitioners’ Allegations Regarding Dust
The Petitioners’ witness, Mr. Fluet, acknowledged that “judicious use of the misters [DustBoss] and the door positions will effectively provide reasonable assurance” concerning the dust inside the transfer station. Nonetheless, the Petitioners are concerned because nothing explicitly prohibits Cambridge from opening more than three of the bay doors to the transfer station and causing excessive emissions of dust. The
Petitioners’ concerns about this issue are not established by preponderant evidence, however, because (a) the Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from causing visible emissions beyond the property boundary, (b) Cambridge has demonstrated that it will operate the facility in compliance with the Draft Permit, and
(c) DERM will inspect the facility at least once each month to ensure that the facility is operated properly. Cambridge’s obligation to comply with the Draft Permit will effectively limit the number of doors that are open and the amount of dust that is emitted at any given time. Even if the bay doors are open, the enclosed design of the building prevents the wind from blowing through the transfer station. Further, Cambridge’s expert on air issues (David Buff) explained that, when the wind is calm, Cambridge will be able to control dust emissions effectively with the DustBoss machines, even if all the bay doors are open. His testimony in this regard, is accepted as persuasive.
Mr. Fluet opined that Cambridge may manually turn on the ventilation system if the temperature inside the transfer station becomes too hot. Mr. Fluet acknowledged, however, that misting systems are used to cool the public at amusement parks and the mist from the DustBoss machines will have the same cooling effect in the transfer station. This acknowledgment somewhat belies his suggestion that the ventilation system will
need to be activated. Mr. Fluet’s opinion also is countered by the fact that Cambridge’s application and witnesses have confirmed that the ventilation system will be used only for emergencies, and not for hot weather ventilation or evacuation of dust. Finally, even if it is assumed, hypothetically, that the ventilation system may be turned on for Cambridge’s convenience, the Petitioners failed to prove that the operation of the ventilation system will cause violations of any applicable air quality standard. Should such become the case, as revealed by the monthly inspections, the use of the filters referenced by Mr. Fluet should be implemented.
Mr. Fluet expressed concern that contamination problems may occur if painted or treated wood is shredded at the facility. This concern has been alleviated because the Draft Permit and the Respondent's testimony shows that the acceptance for processing of painted or treated wood will be prohibited. Prohibited and unacceptable waste must be removed from the C&D debris stream and taken off-site for disposal.
Leachate
Water that comes in contact with C&D debris is deemed to be “leachate.” Since C&D debris is generally non-hazardous and not water soluble, C&D debris is not expected to produce leachate that is harmful to groundwater.
The transfer station has been designed with a roof and four walls. The design of the station will minimize the potential for generating leachate and minimize the potential for standing water inside the facility. Cambridge’s “design strategy for the facility is to prevent contact between rainfall or stormwater and C/D materials [C&D debris] at all times, thereby entirely preventing the generation of leachate.”
C&D debris is relatively dry material. If a container of C&D debris is exposed to rain before the container is brought to the facility, the rainwater typically will (a) be absorbed by the C&D debris or (b) leak out of the container before the container reaches the facility, because the containers used to collect C&D debris are not water-tight. Even if some liquid is spilled on the tipping floor with a load of C&D debris, the liquid will be absorbed by the C&D debris when the load is moved across the floor.
Liquids normally will not be tracked into the transfer station by trucks. Trucks will enter the transfer station by slowly backing up an inclined grade, through the bay doors, and onto the tipping floor. Although some rainwater may be tracked into the station by the trucks or truck tires, it will only be a negligible amount. Even less water will be tracked out of the transfer station.
The mist from the DustBoss machines is not likely to cause puddles to form on the tipping floor. The C&D debris will absorb any mist that lands on it. Mist landing on the tipping floor will be absorbed when the C&D debris is pushed across the floor.
After each truck unloads, the tipping floor must be cleared to make space for the next truck. If there is a puddle on the floor, the C&D debris will be pushed through the puddle to absorb it. In the alternative, the puddle will be pushed into the C&D debris.
Cambridge employees will monitor the tipping floor for liquids. The employees will use mobile equipment (i.e., a skid- steer) fitted with a rubber-edged blade to push the liquids, like a squeegee, if necessary. Since the facility will receive up to 1,000 tons of C&D debris per day, there will be a substantial amount of material available to absorb any liquids on the floor.
The tipping floor will be equipped with a sump that can hold approximately 359 gallons of liquid. In the event there are liquids on the tipping floor, Cambridge’s employees can push the liquids into the sump by using the rubber-edged blade on the skid-steer equipment.
The sump will be used rarely, if ever. One of Cambridge’s solid waste experts, Kenneth Cargill, testified that
he had never seen liquids in the floor drain (sump) at a C&D debris transfer station in Ft. Myers, even though that transfer station is open on one side (170’ wide and 40’ high) and rain can blow onto the tipping floor. The sump in Ft. Myers is empty during the rainy season, as well as the dry season.
If any liquids are collected in the facility’s sump, a third party contractor will pump the liquids out of the sump, as frequently as necessary, to ensure that the sump is never overtopped. Any liquids removed from the sump will be taken by the contractor to a permitted disposal facility, such as a wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”). The liquid in the sump is not expected to upset the operation of the WWTP, so the DEP does not require the liquid to be tested before it is delivered to the WWTP.
The railcars used to transport C&D debris from the facility will be fully sealed at the bottom. The railcars will not leak if rainwater falls into them.
Mr. Cargill, Mr. Leonard Enriquez (Cambridge’s General Manager), and Mr. Hardeep Anand (the Chief of DERM’s Pollution Regulation and Enforcement Division (“PRED”)) collectively established that the Transfer Station is well-designed and has a generally satisfactory leachate control system. The leachate will be controlled and contained inside the Transfer Station by
using an enclosed building, a concrete floor, a sump, a good operating plan, and diligent employees.
Petitioners’ Contentions Regarding Leachate
Mr. Fluet contended that (a) the leachate control system is not adequate, (b) leachate will escape from the transfer station and enter the environment, and (c) the tipping floor will not minimize standing water. According to Mr. Fluet, all of these problems will occur primarily because the tipping floor is flat—i.e., it is not sloped toward a drain and has no lip, berm or raised edge to contain liquids. It was undisputed, however, that the DEP rules do not require a sloped floor. Although Mr. Cargill always designs transfer stations with a sloped floor, he concluded that Cambridge’s transfer station is “well designed” and can be operated successfully by using conscientious employees. Indeed, even Mr. Fluet acknowledged he could operate the transfer station in compliance with the FDEP rules, without having a sloped floor. Mr. Fluet would install a “lip” (raised edge) around the tipping floor, but he agreed the transfer station could be operated in compliance with the applicable rules.
Petitioners contend that the tipping floor must be washed weekly, and allege that this activity may result in water escaping from the transfer station. This contention is fatally flawed because (a) the DEP rules do not require routine washing
of the floors at C&D debris transfer stations, (b) washing is not necessary to control odors, and (c) Cambridge plans to use other odor control measures, rather than washing, in the unlikely event there are odors at the facility.
When asked whether Cambridge had provided reasonable assurances that it would minimize the amount of leachate produced in the Transfer Station, Mr. Fluet implied the answer is yes, “to a great extent by the fact that it’s [the transfer station] enclosed.” He also agreed that the design of the building (i.e., the roof) will minimize the amount of standing water on the tipping floor.
Nonetheless, Mr. Fluet suggested that the use of the DustBoss machines may be inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3), which requires an applicant to minimize standing water in a waste processing facility. He raised the possibility that liquids may accumulate on the tipping floor because the two DustBoss machines are capable of using approximately 30,000 gallons of water per hour while producing mist. He acknowledged, however, that “a lot” of the mist (water) will evaporate before it reaches the tipping floor.
Mr. Fluet’s concerns about this issue are not entirely supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Cargill and Mr. Enriquez established that the mist will evaporate or be
absorbed by the C&D debris. Moreover, the DustBoss machines can be adjusted to reduce the amount of mist that is produced and thus reduce the potential for creating puddles on the tipping floor. The DustBoss machines presumably will not need to run continuously at maximum capacity because the two machines have the combined capacity to cover approximately 40,000 square feet of building space, and the transfer station is only about 30,000 square feet.
On balance, in consideration of this testimony concerning flexibility in use and management of the DustBoss machines, and Mr. Fluet's concern about standing water on the tipping floor, reasonable assurances can best be established by a slight design alteration to provide for a lip or berm around the tipping floor. The fact that the rail track traverses the building also serves to render this appropriate. The permit should be so conditioned.
Mr. Fluet postulated that the DEP rules will be violated if rainwater (a) drips off of the C&D debris in the delivery trucks while the trucks are on the site and then (b) flows into the stormwater management system on the site or enters the groundwater. According to Mr. Fluet, the rainwater will constitute leachate, because the water came into contact with C&D debris, and the DEP rules prohibit the mixing of any leachate with stormwater or groundwater. Mr. Fluet conceded,
however, that the same problem occurs at every transfer station in Florida when rainwater/leachate drips from delivery trucks.
Mr. Fluet claimed that the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will contain more demolition debris and residential waste than the C&D debris in other parts of Florida and thus the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will produce worse leachate. However, Mr. Fluet acknowledged the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County already is being handled in the County’s existing C&D debris facilities and he has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those facilities. Moreover, Mr. Fluet could not identify any C&D transfer station where there were violations of DEP standards for groundwater or surface water because of the scenarios he described, or the concerns he raised about Cambridge’s Facility.
Mr. Fluet's opinions were based on his expertise and experience. The Petitioners offered no empirical data to support their claims or concerns. Mr. Fluet admitted that he did “not perform any studies, calculations, or engineering analyses” concerning the proposed Facility. Mr. Fluet and the Petitioners did not quantify the amount of leachate that allegedly will be released into the environment from the tipping floor, or the amount of leachate that will drip from delivery trucks, or the amount of water that may accumulate on the tipping floor when the DustBoss machines are operating. They
presented no information concerning the chemical constituents or chemical concentrations in any of the liquids that allegedly will be released under any of their potential scenarios. No data was presented concerning the quality of the liquids collected in the sumps at other transfer stations. They did not present any evidence demonstrating that DEP’s groundwater or surface water quality standards will be violated as a result of the quantity or quality of the leachate that allegedly will enter the environment as a result of the facility’s operations.
Mr. Anand explained that DEP does not evaluate the possibility that rainwater will drip from delivery trucks, or that trucks will track liquids out of a transfer station, when DEP is determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701. Even if these impacts were considered, the likelihood of these events causing contamination is “negligible.”
Mr. Anand testified that DERM currently has eight (8) C&D debris transfer stations in Miami-Dade County. Groundwater monitoring data are collected at some of the sites, but DERM has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those sites. Similarly, Mr. Cargill was unaware of any cases in Florida where a transfer station for C&D debris caused contamination of
groundwater or stormwater as a result of liquids dripping from the trucks that are entering or leaving the facility.
C&D debris is not expected to be water soluble or hazardous. The leachate from C&D debris is not expected to cause groundwater contamination. Accordingly, the DEP rules do not require C&D debris to be placed inside water-tight containers when the C&D debris is stored at a job site. The DEP rules do not prohibit the permanent disposal of C&D debris in unlined disposal facilities. There is nothing to prevent rainwater from passing through the C&D debris and entering directly into the groundwater at a job site or an unlined C&D disposal facility.
Given all of the foregoing facts, Mr. Cargill and Mr. Anand testified that the Cambridge Facility should have “little or no impact” on the quality of the soils, surface
water, or groundwater at the site. Their testimony is credible, persuasive, and accepted.
Comparison To Other Transfer Stations
The design of the Cambridge Facility is a significant improvement over the typical design of a C&D debris transfer station. The measures that Cambridge will use to control dust and liquids at the facility are superior to the measures used to control dust and liquids at typical C&D transfer stations.
There are 8 C&D debris transfer stations lawfully operating in Miami-Dade County. Only one of these facilities is enclosed. Some C&D debris facilities have a roof, but no walls. A transfer station within one mile of the site has no roof and no walls. At most transfer stations, dust is controlled by manually spraying the C&D debris with a hose. None of the transfer stations in Miami-Dade County use DustBoss machines to control dust. None of the facilities in Miami-Dade County use a moist broom and sweeper equipment on a routine basis to control dust. Although the existing facilities in Miami-Dade County comply with the DEP rules, the Cambridge facility has gone beyond the minimum requirements established by DEP.
Stormwater Permits
DEP issued an Environmental Resource Permit for the construction and operation of a stormwater management system serving the facility. Miami-Dade County issued a Class VI Drainage Permit for the construction and operation of an exfiltration trench that will handle the stormwater from the facility. No one challenged or otherwise appealed the DEP Environmental Resource Permit or the Miami-Dade County Class VI permit.
Site Assessment
A “Phase I” (preliminary) environmental assessment of the site was conducted by Cambridge and further investigations
were recommended; however, Cambridge has not yet conducted a “Phase II” assessment or collected any field data. Mr. Fluet speculated about potential “indications” of contamination, but he had no data to prove that any contamination actually exists. In the absence of any field data, he admitted that “we don’t know” whether the site is a “Brownfield” site and “cannot speak” to whether the site is contaminated.
Financial Assurance
The cost of closing the facility was estimated by Cambridge to be approximately $231,000. Cambridge’s estimate did not include the cost of pumping the liquids (if any) out of the sump, which may be $2,000 to $3,000 (i.e., less than 1% of the financial assurance provided by Cambridge). This omission is insignificant, it can be corrected before Cambridge commences operations of the facility, and it does not warrant the denial of Cambridge’s application for the Permit.
Irresponsible Applicant
Cambridge Project Development, Inc., is the minority partner in Cambridge. TLA-Miami, Inc., is the managing partner. TLA-Miami, Inc., is an affiliate of Transload America, Inc. (“TLA”). None of these entities or their affiliates have previously owned or operated a solid waste management facility in Florida, or violated any environmental laws, permits, or other requirements in Florida.
Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.320(3), DEP considers the applicant’s prior operations in Florida when determining whether an applicant for a solid waste processing facility permit is an “irresponsible applicant.”
The applicant’s operations in other states are not considered. In this case, DERM properly concluded that Cambridge is not an irresponsible applicant.
Cambridge’s Operating Plan And Building Design
Cambridge submitted a written operating plan (the “Operating Plan”) with its application to DERM. The Operating Plan sets forth Cambridge’s plan for operating the facility in compliance with the applicable DEP requirements. Additional details concerning Cambridge’s method of operation were provided by preponderant evidence at the hearing, in a de novo context. The Operating Plan satisfies the DEP requirements.
During the hearing, Mr. Enriquez explained that the design of the transfer station will be better than the design initially proposed in Cambridge’s application to DERM. The sump will be bigger, the concrete in the tipping floor will be thicker, and the strength of the concrete will be greater than originally proposed.
DEP’s Review Of Permit Applications
The Petitioners contend that DEP and DERM should have evaluated a variety of issues that are of interest to the
Petitioners. However, it was undisputed that DEP does not consider the following issues when deciding whether to issue a permit for a solid waste processing facility: zoning and comprehensive plan designations; land use compatibility; traffic; noise; public benefits; aesthetics; geotechnical issues, such as differential settlement; structural design issues, such as the structural design of a tipping floor or push wall; the adequacy of a fire control system; the adequacy of a ventilation system; the economic or ethnic makeup of the areas near a proposed site; whether the proposed location is the best site; or whether there is a need for the proposed facility. In the instant case, many of these issues were addressed by other governmental entities, such as the Building Department for
Miami-Dade County. Public Notice
Cambridge provided two notices to the public concerning the facility. On January 15, 2008, notice of Cambridge’s application was published. On August 26, 2008, notice of DERM’s proposed agency action was published. These notices satisfied the applicable DEP requirements. Reasonable Assurances
Cambridge has provided reasonable assurances that the facility will be constructed and operated in compliance with all of the applicable DEP requirements in Florida Administrative
Code Chapter 62-701, for a waste processing facility. Cambridge also has provided reasonable assurances that it will comply with all of the conditions contained in the Draft Permit, and established by the preponderant evidence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2008)
The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether DEP should issue a permit authorizing Cambridge to construct and operate the facility on the site. Cambridge’s application was reviewed by DERM, but the Operating Agreement requires DEP to issue the permit in any case where DERM’s proposed agency action is challenged in a formal administrative hearing.
De Novo Proceeding
This administrative proceeding is not a review of DERM’s preliminary decision to issue the Permit. Instead, it is a de novo proceeding intended to formulate final agency action. Accordingly, the parties were allowed to present evidence at the final hearing that was not wholly confined to the matters proposed in Cambridge’s application to DERM. See Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners v. FDER, 587 So. 2d 1378, 1387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Florida Dept. of Transportation v.
J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
Manasota-88, Inc. v. DEP, DOAH Case No. 06-3288 (RO: Feb. 6, 2007) (DEP Final Order Mar. 22, 2007). The dispositive issue is whether the evidence presented at the administrative hearing provides reasonable assurances that the proposed facility will comply with the applicable DEP rules. See Manasota-88, Inc., supra citing McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So.
2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Burden of Proof
As the applicant in this proceeding, Cambridge has the ultimate burden of providing reasonable assurances that the facility will comply with DEP’s applicable statutes and rules. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d at 787. Cambridge also has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence that Cambridge has complied with all of the applicable DEP standards and rules. See Id. at 788. In order to prevail, the Petitioners must present “contrary evidence of equivalent quality” proving the truth of the allegations in their Petition. Id. at 789. The Petitioners cannot merely rely on speculative concerns about potential or possible adverse environmental effects. See
Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc., v. DER, DOAH Case No. 88- 3355, 1988 Fla. Env. Lexis 112 at page 14 (RO: Nov. 14, 1988; DER Final Order, Dec. 30, 1988); J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 F.A.L.R. 960, 971 (DER Final Order, Jan. 22,
1990); Altman v. Kavanaugh, 15 F.A.L.R. 1588, 1576
(DOAH Recommended Order, adopted in pertinent part by DER Final Order, Nov. 1, 1991).
Reasonable Assurances
“Reasonable assurance” means “a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented.” See Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida, Inc., 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 700 So. 2d 113, 117 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997). Competent substantial evidence based upon detailed site plans and engineering studies, coupled with credible expert engineering testimony, is a sufficient basis for a finding of reasonable assurance. See Hamilton County, 587 So. 2d at 1388.
An applicant’s burden of proof is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees, that the applicable conditions for the issuance of a permit have been satisfied. Metropolitan Dade-County, 609 So. 2d at 648; Hamilton County,
587 So. 2d at 1388; Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club v.
Suwanee American Cement Co., DOAH Case No. 99-3096 (RO: Oct. 21, 1999; DEP Final Order May 2000). An applicant is not required to eliminate all contrary possibilities, however remote, or to address unlikely theoretical, imperceptible, or negligible impacts which could not be measured in real life. Caloosa Property Owners’ Association, Inc. v. DER, 462 So. 2d 523, 526
(Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Putnam County Environmental Council, Inc. v. DEP, DOAH Case No. 01-2442 (RO: Jul. 3, 2002; DEP Final
Order, Aug. 6, 2002); Pacetti v. DER, DOAH Case No. 84-3810 (RO: Feb. 28, 1986; DER Final Order 1986); Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper
Company, 12 F.A.L.R. 4972, 4987 (Oct. 29, 1990). An applicant is “not required to disprove all the ‘worst case scenarios’ or ‘theoretical impacts’ raised by” objectors. Ginnie Springs, Inc. v. Craig Watson and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 98-0258 (RO: Feb. 23, 1999; DEP Final Order
April 8, 1999).
The issuance of a permit must be based solely on compliance with the applicable permit criteria. Council of
Lower Keys v. Toppino, 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The Department has authorized discharges of pollutants into water bodies where the effect on water quality is found to be negligible. Caloosa Property Owners’ Association, Inc., 462 So. 2d at 526; Putnam County Environmental Council v. Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 01-2442 (RO: Jul. 3, 2002; DEP Final Order Aug. 6, 2002). Indeed, the Department has recognized that “words such as ‘imperceptible’, ‘insignificant’, ‘minimal’, ‘negligible’, and ‘undetectable’ are similar terms having special meaning within the purview of the de minimis rationale incorporated into the environmental regulatory law of this state.” Id. See also Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Boat Club,
Ltd., 22 F.A.L.R. 2358, 2366 (DEP 2000); Pacetti v. Smith, 8
F.A.L.R. 4050, 4054-56 (DER 1986). Although the case law concerning the de minimis rationale has dealt with discharges into surface water bodies, the rationale also is appropriate in this case, which deals with potential discharges to stormwater and groundwater.
In this case, Cambridge presented preponderant, persuasive evidence at the final hearing to demonstrate that Cambridge will construct and operate the facility in compliance with all applicable DEP rules and regulations. The Petitioners failed to present evidence of equivalent quality. The Petitioners also failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility will cause violations of the DEP rules. The potential environmental impacts identified by Petitioners were “negligible” or “de minimis” in nature and thus insufficient to warrant the denial of the Permit.
The Petitioners alleged that the water dripping off of delivery trucks will violate DEP’s Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3)(b), which provides that “the facility shall be designed with a leachate control system to prevent discharge of leachate and mixing of leachate with stormwater, and to minimize the presence of standing water.” The Petitioners’ allegation is based on the assumption that this DEP rule establishes an absolute prohibition –- i.e., a violation will
occur if any leachate mixes with stormwater or groundwater, regardless of the quantity or quality of the leachate. Under the Petitioners’ interpretation of the DEP rule, a violation would occur if a single drop of rainwater came into contact with C&D debris on a delivery truck and then dripped off the truck and entered the stormwater. The Petitioners’ interpretation presumably would result in a determination that all transfer stations in Florida are in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3)(b), because rainwater drips off delivery trucks at all transfer stations. In this light, it is clear that the Petitioners’ interpretation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3)(b), is unreasonable and must be rejected.
The Petitioners’ interpretation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3)(b), also must be rejected because it fundamentally misconstrues the language and intent of DEP’s requirement. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.710(3), establishes design requirements for waste processing facilities. The Petitioners’ allegations about water dripping off trucks do not relate to the design of the facility or any “discharges” from the facility itself. For this reason, DEP does not consider water dripping from delivery trucks when DEP determines whether a facility’s design complies with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3)(b).
The Petitioners contend that the tipping floor must be washed weekly pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.710(4)(b), but this results from a mis-reading of the DEP rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(4)(b), only applies to facilities that receive putrescible waste, as indicated in the first sentence of the rule. Mr. Cargill explained that the DEP rules do not require weekly washing of transfer stations that receive C&D debris only.
The Petitioners contend Cambridge must provide reasonable assurances that the facility will be in the public interest and thus complies with Section 403.021(8), Florida Statutes, which provides
The Legislature further finds and declares that the public health, welfare, and safety may be affected by disease- carrying vectors and pests. The department shall assist all governmental units charged with the control of such vectors and pests. Furthermore, in reviewing applications for permits, the department shall consider the total well-being of the public and shall not consider solely the ambient pollution standards when exercising its powers, if there may be danger of a public health hazard.
(Emphasis supplied.) Cambridge demonstrated that the construction and operation of the facility will not cause a public health hazard due to disease-carrying vectors or other impacts. The Petitioners failed to demonstrate otherwise.
Accordingly, Section 403.021(8), Florida Statutes, is not
applicable in this proceeding. See City of Jacksonville v. DEP, DOAH Case No. 01-0783 at 9 (RO: Sept. 6, 2001; DEP Final Order
Oct.18, 2001, at 9).
The Petitioners criticized the design and operation of the facility’s stormwater management systems, including the exfiltration trench, but these systems are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The DEP permit for the stormwater system and the DERM permit for the exfiltration trench were issued previously and they were not appealed. The final agency actions concerning these permits cannot be collaterally attacked in this case.
Finally, the Petitioners complained about the location of the facility, but their complaints are unavailing in this proceeding. The DEP does not require an applicant to demonstrate that it has selected the best location for a proposed waste processing facility. DEP also does not address issues involving zoning and land use compatibility. As a practical matter, the facility will be built in an industrial district and the environmental impacts (e.g., dust) of the facility will be controlled on the site, because Cambridge has gone beyond the minimum requirements in the DEP rules to provide reasonable assurances and to ensure that potential off-site impacts are minimized or eliminated. The Petitioners failed to prove that additional measures, aside from the conditions found
above, are required under the DEP rules or otherwise needed in this case.
Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED that Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting Cambridge's application to construct and operate the facility on the site, including the conditions contained in the Draft Permit and in the above findings and conclusions, to include a design alteration providing for a slight lip or berm around the tipping floor, as supported by the preponderant, persuasive evidence.
DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
COPIES FURNISHED:
John J. Quick, Esquire Michelle D. Vos, Esquire
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2009.
Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L.
525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Peter S. Tell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County
111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128
David S. Dee, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A.
225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk
Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Tom Beason, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Michael W. Sole, Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2009 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 01, 2009 | Recommended Order | Respondent permit applicant proved reasonable assurance that the project will be built and operated within standards of cited rules and statute. Petitioner failed to adduce preponderant evidence that the facility will cause violations of relevant rules. |
