Tripp Scott Exhibits For SWS

Department of Planning and Environmental Protection
Enforcement Administration
218 S.W. 1st Avenue
Fort lauderdale. Fl33301
(954) 519-1210 Fax (954) 5191493
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
and
NOTICE OF HEARING
TO ASSESS A CIVIL PENAL TV
Notice of Violation Number: 01-30760
The.undersigned certifies that he has just grounds to believe and
does believe that on or about June 29, 2001 at 09:30 hours that:
Respondent: Sun Recycling, LLC d/b/a sun Recycling, LLC #3
Violated Section: 27-215(a) Broward County Code
Which States: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Code, no person
shall throw, discard, place, maintain or deposit on or beneath the
land surface or in regulated aquatic and wetland resources, or suffer
or allow to be thrown, discarded, placed, maintained, or deposited on
or beneath the land surface or in regulated aquatic and wetland
resources any solid waste in any amount."
by: Receiving and depositing solid waste including wood, vegetative
debris, plastics, metal, Styrofoam, foam and mat insulation material,
gypsum board, glass, rock and concrete on the land surface.
at the following location: I j/ff;;/I.JUf..{; cov -
) IWN HtN.J C: Df::: veLof'Mc
In: Broward County, Florida
By: Date:
Steve Somerville, Director
IIROWARD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNJY COMMISSIONERS -Art Equal Oppodunlly Employ and Provider of Servlc:a
Josephus Eggelellon. Jr. Ben Grober SUzame N. Gunz!Mger Kltslfn o. Jacobs 1ene IJeberman loti Nalce Ponllh Jom e. Rods11om.Jr. James A. Scott Olano
VIsit us on the Jntemef: www.broward.org/dpep
WP-01d1
MAOS
BEFORE BROWARD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BROWARD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
Petitioner
vs. NOTICES OF VIOLATION# 01-30758, # 01-30759,
# 01-30760, # 01-30769,
# 01-30770, #01-30771,
# 01-30772, #01-30773,
& #01-0003
SUN RECYCLING, LLC d/b/a SUN RECYCLING, LLC #1, SUN RECYCLING, LLC #2,
& SUN RECYCLING, LLC #3,
Respondent
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This cause having been set for Hearing before a Hearing Examiner on January 11, 2002
to determine whether or not the Respondent, Sun Recycling, LLC d/b/a Sun Recycling,
LLC #1, Sun Recycling, LLC #2 & Sun Recycling, LLC #3, violated the following sections
of the Broward County Code of Ordinances:
Section 27 -58( c) of the Broward County Code, which states:
" ... each license issued by DPEP shall contain ... specific conditions ... to ensure
compliance with this chapter. The licensee agrees that .. . specific conditions are
enforceable by the county for any violations thereof;"
AND Section 27-215(a) of the Broward County Code, which states:
"Unless otherwise authorized by the Code, no person shall throw, discard, place,
maintain or deposit on or beneath the land surface or in regulated aquatic and
wetland resources, or suffer or allow to be thrown, discarded, placed, maintained,
or deposited on or beneath the land surface or in regulated aquatic and wetland
resources any solid waste in any amount;n
Page 1 of 7
WP-0380
MAOS
. '
(
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOTICES OF VIOLATION NO.: 01-30758, 01-30759,
01-30760, 01-30769, 01-3ono, 01-30771, 01-30772, 01-30773, & o1-0003
RESPONDENT: SUN RECYCLING, LLC d/b/a SUN RECYCLING, LLC #1, SUN
RECYCLING, LLC #2, & SUN RECYCLING, LLC #3
WHEN on or about June 29, 2001, at 3251 SW 26 Terrace, Dania Beach, FL, 33312,
Respondent allegedly received and deposited solid waste on the land surface; and
Respondent allegedly received and deposited non-clean debris in violation of specific
condition #1 of Solid Waste Management License RR 96-15406;
AND WHEN on or about July 2, 2001, Respondent allegedly disposed of solid waste from
Sun LLC #2, 2281 NW 16 St., Pompano Beach, FL. 33069, at Waste
Corporation of Florida, 3251 SW 26 Terrace, Dania Beach, FL, 33312, a non-licensed
disposal facility, in violation of specific condition #12 of Solid Waste Management License
RR 98-18941; .
AND WHEN on or about July 26,2001, at 2241 NW 15 Ct., Pompano Beach, FL. 33069,
Respondent allegedly operated without an operator or spotter trained in accordance with
Rule 62-701.320(15), F.A.C., in violation of Specific Condition #4 of Solid
Management license RR 97-19101; and that it allegedly failed to include in its June, 2Q01
report to DPEP a record of all types of material and all disposal sites shovm in the daily
records, in violation of Specific Condition #23 of Solid Waste Management License RR 97-
19101;
AND WHEN on or about July 26, 2001, Respondent allegedly shipped recovered
screened material (RSM) from Sun Recycling, LLC #1, 2241 NW 15 Ct., Pompano Beach,
FL. 33069, and disposed of it at the northwest corner of SW 45 St. and SW 27 Ave., on
the property of the Treasure Cove Yacht Club, Dania Beach, FL, 33312, an unapproved
fill site, without the prior approval of the DPEP, in violation of Specific Condition #1 0 of
Solid Waste Management License RR 97-19101;
ANb WHEN on or about July 26, 2001, at 2281 NW 16 St., Pompano Beach, FL, 33069,
Respondent allegedly operated without an operator or spotter trained in accordance with
Rule 62-701.320{15), F.A.C., in violation of Specific Condition #4 of Solid Waste
Management License RR 98-18941; and that it allegedly failed to include in its June, 2001
report to DPEP a record of all types of material and all disposal sites shoWn in the daily
records, in violation of Specific Condition #23 of Solid Waste Management License RR 98-
18941;
Page 2 of 7
WP-0381
MAOS
( ,.
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOTICES OF VIOLATION NO.: 01-30758, 01-30759,
01-30760, 01-30769, 01-30770, 01-30771, 01-30772, 01-30773, & 01-0003
AND WHEN on or about November 9, 2001, Respondent allegedly shipped recovered
screened material ( RSM) from Sun Recycling, LLC #1, 2241 NW 15 Ct., Pompano Beach,
FL, 33069, and disposed of it at 1500 N. Powerline Rd., Pompano Beach, FL 33069, and
200 SW 12 Ave., Dania Beach, FL 33312, unapproved fill sites, without the prior approval
of the DPEP, in violation of Specific Condition #1 0 of Solid Waste Management License
RR 97-19101.
By settlement of this cause, it is understood that Respondent waives its right to an
administrative and the rights set forth in Section 27-32 of the Broward County
Code. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations of law and fact contained in
this agreement. It having been agreed by the Respondent to dispense with the Hearing
and enter into this agreement, it is agreed that the Respondent shall pay within six (6)
months from the date of approval by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners
a Civil Penalty of $78,500.00 and administrative costs of $1,500.00 for a total of
$80,000.00. It is agreed by the Respondent to enter into a payment plan for the
$80,000.00 referenced in this agreement 'Nhich shall include interest at a rate of eleven
(11) percent per year. The total shall be paid in six (6) consecutive monthly payments of
$13,735.13 [Attachment AJ. The first payment will be due thirty (30) days from the date of
approval by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners, with subsequent
payments every thirty (30) days thereafter. If at any time Respondent chooses to pay in
full the principal balance due, interest on the balance will be waived and there will be no
pre-payment penalties. It is agreed that if at any time a specified payment is not received
within the agreed upon time frame, the entire balance, at petitioner's demand, shall
become due and petitioner reserves the right to take further legal action to collect.
Respondent agrees that these amounts are reasonable and shall not contest them in any
subsequent action that may be brought regarding this Agreement. Any
extensions to the time frames in this Agreement must be approved by DPEP.
Corrective Action:
Respondent has removed and properly disposed of solid waste deposited at 3251 SW 26
Terrace, Dania Beach, 33312. In addition, Respondent has installed a gate at this facility;
has stationed a full-time employee at the facility to monitor traffic coming onto and leaving
the property during regular business hours; employed a gatekeeper charged with securing
and locking the facility at the end of business hours; instituted a daily log that records all
material received at the facility documenting the generator, transporter, and hauler, and
the material's origins; and stationed three (3) full-time spotters and three (3) full-time
pickers at the facility.
Page 3 of 7
WP-0382
MAOS
\._
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOTICES OF VIOLATION NO.: 01..J0758, 01-30759,
01-30760, 01-30769, "01-30770, 01-30771, 01-30772, 01-30773, & 01-0003
Respondent has also removed and properly disposed of RSM from the Treasure Cove
Yacht Club property.
Respondent has tested RSM at the Dania Distribution property, 200 SW 12 Ave., Dania
Beach, and the Wellington Realty property, 1500 Powerline Rd., Pompano Beach.
Analysis results are within industry guidelines, allowing material to remain on site.
Respondent has contracted with Kohl Consulting, Inc. to train all employees, managers
and operators as Spotters to achieve compliance with state and county requirements.
Respondent has aQreed to modifications in it's Solid Waste Management Licenses which
shall require more stringent reporting methods.
Respondent acknowledges that in settlement of this cause, Broward County has waived
its right to an administrative hearing. Respondent agrees not to deny this/these
violation( s) in .any future proceedings that may be brought pursuant to sections 27- 38 (d),
27-55 (d)(7), or 27-63(c)(6) of the Broward County Code. Furthermore, the Respondent
acknowledges and affirms that pursuant to Section 27-22 of the Broward County Code, in
the event of future violation, the amount of penalty assessed for any future violation may
be increased based upon Respondent's previous history of noncompliance.
Entry into this Settlement. Agreement does not relieve the Respondent of the need to
comply with all applicable federal, state, or local laws, regulations or ordinances.
Respondent recognizes its responsibility to take all reasonable measures necessary to
prevent future violations of Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code. The County hereby
expressly reserves the right to initiate appropriate legal action to prevent or prohibit the
future violation of applicable statutes or regulations, or to alleviate an immediate serious
danger to the public health, safety or welfare.
Pursuant to Section 27-34 of the Broward County Code, the failure of the Respondent to
comply with a settlement agreement approved by the Broward County Board of County
Commissioners will result in the rendition of the settlement into a final order by the hearing
examiner.
This Settlement Agreement is not final nor shall be deemed accepted until approved by
the Broward County Board of County Commissioners. Respondent acknowledges that this
has been verbally explained and that this document is a proposal that is final only upon
acceptance by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners.
Page4 of 7
WP-0383
MAOS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NOTICES OF VIOLATION NO.: 01-30758, 01-30759,
( ' 01-30760, 01-30769, 01-30770, 01-30771, 01-30772, 01-30773, & 01-0003
RESPONDENT: SUN RECYCLING, LLC d/b/a SUN .RECYCLING, LLC #1, SUN
The parties acknowledge that they have had the opportunity to seek and receive whatever
competent advice and counsel as was necessary for them to form a full and complete
understanding of all rights and obligations herein. The language agreed to expresses their
mutual intent and the resulting document shall not, solely as a matter of judicial
construction, be construed more severely against one of the parties than the other
because of such party's preparation of this Agreement
DO NOT send payment until you have received notice of this agreement being
finalized. When finalized, make check payable to Broward County Board of County
Commissioners. Mail to Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental
Protection, 218 SW 1 stAvenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, A TIN: Collections Department.
[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.]
Page 5 of 7
WP-0384
MAOS
01-30760, 01-30769, 01-30770, 01-30771, 01-30772, 01-30773, & 01-0003
RECYCLING, llC #2, & SUN RECYCLING, llC #3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT -SUN RECYCLING, llC
By: s
/
(Signature) -
Print Name: Cb&,-/.c t Gc.-saUfNc:
Title:
Print or Type Name
Company:
LLc_

(Signature}
Agreed to day of 2002.
_Lfl f2o .LE@cl--7'-r-..
Print or Type Name -
(CORPORATE SEAL)
STATE OF Rorie{" )
a ( ) SS.
COUNTY OF Uf71 t\)6...-fY )
(Seal)
My commission expires:
Page6 of 7
WP-0385
MAOS
\ , ..
01-30760, 01-30769, 01-30770, 01-30n1, 01-30772, 01-3on3, & o1-aoo3
COUNTY
Approved for Legal Sufficiency:
Prepared by:
Ca.ndd0?
Catherine Bramlage
Enforcement Administration
DONE AND EXECUTED this \SU\ day of 2002.
FOR AND BY DIRECTION OF BROWARD
DIANA WASSERMANRUBIN
y,

Page 7 of 7
WP-0386
MAOS
(
ADACHMENTA
Sun Recycling, LLC-
NOVs # 01-30758, 01-30759, 01-30760, 01-30769, 01-30770, 01-30771,
01-30772,01-30773,01-0003
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Pymt Due Beginning
Pymt# Date Balance Payment Principal Interest
1 $80000.00 $13 735.13 $13 001.80 $733.33
.2 $66998.20 $13 735.13 $13,179.04 $556.09
3 $53,819.16 $13,735.13 $13,288.43 $446.70
4 $40,530.73 $13,735.13 $13,398.72 $336.41
5 $27,132.00 $13,735.13 $13,509.93 $225.20
6 $13,622.07 $13.735.13 $13,622.07 $113.06
Totals $82,410.78 $80,000.00 $2,410.78
WP-0387
MAOS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ANO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Enforcement Adminis\ration
2:s S.W. 1st Avenue Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 g545191210 FAX 954-5HH493
MEMO
To: John Stagnari, Enforcement
From: Meredith Brannon, N R S II twfJ - ()
Subject: Case status Notice of Violation Nos. 01-30758, 01-30759, 01-30760,
01-30769, 01-30770, 01-30771, 01-30772, 01-30773 & NOV01-0003
Respondent: Sun Recycling, LLC d/b/a Sun Recycling, LLC #1, Sun
Recycling, LLC #2, & Sun Recycling, LLC #3
Date: January 16, 2003
Current status for the above referenced case is as follows:
1. _x. Payment has been received in full for penalty and costs and any
remediation and/or mitigation { if required ) has been completed. I therefore
recommend closure of the case.
2. Payment has been received in full for the penalty and cost. However,
remediation I mitigation required has not been completed. I therefore
recommend that the case be listed as "inactive" until project is completed.
3. The penalty and cost have not been paid. I therefore recommend this
case be transferred to "Collections" status.
4. The Notice of Violation request should be withdrawn for the following
reason: SEE ATTACHED MEMO.
5. The Notice of Violation should be rescinded for the following reason:
SEE ATTACHED MEMO.
6. The case was dismissed by the Hearing Examiner at the Administrative
Hearing conducted on .
7. Other:
Broward County Board of County Commissioners
JosephuS Eggelletion, Jr. Ben Graber Sue Gunzburger Kristin D. Jacobs Ilene Lieberman Lori Nance Parrish John E. Rodstrom, Jr. James A. Scott Diana Wasserman-Aubn
www.broward.org/dpep
MAOS
AMY J. GAUOWAY
Direct Dial: 954.760-4938
Email: ajgtrippscott.com
Via email and U.S. Mail: dboylan@wplg.com
David Boylan, Vice President, General Manager
WPLG- Channel 10
Post Newsweek Stations Florida, Inc.
3900 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33137
Via Federal Express:
John Ronayne, General Counsel
Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.
550 West Lafayette Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226
June 15, 2012
Re: Requestfor Retraction -LocatiO ("WPLG'') Investigative Reporter Bob Norman Stories
and Blog Publications concerning Sun- Bergeron Solid Waste Services, Sun Recycling,
LLC, and Southern Waste Systems, LLC and Offer to Confer
Dear Mssrs. Boylan and Ronayne:
By way of introduction, the undersigned law firm of Tripp Scott, P.A., joined by Bruce
Rogow, Esq. and Aleida Waldman, Esq., represent Joint Venture Partners, Bergeron
Environmental and Recycling, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and Sun Recycling,
LLC, ("Sun Recycling") a Florida limited liability company, doing business as Sun-Bergeron
Solid Waste Services ("Sun-Bergeron") JV, a Florida Joint Venture. The law firm of Tripp Scott
and Attorney Rogow also represent an affiliate of Sun Recycling, Southern Waste Systems, LLC,
("SWS") a Florida limited liability company. SWS, Sun Recycling and Sun Bergeron shall be
referred to collectively as Companies, unless otherwise designated.
This letter shall serve as notice and request for retraction pursuant to Fla. Stat. 770.01
on behalf of all of the above identified companies arising from the television and blog
publications by WPGL investigative reporter Bob Norman, as more specifically identified and
addressed below. This letter shall further serve as an offer to confer with the Officers or their
641086v2 993021.0015
110 Southeast Sixth Street, Fifteenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Post Office Box 14245 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
Tel 954.525.7500 Fax 954.761.8475 www.trippscott.com
Fort Lauderdale Tallahassee
MAOS
designated representatives of Post Newsweek Stations Florida, Inc. and/or Post Newsweek
Stations, Inc. (collectively "Post Newsweek") with respect to the underlying factual basis of the
subject publications.
The publications that are the subject of the request for retraction and the false and
defamatory statements and representations are summarized herein:
1. June 13,2012 WPLG story and blog publication:
a)
b)
c)
641086v2 993021.0015
The story falsely attributes the reported actions to "the company now
known as" Sun-Bergeron and falsely states that "Sun Recycle is now
part of Sun Bergeron." The "story" is, in fact, a re-hash of old
allegations about SWS and Sun Recycling arising from a Notice of
Violation that was issued to SWS and Sun Recycling for delivery of
unpermitted screened fill to a construction site, which violations were
fully and cooperatively resolved by SWS and Sun Recycling under the
oversight of the Broward County DEP back in 2001. The Sun-
Bergeron joint venture did not begin doing business until
approximately June of 2011 and was formed to actively pursue
business opportunities as a joint venture. Sun-Bergeron was not
involved in any of the alleged activity or circumstances reported on by
WPLG.
Reliance upon and publication of the statements of Ahron Farache
("Farache"), described in the story as a "former company insider"
claiming that a government coordinated removal of unpermitted
screened fill at the Treasure Cove development was not actually
performed. Both the Broward County DEP records that Bob Norman
claims he reviewed [and is filmed as "reviewing"] and the responses
provided by SWS and Sun Recycling establish that Farache's
statement was not true and Farache was not credible. Notwithstanding,
WPLG published and relied upon that falsehood in knowing or
reckless disregard of the truth. See, previously provided May 3, 2012
response which references to both public records and sworn testimony
of the County official who supervised the remediation.
Despite the statements of the FlU Chemistry Professor interviewed by
Bob Norman that the "testing" done by Norman was "far from
definitive" and that comprehensive testing would be required, Norman
is reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of his statements, then
approaches both public officials in the Dania Beach municipality
where the Companies have business interests and residents of the
Treasure Cove development asking whether they are aware
of/concerned about "high" levels of arsenic in their neighborhood.
Subsequent blog posts indicate that the readers/viewers believe there
2 of4
MAOS
The Washington Post Company prides itself on quality journalism and has a reputation
for tough but fair reporting of which the Company and its Shareholders can be proud. The
muckraking campaign of Bob Norman against the Companies is not reflective of the reputation
of the Washington Post, it is not quality journalism, it is not fair, and it is not accurate. It is the
Companies sincere desire for WPLG to appropriately investigate and publish accurate news
regarding Sun Bergeron and its joint venture partner, Sun Recycling. There is a great story to be
told here; about breaking up monopolies, saving the taxpayers millions in dollars, and
innovative, large-scale waste stream reductions and recycling. Unfortunately, it is not the story
that is being told. The Companies are willing to sit down with the Officers of the Post-
Newsweek and/or their representatives to discuss the underlying issues and provide relevant
information. On their behalf, undersigned counsel look forward to your response.
AJG/ksb
Enclosures
cc: Veronica Dillon, General Counsel
The Washington Post Company
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071
Via Federal Express
Bruce Rogow, Esq.
Very truly yours,
9#YJ cJ),_/y
Amy J. Galloway, Esq.
Via email at brogow@rogowlaw.com
Aleida Waldman, Esq.
Via email at aowpa@gsta.net
Phillip T. Medico, Jr.
Senior Vice-President
Sun-Bergeron
CT Corporation System
for Post-Newsweek Stations Florida, Inc.
1200 S. Pine Island Road
Plantation, FL 33323
641086v2 993021.0015 4 of4
MAOS
At the request of our clients, Sun Recycling and SWS (the "Companies"), the following is provided in response to the
questions sent by email and our follow up conversation of April 30.
1. (Question): Ahren Farache, a former partner in SouthemWaste/Sun Recycling who founded the company with
Anthony Lomangino, says that Sun Recycling routinely cheated on environmental tests for RSM. He specifically said
that he personally drove Phil Medico to Home Depot to get clean fill to use as a decoy in the tests. Has Sun
Recycling ever falsified or cheated on environmental tests?
Response:
This allegation is false. Mr. Medico denies that he ever drove to Home Depot or any other similar business with our
without Ahren Farache to buy fill for any purpose.
As a preliminary matter, the Companies object to the characterizations of the prior relationship with Ahren Farache.
Suffice to say, the Companies have parted ways with Mr. Farache and have been involved in litigation on a variety of
issues with Mr. Farache since that time. As to the allegation that matters have been reported to state and federal
authorities; to the Companies knowledge, they are not under any such investigation.
The Companies operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to regular and periodic testing, including testing for
its RSM distribution permits, as well as unscheduled and "spof' testing by regulatory authorities. All environmental testing
at the Companies facilities is conducted pursuant to strict protocols. Phil Medico does not conduct any of the regular or
periodic testing at the facilities. As part of the initial permit process for unrestricted RSM distribution, the Companies were
subject to a stringent testing regime over an approximate two-week period that was conducted by an independent
contractor and overseen by a licensed environmental engineer, which was then submitted to the various regulatory
agencies with jurisdiction for review and approval. None of the baseline sampling in that initial permitting process was
done internally.
2. (Question): Farache also said that Charles Gusmano falsified invoices to the Broward County and to the DEP
regarding where RSM shipments were going. Did Gusman a ever falsify invoices:
Response:
This allegation is not true and Mr. Farache has never been able to produce any evidence or proof of any such claim,
despite requests to do so in the course of litigation.
3. (Question): Farache said illegal dumping was common at SWS/Sun and that Gusmano and county public records
indicate SWS/Sun is the worst illegal dumper in Broward history with record fines. Farache says SWS/Sun made a
calculated decision to dump illegally because it made the company millions of dollars that would have gone to landfill
costs: and the fines were insignificant in comparison to the profits generated from illegal activity. Wasfis illegal
dumping a common part of business at SWS/Sun:
Response:
MAOS
635342v1 993021.0001
The Companies operate in a highly regulated industry and acknowledge that Notices of Violation ("NOV') have been
1ssued in the past. All NOVs have been promptly addressed and responsibly resolved.
In late 2006 and early 2007, Sun was notified by BCEPD and FDEP that RSM processed in two of its recycling facilities
did not meet regulatory standards due to size exceedencies. Some of that off-specification RSM had been delivered to
properties in Broward and Palm Beach County (approximately 25 sites). Sun immediately met with the regulators,
determined the cause of the problem at the facilities, corrected the problem and established sufficient controls at the
facilities and entered into a RSM Cleanup Plan with BCEPD, and that Cleanup Plan was fully executed. In the course of
this enforcement action, both BCEPD and the Companies had the off-specification RSM tested to assess potential health
and environmental risks. The results of that testing included analysis of RSM/soil samples collected by County
representatives, physical inspection and groundwater testing. No samples revealed contaminant levels above regulatory
standards. This testing was done by independent testing companies in accordance with strict protocols regarding chain
of custody and reporting obligations. The result was that there was no indication of health risks and the environmental
impact or threat was characterized as "minimal" or "minor", as reflected in the Hearing Officer's Final Order (Aug. 8, 2007).
In the two-part hearing to determine the reasonableness of the penalties recommended by EDP, the testimony
confirmed the issue with the off-specification RSM related to its size, which was a direct result of a broken Star screen
which allowed 3 to 4 inch material to pass.
As part of the enforcement action and its resolution, the Companies entered into a Joint Stipulation wherein they admitted
to the violations and the underlying cause: a lack of institutional controls which if in place could have prevented the
unauthorized distribution. In the Jo1nt Stipulation with BCEDP, the County stipulated that "The parties agree 1n law and
fact that Sun Recycling. LLC, its principals and employees never intentionally violated the law."
Two hearing were conducted as part of the enforcement action, both of which addressed only the penalties to be
assessed. In the final hearing, the issue addressed was whether and to what extent the Companies derived an
"economic benefif (a factor that can increase the penalty). The Hearing Officer ruled as a Conclusions of Law:
Respondent, Sun Recycling, LLC, is to be commended for its immediate and continuous cooperation with
EPGMD ("Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Departmenf') in remedying the
violations enumerated herein. Sun Recycling provides a valuable setvice to the community and has exemplified
impressive corporate citizenship in striving to bring these violations into compliance with Broward County
Code. Sun Recycling has spent a considerable amount of money on its cleanup efforts and has worked
diligently with County staff throughout the cleanup process.
The Hearing Officer confirmed that; "The parties agreed that Respondent never intentionally violated the law." (June 29,
2009).
4. (Question) Was the illegally dumped RSM at Treasure Cove ever cleaned up?
Response:
Page2
MAOS
635342v1 993021.0001
In the Treasure Cover matter, Sun Recycling was cited for receiving, depositing and utilizing recovered screen material
(RSM) from construction & demolition (C&D) debris processing prior to its having been tested and approved by Broward
County EDP for that use. Mr. Farache was the individual who supervised that facility at the time and sold the fill to the
developers of Treasure Cove. Upon notice of the violation, the Companies immediately cooperated with the BCEDP to
resolve the matter. That cooperation included split sampling testing at the site (samples were split and tested by BCEDP
and by an independent environmental engineer hired by the Compames); development of a County approved
remediation plan and full performance of that plan, which Included removal of the screened fill in all the locations
requested by the County and replacement with clean fill. Mr. Farache took part in every aspect of that corrective plan;
including attendance at on-site meetings with the County representatives and the environmental consultants;
development and submission of the remediation plan and supervision of the actual remediation. Mr. Farache also
attended the final meeting with the County where they approved the settlement and signed the final settlement document
which expressly stated that the remediation plan had been successfully completed!
The allegation that the remediation was not fully performed, i.e that the screened fill was not taken from the site), is
clearly not true. The County expressly found that the remediation had been performed and the County inspector, who
had approximately 20 years experience at the t1me of this investigation, testified he believed that the RSM material that
was supposed to be removed was removed and confirmed that the County would have required proof of that removal to
sign off.
5. (Question) Did SWS/Sun illegally dump RSM into the lake at the Dania Beach facility (Sun 3)? I have been provided
video that Farache says shows this illegal dumping occurring and have confirmed the County has fined SWS/Sun for
illegal dumping of RSM at the Dania facility.
Response:
The Companies unequivocally deny any illegal dumping mto the lake at the Dania Beach facility. This was a permitted
lake fill operation and clean fill was properly deposited into the "lake", which properly is characterized as a "borrow pif'.
6. You indicated that you have been learning about RSM and referenced to the issue of RSM's proper application. To
assist in your understanding of RSM and its beneficial purposes and uses, I am including some general information,
as well as several documents that may be of value to you.
The Florida legislature has adopted laws, specifically 403.707 (12)(g), Fla. Stat., that encourage facilities to recycle and to
use recycled materials such as RSM. As confirmed by the regulations in place, RSM is suitable and widely used for clean
fill in residential circumstances, as well as for many other commercial and industrial fill applications. RSM's use as a soil
product or soil amendment for residential or commercial fill, and its use as Alternate Intermediate Cover Material (ACIM)
in landfills is all supported by extensive sampling and analytical data which demonstrated the safety of this recycled,
reclaimed product. In the last few years, RSM has been successfully used by golf course developers in new and
Page3
MAOS
635342v1 993021.0001
renovated gold course communities across Florida wrth great success. The granting of licenses to the Companies and
the ongoing regulation of those licenses also involves regular testing and sampling, all done to regulatory muster. Dr.
Christopher Teaf, of Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research, Inc., is a toxicologist and expert on RSM
that the Companies have worked with in the past. I am enclosing some materials put together by Dr. Teaf regarding RSM
generally, the relevant 2011 Florida DEP guidance document (which updated similar 1998 guidance), and also materials
addressing the RSM enforcement action discussed above in Question 3. The Companies have also agreed that if you
need any further information regarding Dr. Teafs work or his research on RSM generally that they would agree to make
Dr. Teaf available to you in order to answer any questions you may have regarding RSM regulation, testing or potential
health hazards. I am also enclosing one of SWS's summary correspondences that address RSM and the 2006 and
2007 NOVs.
Enclosures: Guidelines for the Management of RSM from C&D Recycling Facilities in
Florida, Rev. No. 1 (April15, 2011); Contaminated Soils, Sediments and Water, Vol. 1, Ch.
24, pp. 366-360 (2006 Ed.); SWS Summary Correspondence; March 19, 20091etter from Dr.
Teaf
Page4
MAOS
Bro\llklt.O -"!iSM Violati.dn
It shlJt1 be .dvly th"Qt of r-e.gulotory rutes ond regultlo.fis. through {;IO
process are n6f unusual In the waste industry ar.1d a publlc recotd review of -all
providers would vdlfdate fnat.
sun: Recycllf:@. on etUlliote . of SGUtherrl Waste Systems Jt>rocesses con$1l'Octton and
demol!t!on most o.dvanced recycfing . .processes, the comor:tY is.ourrE(lntly
vp 't6 90$ oltfle they tr-lllnstf:JoniRg them into usable pr.oducts.
Thls !'EfC)1tt:liilg useful, moteria1 io the economy conserves our rescvr-ces-
londi.ilf. space. pne of usable products re.sultlng_ from fhls. pr:ocess is
recovered {RSM). RSM is the fine fraction derived from the recycfit'lg of
c&D and cansl.stS: primorif;y of soil and the small rnatt?r:idls that can pass ihrOl!gh a
e,,g. sf'r:l.Clll pieces of wood, concrete. drywoll or.o "$t.tlng!e.&. product rs
nol"' amq neutral. Sun Recyc:lln.g has been .mfi:u'l'ufdcturing and
distr:Jwttoo this pt<Jdtlct sihc& 1'9'99.
At the e.nd .e>f '$ufi Reoyclfng was notified by the Environment-al Protectron :ond Growth
Monage.r:nent -of Broword County. (BCEl?b) and the- Florida Department of
Prote\ttton that RSM processed in two of its const.rucflon af'J'd -demo1ition
raGy.dtng foGilfffas .did not meet regulatory standards for 'lac;k of proper -slle and
wos tq _p'roperl1es In Broward and PQim Beach Couhtlefs. The .SOlid waste and
ar:.e hecwlly Feg.ulot?d and therefore -it is not unusual fot O company such
as Svri-'to r.acelv.e of:tsdminls'tFafive YiofGtioJts r.eq!Jfr.lng corrective action. Of particular
concern four ims.tonces where the RSM hod deposited into fo.ctttions by
the P.ropertv svn met with per-sonnel from the FD.EP nnd I)CEPD or:td
determifled tho+ Q. fo!lure in tnsntutional controls caused tMe problems dl1d' Sun ogreed to
remove mcrlerlol. ftQffi 'those sites
Coosequ$l'ltly an-odmihisi-rafi);'.e hearing was held only't.O deter.mine any actrons to be taken.
The evfdence presented of the hearing included reguldtory personnel. tne prior
history of Sun over a sev-en year period of time and .On the favoroble environmental
effec;t-s <;:oused by S1Jns actiVities. The Order from the hearing coliefUded that the
potential horm to the environment was minor and Sun had at all times cooperated with the
eCEPb Qrrd FOEP.
As a SUn RecyCling LLC WQS charged by the Broword County Environmentol Protection
and Growth Monagement Deportment in case # 06-0033 et. at wlfh a non-inten1ional
violation of iow. Bo.th parties entered into a Joint Sfipulatron whereby Sun Recycling
odmltted to all the violations and the parties agreed that Sun never intentionally violated the
law. It was agreed that there was a lack of institutional controls within the compony thaf
could have prevented the violations. Sun sought an administrative hearing for the sole
purpose of deteFminiAg the amount of penalties to be accessed.
MAOS
Following said stipulation the County determined as follows:
Taken directly from the final order dated the 29th of June, 2009
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
A'Respondent, .Svn Recycling, lJ.C, is to be commended f.or its immediate and continuous
cooperation with the EPGMD in remedying the violations enumerated herein. Sun Recyclil'lg
provides. a valuable service to the community and has exemplified impressive corporate
.cifizen&hip in striving to Qring these Y.iolations into compliance with Brow.ard Counfy Csde
. Sun Recycling has spent a considerable amgunt of money on Its cleanup effQtfs and has
-worked diligently with County staff throughout the cleanup process. u
In conclusion
... As a result of fhe hearing the penalties that were issued to Sun were paid In full to
Broward County pri-or to the deqdline.
Broword County never revoked or denied Sun Recycling's operational permit, nor clid
it terminate any of its solid waste service contracts With Southern Waste Systems.
In lO years of oper.otion, this problem affected Jess than 1% of the annl..!al production
of RSM from Sun facilities. The company has operated continuously in Palm Beach and
Br:oword counties and neither county has ever revoked or denied an operational
permit..
The State of Florida encourages recycling and the use of recycled materials in a manner that
protect-s pubUc health end many counties use state guidelines to make local recyding
decisions. Florida DEP {1998) published ''Guidelines for the Management of Recovered
Screen Material from C&D Debris Recycling Facilities in Florida
11
, based on recognition thdt
RSM can be effectively and sa.fely managed, and that it meets agency health based criteria
set for the product. lt can be and is used as an appropriate and safe replacement for soil in
many fill applitoiiohs in Florida. The legislative and regulatory approval of this recycling
actMty is well established.
MAOS

Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research, Inc.
2976 Wellington Circle West
Tallaha!iSCC, Florida 32.'i09
Phone: (850) 681-6894
Fax: (850) 906-9777
e-mail: staff@hswmr.com
March 19,2009
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter prepared on behalf of Southern Waste Systems, LLC and Sun Recycling, LLC
("SWS/Sun"), is intended to explain the nature of Recovered Screen Material (RSM)
and its principal characteristics, as well as to clarify important details regarding a recent
situation which, in my opinion, has received undue attention.
I am a toxicologist with over 30 years of experience in Florida, other states, and
internationally concerning health risk evaluation from potential chemical exposures.
My experience is in areas of environmental and occupational risk evaluation, including
issues related to soil, water, air, and commercial/ industrial recycled materials. I have
worked with RSM on numerous projects since about 2004, and am familiar with the
composition, character, t.tses, and regulatory interpretation of this recycled product.
RSM, as the name accurately indicates, is a recycled, reclaimed product derived from
processing of Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris under controlled conditions.
RSM is produced by sequential sorting and screening of C&D material and associated
soil to remove larger fragments (e.g., stone, concrete, wallboard, metal, glass, wood).
Final RSM is the functional equivalent of soil, both in consistency and appearance.
The Florida Legislature, as articulated in Subparagraph 403.707(12)(g), Fla. Stat.,
encourages facilities to recycle and to use recycled materials such as RSM.
RSM is suitable and widely used for dean fill in residential circumstances, as well as for
many other commercial and industrial fill applications, pursuant to state regulations
(i.e., Subparagraph 62-701.730(13)(c), FAC) and by local licenses granted to SWS/Sun.
In addition to use as a soil product or soil amendment for residential or commercial fill,
RSM is suitable for use as Alternate Intem1ediate Cover Material (AICM) in landfl.lls.
The granting of licenses to SWS/Sun, and the subsequent widespread beneficial reuse
of RSM, is based on extensive sampling and analytical data which demonstrate the
safety of this recycled, reclaimed product. Historical baseline sampling of RSM,
coupled with ongoing regular sampling, demonstrates that RSM is environmentally
benign, based on its ability to meet established state and local health-based soil
guidelines. Site-specific soil investigations have demonstrated that concentrations of
substances of common environmental and human health interest (e.g., arsenic, lead) in
RSM often are less than naturally occurring levels in native soil. Similar work has
shown low levels of Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH), of a type with
negligible potential to affect human health or the environment.
Established 1985
MAOS
Florida encourages recycling and use of recycled materials in a manner that protects
public health, and many counties use state guidelines to make local recycling decisions.
Florida DEP (1998) published "Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material
from C&D Debris Recycli11g Facinties in Florida", based on recognition that RSM can be
effectively and safely managed, and that it meet'> agency health-based criteria set for the
product. There is significant history developed over 5 to 10 years by SWS/Sun and
other entities which demonstrates a valuable community service and negligible impact
from RSM which is recycled by controlled and regulated processing of C&D debris. It
can be and is used as an appropriate and safe replacement for soil in many fill and
landfill cover applications in Florida. The legislative and regulatory approval of this
recycling activity in Florida is well-established.
In 2007, properties were identified in Broward and Palm Beach counties where off-
specification RSM was used in some residential applications. That material was
considered to be off-spec as a result of oversized pieces of material generated due to
faulty screening equipment that subsequently was repaired. In the context of an
administrative complaint, I was asked to assess potential health risks posed by the RSM.
I observed soil-like material on-site that I described generally as RSM, along with visible
larger materials at the surface in some areas. The larger fragments were scattered and
were not evenly distributed across the surface. A good analogy is that the properties
typically looked like undeveloped lots on which soil and some miscellaneous small
debris had been spread. In some instances, I observed property owners already
beginning to incorporate RSM into or under existing landscaping. Analysis of
RSM/ soil samples collected by County representatives did not show metals or
petroleum hydrocarbons at levels of health concern. Similarly, groundwater samples
did not show concentrations of health concern. While fragment size and appearance
may have cosmetic or visual significance, the potential hazards are best assessed by
analytical data from samples of the material. The size issue itself is variable, with FDEP
and Broward County typically selecting values less than one inch, while other agencies
and organizations in the U.S. and abroad have selected limits over 1 inch up to as great
as 3 inches. Given the historical analytical data for RSM, my experience from similar
circumstances, my knowledge of the environmental and toxicological characteristics of
the substances at issue, as wel1 as mitigation agreements by SWS/Sun, it is my opinion
that the environmental impact or threat in these cases was "minimal". The issue was
addressed at an administrative levet not at a level suggesting health risks.
If you have additional questions, please call me at (850) 681-6894.
~ c Z ~ ; { ~
Christopher M. Teaf, Ph.D.
President & Director of Toxicology
/cmt
MAOS
GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
RECOVERED SCREEN MATERIAL FROM C&D
DEBRIS RECYCLING FACILITIES IN FLORIDA
Office of the Division of Waste Management
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Revision No.1
April15, 2011
Solid Waste Section
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 3 2 3 9 9 ~ 2 4 0 0
MAOS
April15, 2011
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this document is intended for guidance only. It is not a rule and
does not create standards or criteria that must be followed by the regulated community.
Compliance with this document does not relieve the owner or operator from any liability for
environmental damages caused by the use of the recovered screen material, nor does it relieve
the owner or operator from the responsibility of complying with the Department's rules or any
local government requirements. This document does not establish policies or precedents
applicable to other recycling or cleanup projects.
ii
MAOS
April15, 2011
PREFACE
This revision, Revision No. 1, makes two substantive changes to the guidance document
entitled Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C&D Debris Recycling
Facilities in Florida. Revision No. 1 incorporates the definition of recovered screen material that
was promulgated on January 1, 2010 in Chapter 62-701 of the Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.). The current revision has also been updated to conform to the Division of Waste
Management's most recent data quality assurance and quality control protocols.
The guidelines detailed herein only apply to recovered screen material generated at permitted
construction and demolition debris recycling facilities. These guidelines supersede the
guidelines issued on September 28,1998 and will be periodically reviewed by the Department
and revised as necessary to ensure recovered screen material is properly managed in Florida.
iii
MAOS
April15, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................................................................... ii
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 2
Data Quality Requirements ................................................................................................................ 3
Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 4
Baseline Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5
Potential Contaminants of Concern .............................................................................................. 6
Reporting and Approval Requirements ....................................................................................... 7
Routine Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 8
High Frequency Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 9
Low Frequency Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 9
OFF-SITE USE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 10
General Prohibitions and Best Management Practices ................................................................. 11
Special Beneficial Use ........................................................................................................................ 11
Residential Beneficial Use ................................................................................................................. 12
Other Beneficial Use .......................................................................................................................... 12
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 13
iv
MAOS
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
Debris Recycling Facilities in Florida
April15, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling facilities produce soil-like fines known in
Florida as recovered screen material (RSM). The RSM is commonly generated using screening
equipment to separate the fines from larger pieces of debris. The larger debris is then sorted
and processed for recycling or disposal. New markets began to emerge in Florida for
processed RSM in the years following Hurricane Andrew due to the inordinate quantities of
C&D debris that was generated during the storm. In 1996 the Florida Legislature also enacted
403.707(9)(g) Florida Statutes (F.S.), which contained language directing the Department to
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."
By direction given under 403.707(9)(g), F.S. the Department convened a workgroup of
experts, regulators, industry professionals and concerned citizens. This "RSM Workgroup" was
tasked with a three-fold mission: (a) compile available information on the environmental and
health risks associated with RSM use, and initiate new investigation where needed to fill in
gaps in knowledge; (b) establish field sampling and analysis protocols to ensure that any
underlying chemical constituents present in RSM are accurately measured; and (c) identify off-
site uses for RSM that are compatible with the levels of measured underlying chemical
constituents.
The RSM Workgroup's finding were submitted to the Department for review in 1996, and later
published in final form in 1998 (Townsend et al.). The Department subsequently issued
guidelines for the management of recovered screen material from C&D debris recycling
facilities in Florida based on the workgroup's findings (FDEP, 1998). The guidelines contained
a detailed and multi-tiered analysis, monitoring and reporting scheme that was designed to
ensure RSM was used in a safe manner. For example, RSM could only be used in a residential
setting if the concentration of each regulated chemical constituent was below the most
Page 1 of13
MAOS
Florida Deparhnent of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
protective human health exposure levels and leaching tests did not indicate any likelihood for
adverse impacts to ground water.
There are a number of means routinely used by Department to actively monitor the RSM
generating industry. Beneficial use proposals for processed RSM are evaluated by staff
scientists and engineers. Specific conditions based on these guidelines for RSM use are
incorporated into C&D processing facility permits. The facility owner or operator is thus
required by permit to demonstrate that their RSM is managed and used in a manner that poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment. Finally, the Department updates
solid waste rules as the industry develops and as the science progresses for evaluating risks
associated with solid waste recycling. Most recently, in January 2010, a new definition for RSM
was promulgated in Rule 62-701.200(73) F.A.C.
11
Recovered screen material
11
means the fines fraction, consisting of soil and other small
materials, derived from the processing or recycling of construction and demolition debris which
passes through a final screen size no greater than % of an inch.
The new definition restricts the maximum screen size opening, which serves to place an upper
bounds limit on the size of the RSM. This limitation is necessary to ensure that larger-sized
engineered materials such as asphalt roofing, foam insulation, m ~ t a l and plastic are excluded
from the RSM stream.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The sampling and analysis requirements detailed in this section provide a scientifically sound
methodology for the RSM generator to use to demonstrate that their RSM is appropriate for its
intended beneficial use. C&D processors may request to use an alternative procedure when
operating conditions at the facility necessitate such actions. The Department will approve such
Page2of13
MAOS
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recauered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
requests on a case-by-case basis if a reasonable justification is provided. Only procedures that
conform to the data quality requirements of this section will be considered. Consideration will
also be given to alternative procedures that make use of the statistics-based methods
enumerated in Chapter Nine of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Document No. SW-846 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1992).
Data Quality Requirements
The Department's most recent standard operating procedures (SOPs), DEP-SOP-
001/01 must be followed when collecting field samples of RSM (FDEP, 2008). The
Department's SOPs are available for download at the following web address:
http:/ /www.dep.state.fl.us/ water /sas/sop/sops.htm
Laboratory analyses must be performed by laboratories certified by the Department
of Health and accredited under the National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Program.
Laboratory data must be generated using methods with detection limits at the
lowest level that can be reliably measured during routine laboratory operating
conditions within specified limits of precision and accuracy. If the detection limit is
above the Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs) and Soil Oeanup Target
Levels (SCTLs) listed in Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. (FDEP, 2005) an explanation must be
submitted to the Department explaining why the detection limit was elevated.
Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. is available for download at the following web address:
http:/ /www.dep.state.fl.us/ waste/quick topics/rules/ default.htm
'
Laboratory data must be submitted to the Department as an electronic data deliverable,
in electronic format that is consistent with the requirements for importing data into the
Department's database. Electronic data deliverable guidance is available at the
following web address:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/shw/pages/ADaPT.htm
Page3 of13
MAOS
De/Jris Recycling Facilities in Florida
April15, 2011
Environmental data must be processed, verified and validated using the Automated
Data Processing Tool (ADaPT) software. The ADaPT software is available for
download, at no cost, at the following web address:
http:/ /www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/shw /pages/ADaPT.htm
Uncertainties and variability within the environmental data set should be calculated
using the FL-UCL tool. The FL-UCL tool is available for download, at no cost, at
the following web address:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/wc/pages/ProgramTechnicaiSupport.htm
For more information about the Department's minimum sampling and analysis requirements
see the quality assurance expectations detailed in the Department's quality assurance
regulations contained in Chapter 62-160 F.A.C. (FDEP, 2008).
Sampling Procedure
This subsection describes the proper procedure for collecting an 8-hour composite sample.
These sampling procedures apply to the initial baseline analysis conducted prior to beneficial
use of RSM and also to the routine sampling conducted during the course of standard RSM
generation. The 8-hour composite sample is the sample collection type that must be used to
measure the average properties of the RSM. The C&D processor is responsible for taking all
necessary steps to avoid errors during sample collection. The processor must carefully plan the
sampling events, and follow the most recent SOPs cited in Chapter 62-160 F.A.C.S Care must
be taken to ensure that each individualS-hour composite sample consists of separate
subsamples collected at one hour intervals during the eight hour period. The sampling
protocols detailed in this subsection apply to RSM collected directly from the conveyor belt or
from the pile that forms in the direct proximity of the conveyor belt discharge. The procedures
are as follows:
Page4of13
MAOS
Florida Department a/Environmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
Collect, store, composite and ship each subsample in accordance with the
instructions detailed in SOP General Sampling Procedures, FS 1000 (FDEP, 2008).
Collect volatile organic and volatile inorganic subsamples before other constituent
types.
Prepare the 8-hour composite sample from 8 subsamples collected at 60 minute
intervals. At each 60 minute interval, collect a subsample of undisturbed RSM.
If subsamples are collected directly from the RSM conveyor belt, collect each
subsample from the entire width and depth of the conveyor at a fixed point.
If subsamples are collected from the fresh RSM pile, the sampling location is
midway up the vertical height of the pile at a surface depth of approximately 6 to 12
inches into the RSM.
Collect sufficient volume of subsample to fill the pre-cleaned subsample container.
After eight subsamples are collected, combine the subsamples directly in the
composite sample container with no pre-mixing. Notify the laboratory that the
sample is an unmixed composite sample, and request that the laboratory thoroughly
mix the sample before sample preparation or analysis.
Baseline Analysis
Baseline analysis refers to the initial characterization of RSM that must be performed when the
C&D processor is seeking a beneficial use determination. The Department may approve the
beneficial use of RSM only after the C&D processor conducts a baseline chemical analysis on a
representative population of RSM sampled from the processor's waste stream. The
overarching goal of the baseline analysis is to identify trace constituents present at
concentrations exceeding human health toxicity criteria. If elevated trace constituents are
identified, they will be placed on a list of contaminants of concern (COC) for targeted routine
monitoring. The results of baseline testing will be one critical factor used by the Department
when approving RSM beneficial use applications.
Page5of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
Baseline analysis must be repeated whenever operational changes are implemented at the
facility, or whenever there is a change to the composition of the waste stream, and if such
changes could be expected to adversely impact the quality of processed RSM. For example, a
new baseline test must be performed whenever the generator's service area expands such that
new waste streams are processed at the facility.
Potential Contaminants of Concern
The groups of chemicals listed in Table 1 are the potential contaminants of concern that require
laboratory analysis in order to establish tl}e baseline contaminant of concern list.
Tablet
Recommended analytical methods for totals analysis of potential contaminants of concern
Class of trace contaminant EPA Methods for Analysis t
RCRA metals {As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag) US EPA SW-846 Method 6010, 7471*
Volatile organic compounds US EPA SW-846 Method 8260
Semi-volatile organic compounds US EPA SW-846 Method 8270
Pesticides US EPA SW -846 Method 8081
tAiternative analytical methods must have equivalent or better sensitivity and selectivity.
*Mercury is analyzed following Method 7471.
To establish baseline conditions the processor must prepare a minimum of 14, 8-hour
composite RSM samples collected over a time period of 7 to 14 days. The processor's sampling
team must adhere to the data quality requirements and sampling procedures detailed herein.
Pre-approval must be obtained from the Department if the processor wishes to sample
according to an alternative procedure. The analytical laboratory must be instructed to measure
the total concentration of each constituent identified in Table 1. The analytical laboratory must
also be instructed to prepare a leachate extract from each composite RSM sample following the
Page6of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), EPA Method 1312. Subsequently, a totals
analysis for the Table 1 constituents must be performed on the SPLP extract.
The COC list is populated by comparing the 95% upper confidence level (UCL) of the mean
concentration of each potential contaminant of concern against the respective cleanup-target
level published in Table I or Table II of Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. (FDEP, 2005). The total
concentration is compared with the direct exposure criteria listed in the SCTL table of 62-777
F.A.C. In this way the risk to human health associated with direct exposure to RSM is assessed.
The total concentration of each measured chemical constituent present in the SPLP extract
must be compared with the groundwater criteria listed in the GCTL table to assess risk of
groundwater contamination associated with land application scenarios. If fewer than ten
observed values for a particular constituent are above the detection limit then use the highest
value measured above the detection limit for comparison with the cleanup target levels.*
Otherwise, the 95% UCL of the mean must be used for comparison with the clean up target
levels.
Reporting and Approval Requirements
Before the Department will issue a beneficial use determination the C&D Processor must
submit a complete report of all findings to their regional district office and the Solid Waste
Section in Tallahassee. The processor's RSM is not authorized for sale or beneficial use until
the Department provides written approval. The Department's approval letter will detail the
list of COCs that require routine monitoring. The report must be submitted in an electronic
format consistent with the Department's requirements. A complete report includes the
following specific items:
* The FL UCL tool will not make recommendations if the data set is too small or if there are too many values
below detection limit. For example, if 14 samples are collected during the baseline analysis then the FL UCL tool
requires no more than four observations be below detection limit for a particular constituent in order to return a
recommended value for the 95 % UCL of the mean.
Page7of13
MAOS
Florit:Uz Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Reccwered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
A cover letter providing a brief description of the requested use of the RSM and
sampling results indicating all detections that exceed cleanup target levels.
Tabulated summary of the measured chemical concentration for each constituent.
The table must include the maximum detected concentration or the 95% UCL of the
mean concentration for each constituent, as determined above, and a list of the
applicable direct exposure criteria and groundwater criteria from the SCTL and GCTL
tables for comparison.
ADaPT compatible laboratory electronic data deliverables.
Complete set of data reports generated by the laboratory with the results of all
testing and quality control analyses.
Routine Monitoring
Routine monitoring is performed in order to measure drift in the quality of RSM away from
baseline conditions. The routine monitoring gives the processor, Department and end-user
assurance that the approved offsite use scenario is appropriate for the level of contamination
>
present. After one year the C&D processor may request a reduction in the number of sampling
parameters and the sampling frequency, but only if the monitoring results demonstrate that
stability in RSM quality has been achieved. The Department will evaluate this request
primarily based on the results of the data collected during the high and low frequency routine
monitoring events. Any reduction in the monitoring requirements is conditional upon the
processor repeating the baseline analysis if changes are implemented to the waste processing
operations or waste stream in a manner that may adversely impact the quality of the RSM.
The rest of this section describes the procedure for collecting and reporting routine monitoring
data. The requirements are provided to aid in developing specific permit conditions for those
facilities intending to produce RSM for beneficial reuse. At a minimum, one 8-hour composite
Page8of13
MAOS
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines far the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
sample is collected during each routine monitoring event following the procedures detailed in
the Sampling Procedure section of this guidance.
High Frequency Monitoring
High frequency monitoring must be conducted once each week or when 1,000 tons of RSM is
generated, whichever is less frequent. The laboratory must be instructed to measure the total
concentration of arsenic and each constituent present on the COC list. The laboratory may be
instructed to randomly select four aliquots from the composite sample and initially analyze
only one while holding the remaining aliquots in storage pending the results. If the
concentration of any constituent is found to exceed its corresponding SCTL then the remaining
three aliquots should be analyzed.
Low Frequency Monitoring
Low frequency monitoring must be conducted once every three months or when 10,000 tons of
RSM is generated, whichever is less frequent. The laboratory must be instructed to measure
the total concentration of arsenic, lead, chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, nickel and any
other COC list constituent identified during baseline analysis. One aliquot of extract must also
be prepared using the SPLP method followed by analysis of the extract for the full suite of
VOCs, semi-VOCs, and any other COCs identified during basefule sampling.
The Department must be notified within 24 hours if any routine monitoring result indicates
that the RSM contains or leaches a COC in excess of the applicable SCTL (use the
industrial/ commercial SCTL unless the RSM is used in a residential area) or GCTL. The
Page9of13
MAOS
Apri/15, 2011
processor may continue to sell or use the RSM until the Department provides notification to
cease and desist.
Once each quarter the processor must submit the results of each high and low frequency
monitoring event to their regional district office and the Solid Waste Section in Tallahassee.
The report must be submitted within 30 days of completing the quarterly monitoring event.
The report must be submitted in an electronic format consistent with the Department's
requirements. A complete report includes the following specific items:
A cover letter providing a brief description of results indicating all detections that
exceed cleanup target levels.
The table must include a list of the applicable direct exposure criteria and groundwater
criteria from the SCTL and GCTL tables for comparison.
OFF-SITE USE REQUIREMENTS
In all instances written approval from the Department must be granted to the C&D processor
before the RSM may be beneficially used or used off-site. The approval will be
based upon the results of the baseline testing and routine monitoring. The facility must
continue conducting routine monitoring as described in the SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
section.
Page 10of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
General Prohibitions and Best Management Practices
Experience has shown that the land application of RSM may potentially lead to violations of
the Department's secondary ground water standards for total dissolved solids and sulfate if
the gypsum wallboard fraction in the processed RSM is too high. The disposal of gypsum
wallboard in a high moisture environment under anaerobic conditions can also lead to the
generation of objectionable odors. Therefore, as a best management practice the C&D
processor must remove gypsum wallboard as much as practical from the C&D debris before
the waste stream is processed. In general, RSM may not be used as fill material in surface
waters or wetlands unless a permit specifically authorizing these uses has been issued by the
Department.
Special Beneficial Use
Use of RSM is allowed under the following special conditions with written approval from the
Department. Weekly monitoring may be discontinued if all RSM produced by the facility is
used in the manner detailed below:
Recovered screen material may be used at a permitted Class I or III landfill as
subsurface construction material, or as initial and intermediate cover provided it
also meets the criteria of Rule 62-701.200(53) and (55) F.A.C. (FDEP, 2010). Use as
initial and intermediate cover may require approval by the Department as part of
the landfill permit.
Recovered screen material may be used with encapsulation technologies, for
example, as part of the aggregate feed in the production of concrete or asphalt,
provided the applicant can demonstrate the proposed use will not result in
violations of the Department's ground water standards or criteria.
Page 11 of13
MAOS
Florida Department ofEnvirrmmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
Residential Beneficial Use
Written approval from the Department must be granted to the RSM processing facility before
the RSM may be installed in the residential setting. The Department's approval will be based
upon the results of the baseline testing and routine monitoring. The Department's approval
letter will detail the list of COCs that require routine monitoring.
Residential use of RSM is allowed under the following conditions:
The 95% UCL of the mean for each contaminant of concern is below its respective
residential SCTL.
The leaching tests and other characterization data do not indicate that the use of the
RSM will result in violations of the Department's ground water standards or criteria.
Other Beneficial Use
Permission may be granted for RSM to be used in other applications on a case-by-case basis
provided the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not pose a significant risk
to human health or the environment. The Department may require institutional controls, such
as property deed restrictions or permanent access controls, depending on the proposed use of
theRSM.
Page 12 of13
MAOS
Florida Department of Enuironmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
REFERENCES
Townsend T.G., Jang Y, LeeS, Leo K, Messick B, Tolymat T, Weber W. Characterization of
Recovered Screened Material from C&D Recycling Facilities in Florida. A final report
prepared for the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (Report No
98-13), Tallahassee, FL: 1998.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Guidelines for the Management of
Recovered Screen Material from C&D Debris Recycling Facilities in Florida, Solid Waste
Section, Tallahassee, FL: 1998.
Florida Administrative Code. Solid Waste Management Facilities, (Chapter 62-701), Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL: 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
(USEPA SW-846) 2nd Ed, Washington, D.C. Office of Solid Waste, 1992.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Standard Operating Procedures for
Laboratory Operations and Sample Collection Activities, (DEP-QA-001/2008) Quality
Assurance Section, Tallahassee, FL: 2008.
Florida Administrative Code. Contaminant Cleanup Target Levels, (Chapter 62-777), Florida
Florida Administrative Code. Quality Assurance, (Chapter 62-160), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL: 2008.
Page 13of13
MAOS
Contaminated Soils, Sediments and Water
Volume 11, Chapter 24, pp. 366-360
2006
Chapter 24
BENEFICIAL USE OF C&D RECOVERED
SCREEN MATERIAL IN RESIDENTIAL
APPLICATIONS: A CASE STUDY
Brenda S. Clark', Philip T. Medico
2
, Frank J. Bennudei, Myles Clewner
1
,
Richard G. Wilkins\ R. Marie Coleman
4
, and Christopher M. Teafs
1
Globex Engineermg & Development. Inc .. 1239 E. Newport Center Dr .. Sulle 1/7, Deer:field
Beach, FL, 33442;
1
Sun Recycling, LLC, 3251 SW 26th Terrace, Dania Beach, FL, 33312;
JBroward County Enwronmenta/ Protec/ron Department, 218 S.W. 1 > ~ Avenue, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL 33301;
4
Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research, Inc., 2976
Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32309;
5
Center for Biomedrcal & Toxicologtcal Research,
Flonda State Umv., 2035 Drrac Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32310
Abstract: Florida has established guidelines to encourage recycling and use of recycled
materials in a manner protecting public health and the environment.
Recovered screened material (RSM) generated at a construction and
demolition (C&D) debris recovery facility is a recycled material with reuse
potential. In order to reuse RSM, it must be shown that the material poses no
significant threat to public health or the enVJronrm:nt. The Sun Recycling
facilities in Broward and Palm Beach counties are C&D facilities, generating
RSM (i.e., soli with wood, concrete, other C&D particles) through mechanical
separatiOn using screens The process generates RSM meeting state
requirements for industrial, commercial, and residential use. RSM was used
on residential lots in Miramar to elevate low areas (excluding building pads)
In accord with Broward County Environmental Protection Department (EPD)
and Palm Beach County Department of Health (DOH) permits, Sun facilities
perform regular testing of RSM. RSM tests showed arsenic (As)
concentrations below state criteria. Quarterly testing did not detect volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), or
pesticides. RSM was delivered to homesites and mixed with existing site soil.
To address concerns raised by some residents, Miramar hired a consultant to
collect samples for arsenic and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
(TRPH), resulting m reports of some As levels above residential criteria
Further samphnglanalysis of RSM and local soils in the neighborhood were
performed by Broward EPD and Sun. Results of As and speciated TRPH
.Ln i/ uJ
MAOS
356 Contaminated Soils- Site Assessment
analysis perfonned by the Miramar, Broward EPD, and Sun will be discussed.
A consensus conclusion of acceptable conditions was reached by all parties.
Key words: Recycling, RSM, arsenic, TRPH, C&D, public health, soil, residential
1. INTRODUCTION
Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris processing facilities generate,
among other recyclable products, a soil-like material which is the result of
multiple sorting and screening operations. This Recovered Screen Material
(RSM) consists primarily of soil particles and other materials that can pass
through a small screen (e.g., wood, rock, drywall, concrete). Florida Statutes
articulate the clear intent of the legislature to encourage recycling and use of
recycled materials, so long as that recycling process is conducted in a
manner that protects public health and the environment. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has established specific
criteria and guidelines for the use and reuse of RSM under the auspices of
the solid waste management rule and associated guidance documents (e.g.,
FDEP, 1998). The FDEP guidance defines requirements for the following:
sampling and analytical testing of RSM, establishment of use restrictions .
(e.g., residential, commercial/industrial), and explicit criteria for RSM
management.
This paper describes a successful case study involving the use of RSM in
a residential application in Broward County, Florida, including important
aspects of site characterization, regulatory oversight, citizen concerns, public
dialogue, and ultimately a demonstration of safe and proper use of the RSM
product.
2. CASE STUDY DETAILS
As a part of the initial permitting process with local and state regulatory
agencies, RSM from a variety of batches at one C&D processing facility was
sampled over a period of weeks and months to develop a profile regarding
the chemical quality of the product, as well as its variability. Many samples
were collected and analyzed for metals, volatile organic compounds {VOCs),
semivolatile compounds (SVOCs), and pesticides. Throughout the initial
characterization period, the RSM samples failed to show exceedances
beyond state soil criteria in any of these categories. This demonstration of
acceptable RSM for future use is related to the sequence of the processing
elements at the facility and to the fact that it does not accept any materials
MAOS
FIELD INVESTIGATION OF PAHS IN SOILS AROUND NARA... 357
tbaf contain potentially hazardous substances (e.g., hazardous waste,
batteries, tires, oil, drums, asbestos, or garbage).
In addition to the initial pre-permit RSM characterization, routine testing
was conducted at the C&D processing facility on a weekly/quarterly basis
for a variety of parameters to document ongoing permit compliance for
unrestricted uses ofthe RSM (e.g., residential).
This case study focuses on a several month period in 2004 when, due to
periodic flooding of low-lying properties, a number of homeowners in
Miramar, a small Broward County municipality, elected to have RSM placed
on their lots as fill material. Prior to placement of the RSM, sites were
cleared of vegetation and "demucked" to remove the highly organic surface
layer. Following RSM placement, the muck and soil were mixed with RSM,
and the areas were regraded and seeded.
3. ~ S l T I L T S
Following the application of RSM to approximately 60 properties in one
subdivision neighborhood in Miramar, several property owners complained
to the City, and the City staff collected unannounced samples of what were
believed to be lots where soil and RSM had been mixed and graded. The
RSM was used to raise the elevation of the lots to address historical flooding
concerns.
Following analysis of those samples a number of statements were
publicized in the news media with regard to the "elevated concentrations of
arsenic and Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH)" in those
samples. In the simplest interpretation, the maximum arsenic concentration
(3.2 mg/kg) and maximum TRPH concentrations (680 mglkg) in City
samples were in excess of FDEP default residential Soil Cleanup target
levels (SCTLs) of2.1 mg/kg (arsenic) and 460 mg/kg (TRPH), respectively.
Principal concerns were raised about the potential hazards posed by the
observed concentrations. These complaints resulted in the City placing a
moratorium on further use of RSM, which initiated a several-months-long
process of resampling, assessment of background, naturally occurring soil
concentrations of arsenic, as well as a series of risk assessment steps which
sought to place the observed concentrations into appropriate perspective for
the City and for the residents.
MAOS
358 Contaminated Site Assessment
Table I Florida SCTLs for Individual TRPH Fractions
TRPH Fraction
SCfL (ma/k2)
Residential Industrial Leachability
CsC1 Aromatic 340 1800 34
Aromatic 490 3700 59
>Cs-Cto Aromatic 460 2700 340
>CwC12 Aromatic 900 5900 520

Aromatic 1500 12000 1000

Aromatic 1300 11000 3200

Aromatic 2300 40000 25000
Cs-C6 Aliphatic 6200 33000 470
>4-Cs Aliphatic 8700 46000 1300
>CaC,o Aliphatic 850 4800 7000
>CwC12 Aliphatic 1700 10000 51000
>C,rCI6 Aliphatic 2900 21000
Aliphatic 42000 280000

Based on the acceptable concentration ofSOOO J.LgiL for groundwater and surfuce waters.
* Not a health concern for this exposure scenario.
SCTI.. =Soil Cleanup Target Level.
Followup sampling and analysis were conducted by Broward County
Department of Planning & Environmental Protection (DPEP), which now is
known as the Environmental Protection Department. Samples for assessing
RSM concentrations were selected from lots where RSM was applied and
mixed with soil. In addition, a number of unimpacted surface soil samples
were collected by Broward DPEP staff, in order to establish surface soil
background arsenic concentrations.
For arsenic, the three (3) City samples of RSM/soils showed 2.9 to 3.2
mg/kg, which is quite consistent with known background concentrations in
many southeast Florida soils. In comparison, the six (6) samples collected
by County staff showed arsenic at 2.31 to 2.95 mglkg, values quite similar to
the City samples. The FDEP default SCTL for arsenic in unrestricted
circumstances is 2.1 mglkg. In addition to the RSM/soil samples, County
staff collected five (5) samples for assessment of background (i.e., naturally
occurring) arsenic in soils. Those data showed a background range of3.37
to 13 mg!kg (average 6.9 mg!kg), compared with U.S. Public Health Service
estimates of 5 mglkg as a U.S. average, while U.S. EPA estimates 3 mglkg
for Florida as a statewide average. A more recent University of Florida
study conducted for FDEP concluded that the general background arsenic
concentration was 6.6 mglkg, and was on the order of 12 mg/kg for Broward
County. Thus, it clearly was demonstrated that arsenic in the RSM!soil
samples was not elevated as a result of the use of RSM. These
MAOS
determinations were reached during consultation between the toxicologist
retained by the C&D facility, the toxicologist retained by the City of
Miramar, County staff, and City staff.
For TRPH, the issue is much more complex, since there are both
background considerations for TRPH, as well as differential toxicity of
various hydrocarbon molecular weight fractions. The state, FDEP, has
established 13 categories of petroleum hydrocarbon toxicity consistent with
the classifications of the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working
Group (TPHCWG, I 997), as shown in Table I. It frequently proves useful,
as in this case, to conduct more sophisticated analyses on the TRPH group,
in order to determine which fractions are most dominant. For example,
weathered or high molecular weight hydrocarbons exhibit very limited
toxicity (residential SCTL 42,000 mglkg for 16 to 35 carbons), while lighter
molecular weight, more volatile hydrocarbons exhibit greater toxicity
(residential SCTL 340 mglkg for 5 to 7 carbons). City samples showed
TRPH in RSM/soil samples at 250 to 680 mg/kg, while County samples
exhibited 486 to 2,8 I 0 mglkg. Further, the County samples from
background locations exhibited 449 to 727 mg/kg TRPH, leading to a
conclusion that City results were due to naturally occurring background,
rather than RSM "contamination". Nevertheless, fraction-specific TRPH
analysis by the County demonstrated that essentially all of the TRPH was in
the high molecular weight, very low toxicity category and, thus, did not
represent a threat to public health.
Groundwater sampling did not show elevated concentrations of either
arsenic or TRPH components. Thus, the investigations and regulatory
decisions focused on potential soil impacts.
Following the collection and interpretation of the newer analytical data
for the site, several meetings were held among County staff, City staff and
scientific consultants to discuss appropriate responses. While there was a
consensus that the comprehensive data set did not indicate a human health or
ecological problem, a constructive decision was made to hold a public
meeting to present the data in an open forum and to respond to citizen
concerns and questions. At this meeting, brief presentations were made by
County and City representatives both of a scientific nature and an
administrative nature, given some questions about the need for permits to
apply RSM as fill material. The meeting concluded amicably, and no
restrictions remain on the use ofRSM on residential lots in Broward County,
with the exception of ongoing mandatory monitoring protocols to ensure the
consistent composition of the RSM.
MAOS
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Residual Screen Material _ (RSM) from Construction & Demolition
(C&D) debris processing operations, when properly sampled, characterized,
and installed, can be suitable in mixed or unmixed condition for use as soil
under residential land uses without presented health risks. This case study
successfully demonstrates an appropriate application of RSM product
testing/analytical procedures, public involvement, and regulatory oversight
concerning such uses involving a commercial C&D facility permittee, state
and local governmental entities, and the general public. Both arsenic and
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) initially were suggested
to be health concerns associated with RSM. However, following further
sampling of site and background locations and more sophisticated analysis
for TRPH, a clear demonstration was made that arsenic and TRPH either
were present at levels which did not exceed natural background values, or
were present at levels that were not of concern from a human health
perspective. At the end of the process, there was general consensus by all
parties (City, County, permittee, public) that the RSM did not pose a threat
to human health or to the environment. This case study represents a success
in terms of innovative application of recycling technology, productive use of
sophisticated analytical techniques, and constructive dialogue among
agencies, the permittee and the general public.
REFERENCES
FDEP. 1998 Guidelines for the management of recovered Screen Material from C&D
Debns Recycling Facilities m Florida Prepared by Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, FL .. September 28, 1998.
TPHCWG. 1997. Draft, Volume IV: Development of Fraction-specific Reference Doses
(RIDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Cnteria Working Group. Amherst Scientific Publishing,
Amherst,MA
MAOS
AMY J. GALLOWAY
Direct Dial: 954.760-4938
Email: ajgtrippscott.com
Via email and U.S. Mail: bnorman@wplg.com
Bob Norman
Local Channel 1 0
3401 West Hallandale beach Blvd.
Pembroke Park, FL 33023
May 31,2012
Re: Sun Recycling and SWS Response to Bob Norman's emails of May 23 and May 25, 2012
Dear Mr. Norman:
At the request of our clients, Sun Recycling and SWS (the "Companies"), the following
is provided in response to your email of May 23rd regarding a soil test you said you had
conducted at Treasure Cove. This correspondence also addresses the questions raised in your
email of May 25th regarding the at the Lake Worth landfill hurricane debris storage and staging
project.
Treasure Cove
From review of the May 23 email, it appears that you and/or others (identified in the
email only as "we") accessed the private Treasure Cove residential development and through
some unspecified process obtained a soil sample. You state that the soil sample was tested by
Florida Spectrum Environmental Services and that the lab results show arsenic levels of 3.07
parts per million. No other information is provided as to the alleged "testing" other than it
appears to have been delivered to Florida Spectrum on May 18 and analyzed on May 21. Of
particular significance to the Companies and counsel is the statement attributed to Abron Farache
that "he and the company [Sun] tricked the County and never really cleaned up the bulk" of
unpermitted RSM previously delivered to the site.
As a preliminary matter, the Companies strongly object and disagree with the underlying
premise of your email, to wit: that Sun was caught illegally dumping RSM and that Sun did not
comply with the remediation plan developed by the Broward County Department of
Environmental Protection ("BCDEP"). Both of those statements are incorrect.
As Channel 10 previously has been advised, Sun Recycling was cited for receiving,
depositing and utilizing recovered screen material (RSM) from construction & demolition
(C&D) debris processing prior to it having been tested and approved by BCDEP for that use.
Treasure Cove was the site identified in a Notice of Violation as the recipient site of the
unpermitted RSM. Mr. Farache was the individual who supervised that facility at the time and
639153v1 993021.0015
11 0 Southeast Sixth Street, Fifteenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Post Office Box 14245 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
Tel 954.525.7500 Fax www.trippscott.com
Fort Lauderdale Tallahassee
MAOS
sold the fill to the developers of Treasure Cove. Upon receipt of the Notice of Violation, the
Companies immediately cooperated fully with the BCEDP to resolve the matter. That
cooperation included split sampling testing at the site (samples were split and tested by BCEDP
and by an independent environmental engineer hired by the Companies); development of a
County approved remediation plan and full performance of that plan, which included removal of
the screened fill in all the locations requested by the County and replacement with clean fill. Mr.
Farache took part in every aspect of that corrective plan, including attendance at on-site meetings
with the County representatives and the environmental consultants, as well as development and
submission of the remediation plan and supervision of the actual remediation. Mr. Farache also
attended the final meeting with the County where they approved the settlement and signed the
final settlement document which expressly stated that the remediation plan had been successfully
completed.
The allegation that the remediation was not fully performed, i.e., that the screened fill
was not taken from the site, is not true. The County expressly found that the remediation had
been performed and the County inspector, who had approximately 20 years experience at the
time of this investigation, testified he believed that the RSM material that was supposed to be
removed was removed and he confirmed that the County would have required proof of that
removal to sign off.
As Channel 10 has also been advised, Abron Farache and the Companies have been
involved in litigation arising from his prior association with Sun Recycling. In 2004, the
developers of Treasure Cove filed a lawsuit against the Companies making the same allegations
that Abron Farache allegedly has made to Channel 10. Specifically, he alleged that in 2000 -
2001, the Companies delivered unpermitted fill to Treasure Cove and the subsequent remediation
was not properly performed. In the course of discovery, it was determined that not only was
Abron Farache the source of the falsehoods regarding Sun's performance of the remediation
plan, but that he also had financial ties with the Treasure Cove developers, to whom he had
loaned money in the past and who owed Farache a considerable amount of money when they
filed suit. The lawsuit was ultimately settled and a confidential Settlement Agreement was
entered into that resolved all matters, including the primary claim fabricated by Abron Farache
that Sun had failed to adequately "clean up" the unpermitted RSM that had been delivered. The
Companies refused to release or otherwise include Abron Farache in the Settlement Agreement
as it was made quite clear in the course of discovery that Farache was the source of
misrepresentations and falsehoods about the Companies that had been asserted in the Complaint
and during the course of the litigation.
With respect to the testing undertaken by the Companies in defense of the Treasure Cove
claims and the issue of arsenic levels raised by your email, the Companies provide the following
information, prepared with the assistance of Dr. Christopher Teaf.
1
1 Dr. Christopher M. Teaf is the Associate Director of the Center for Biomedical & Toxicological Research at Florida
State University and the President of Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research. He holds a Ph.D. in
Toxicology, a M.S. in Biological Science and a B.S. in Biology and is a Fellow, Academy of Toxicological Sciences.
He has extensive experience in the evaluation of potential effects from chemical exposures in many industries,
including waste management.
639153v1 993021.0015 2 of5
MAOS
In order to investigate specific allegations related to designated lots in Treasure Cove, a
total of 20 soil samples were collected and analyzed in December 2007 and January 2008 from
each of those lots. These 20 samples were collected at five locations and from four depth
intervals at each location: (a) 0 to 6 inches below land surface (BLS); (b) 6 to 24 inches BLS;
and, (c) each 2 feet until the water was reached (2 to 4 feet BLS and 4 to 6 feet BLS). This
discrete protocol is consistent with that required by Chapter 62-780, Florida Administrative Code
(F AC). All of the samples were collected, preserved, labeled, documented, and shipped to the
laboratory consistent with Florida DEP Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) protocol as
required by Chapter 62-160, F AC. Collection, handling, and documentation of samples
according to these protocols are essential to the ability to draw any valid conclusions from such
data.
Conclusions of the chemical analysis and visual inspection of those Treasure Cove soil samples
can be summarized as follows:
Based upon visual evaluation of the subsurface soil samples, the subsurface soils
consisted of tan, gray or brown sand that was consistent with regional natural conditions
(black, brown, tan or yellow quartz sands). The soil samples clearly were not indicative
of Recovered Screen Material (RSM). Emphasis added.
Soil samples exhibited levels of metals (e.g., arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium, silver) which at all locations and at all depths were less than the DEP
unrestricted Residential Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLS) as published in Chapter 62-
777, FAC. From this it can be concluded that the property was safe for unrestricted
development.
The analysis of the subsurface soil materials performed for the designated lots indicated
minor exceedances of the FDEP Residential Direct Exposure SCTL for one of the
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) categories, defined as benzo(a)pyrene
equivalents. Soil samples with these levels of benzo(a)pyrene equivalents are extremely
common in urban environments as a result of their presence in petroleum products,
asphalt road paving materials, and atmospheric deposition of particles from many
combustion sources. From this it can be concluded that these soils look like typical urban
soils. The presence of other petroleum hydrocarbons in addition to the PAHs (e.g.,
toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, trimethylbenzenes) indicates that the observed organic
contaminants are the result of vehicle parking and storage on the designated lots,
associated with the leakage of fuels, oils, and other petroleum compounds. There is
evidence from historical aerial photographs and from the 2007/2008 site investigation
that vehicle storage occUrred on these lots on a regular basis.
Soil samples exhibited levels of a variety of pesticides which at all locations and at all
depths were less than the DEP unrestricted Residential Soil Cleanup Target Levels
(SCTLS) as published in Chapter 62-777, F AC. From this it can be concluded that the
property was safe for unrestricted development.
639153V1 993021.0015 3 of5
MAOS
Leaching tests of the soils from each lot did not exhibit a potential to release substances
to groundwater.
Turning to your reported May 18 soil sample result, collection of a single soil sample
from an unspecified location, by unspecified methods, under unspecified conditions, cannot be
expected to be a reasonable representation of present conditions. Explicit and defensible
documentation of sampling location, preservation/storage/handling procedures, and chain-of-
custody from sampler to transporter to laboratory, and quality assurance/quality control backup
are among the crucial elements that must accompany any sample for it to be properly evaluated.
In this instance, it isn't clear what the single uncharacterized sample indicates. Relatedly, given
that testing was done over 10 years after the unpermitted RSM was delivered to the site or the
remediation plan was completed, the obvious question arises as to what other uses or
development occurred at the location of your sample, wherever that was collected.
Finally, the arsenic value you reported in your note (3.07.mglkg) is well within the range
that would be common in coastal sand in the southeast Florida area. The natural occurrence of
arsenic in the aquatic environment is usually associated with shelly, sedimentary rocks of marine
origin, and uncontaminated coastal area marine sediments typically contain from about 5 to 15
mglkg dry weight arsenic. Sediments from Biscayne Bay and other Florida estuaries contain
natural background levels of arsenic ranging from less than I 0 mglkg to 60 mglkg or more.
Arsenic concentrations reported along the Atlantic coast of Florida are consistent with previous
investigations which concluded that arsenic is preferentially deposited in coastal and estuarine
sediments, in association with shell fragments derived from mollusks and crustaceans having
high part per million (ppm) arsenic levels.
As a point of comparison, Dade County DERM published a natural mean background
concentration for arsenic in soil of 1.2 mglkg, with a range of <0.2 to 3.89 mglkg). Several other
studies have reported that arsenic concentrations in soil from South Florida area are significantly
greater than those from other parts of Florida. Based on data from these studies, for example,
Dade County has the highest geometric mean arsenic levels in surface soils for any Florida
county, exceeding 7 mglkg. Nonurban, relatively undisturbed background soils in Southeast
Florida exhibit a geometric mean arsenic level of2.81 mglkg (range 0.32 to 112 mglkg).
Lake Worth Landfill Hurricane Debris Storage and Staging Project
In your May 25 email, several stylistically inciting "questions" are posed of the
Companies with respect to the hurricane debris storage and staging project that Sun undertook at
the closed Lake Worth landfill to provide hurricane debris removal and recycling services for the
City of Lake Worth and several other local municipalities in the event of a hurricane. The
Companies operation of the hurricane debris storage and staging area was done in compliance
with an Operational Plan approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
("FDEP") and in accordance with a Lease Agreement with the City of Lake Worth. Lest there be
any misunderstanding, there was no "dumping" ofRSM/solid waste and no contamination or any
other event that required "clean up". RSM was utilized to construct access roads, to construct
earthen berms for visual barriers, and to construct a certified compactive layer separating the
hurricane storage and staging operation from the underlying closed landfill. Pursuant to the
Operational Plan, in the event of a severe hurricane, the site would then be ready for and utilized
639153v1 993021.0015 4 of5
MAOS
for several activities:
construction and demolition debris ("C&D") and vegetative material (yard and
landscaping debris) would be brought to the site for processing and chipping of
vegetative debris; processing of C&D debris;
recyclable materials were processed and shipped off-site; and
C&D residue (non-RSM) was shipped off-site.
No RSM was "dumped" on the site. In fact, during the lease term the site was not activated
because there were no severe storms. All of this was set forth in the Operation Plan, developed
by the Companies and independent engineers and approved by both the City of Lake Worth and
FDEP.
The controversy, such that it is, is politically motivated. Factions within the Lake Worth
political community are trying to create a controversy and claim that former officials at the City
of Lake Worth made a mistake or were "duped" when they allowed the project to go forward.
This is simply not true. Sun did not deceive the City of Lake Worth or anyone else regarding
this project. Sun did not create or contribute to "elevated levels of arsenic" in an aging city
landfill.
In closing, with respect to the allegations involving the Treasure Cove property, notice is
given to you and to Channel 10 that any representation or position broadcast by Channel 1 0
alleging or implying that Sun Recycling, in "cahoots" with Ahron Farache or otherwise, did not
fully perform the obligations set forth in the County's approved remediation plan regarding
Treasure Cove is false. Any publication to the contrary is in reckless disregard of the actual facts.
With respect to the Lake Worth landfill hurricane debris storage and staging project, notice is
given to Channel 10 that any representation or position broadcast that the Companies have
contaminated the Lake Worth landfill or otherwise "dumped" or engaged in unauthorized or
illegal dumping at the Lake Worth landfill is false, and any publication to the contrary is in
reckless disregard of the actual facts.
Very truly yours,
~
Amy J. Galloway, Esq.
AJG/ksb
cc: Bill Pohovey via email bpo ovey@wplg.com
David Boylan via email at dboylan@wplg.com
Bruce Rogow, Esq. via email at brogow@rogowlaw.com
639153v1 993021.0015 5of5
MAOS
Kimberly 5. Brizendine
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kimberly S. Brizendine on behalf of Amy J. Galloway
Thursday, May 03, 2012 4:24 PM
'bnorman@wplg.com'
Dan E Taylor; 'pmedico@swsfl.com'; 'cteaf@hswmr.com'; 'brogow@rogowlaw.com'
Response to Questions regarding Sun Recycling
Attachments: Memo to Norman with proposed answers.pdf
I understand that you have spoken with Bruce Rogow. Attached are the responses to your questions of
April 27, 2012.
Amy Galloway
IX
110 SE Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-5257500
Kimberly Brizendine
Legal Assistant
(954) 525-7500 Ext. 3751
Fax: (954) 761-8475
ksb@trippscott. com
5/3/2012
Page 1 of 1
MAOS
At the request of our clients, Sun Recycling and SWS (the "Companies"), the following is provided in response to the
questions sent by email and our follow up conversation of April 30.
1. (Question): Ahron Farache, a former partner in SouthemWaste/Sun Recycling who founded the company with
Anthony Lomangino, says that Sun Recycling routinely cheated on environmental tests for RSM. He specifically said
that he personally drove Phil Medico to Home Depot to get clean fill to use as a decoy in the tests. Has Sun
Recycling ever falsified or cheated on environmental tests?
Response:
This allegation is false. Mr. Medico denies that he ever drove to Home Depot or any other similar business with our
without Ahron Farache to buy fill for any purpose.
As a preliminary matter, the Companies object to the characterizations of the prior relationship with Ahron Farache.
Suffice to say, the Companies have parted ways with Mr. Farache and have been involved in litigation on a variety of
issues with Mr. Farache since that time. As to the allegation that matters have been reported to state and federal
authorities; to the Companies knowledge, they are not under any such investigation.
The Companies operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to regular and periodic testing, including testing for
its RSM distribution permits, as well as unscheduled and "spot" testing by regulatory authorities. All environmental testing
at the Companies facilities is conducted pursuant to strict protocols. Phil Medico does not conduct any of the regular or
periodic testing at the facilities. As part of the initial permit process for unrestricted RSM distribution, the Companies were
subject to a stringent testing regime over an approximate two-week period that was conducted by an independent
contractor and overseen by a licensed environmental engineer, which was then submitted to the various regulatory
agencies with jurisdiction for review and approval. None of the baseline sampling in that initial permitting process was
done internally.
2. (Question): Farache also said that Charles Gusmano falsified invoices to the Broward County and to the DEP
regarding where RSM shipments were going. Did Gusmano ever falsify invoices:
Response:
This allegation is not true and Mr. Farache has never been able to produce any evidence or proof of any such claim,
despite requests to do so in the course of litigation.
3. (Question): Farache said illegal dumping was common at SWS/Sun and that Gusmano and county public records
indicate SWS/Sun is the worst illegal dumper 1n Broward history with record fines. Farache says SWS/Sun made a
calculated decision to dump illegally because it made the company millions of dollars that would have gone to landfill
costs: and the fines were insignificant in comparison to the profits generated from illegal activity. Was/is illegal
dumping a common part of business at SWS/Sun:
Response:
MAOS
635342v1 993021.0001
The Companies operate in a highly regulated industry and acknowledge that Notices of Violation ("NOV') have been
issued in the past All NOVs have been promptly addressed and responsibly resolved.
In late 2006 and early 2007, Sun was notified by BCEPD and FDEP that RSM processed in two of its recyding facilities
did not meet regulatory standards due to size exceedencies. Some of that off-specification RSM had been delivered to
properties in Broward and Palm Beach County (approximately 25 sites). Sun immediately met with the regulators,
determined the cause of the problem at the facilities, corrected the problem and established sufficient controls at the
facilities and entered into a RSM Cleanup Plan with BCEPD, and that Cleanup Plan was fully executed. In the course of
this enforcement action, both BCEPD and the Companies had the off-specification RSM tested to assess potential health
and environmental risks. The results of that testing induded analysis of RSM/soil samples collected by County
representatives, physical inspection and groundwater testing. No samples revealed contaminant levels above regulatory
standards. This testing was done by independent testing companies in accordance with strict protocols regarding chain
of custody and reporting obligations. The result was that there was no indication of health risks and the environmental
impact or threat was characterized as "minimal" or "minor'', as reflected in the Hearing Officer's Final Order (Aug. 8, 2007).
In the two-part hearing to determine the reasonableness of the penalties recommended by EDP, the testimony
confirmed the issue with the off-specification RSM related to its s1ze, which was a direct result of a broken Star screen
which allowed 3 to 4 inch material to pass.
As part of the enforcement action and its resolution, the Companies entered into a Joint Stipulation wherein they admitted
to the violations and the underlying cause: a lack of institutional controls which if in place could have prevented the
unauthorized distribution. In the Joint Stipulation with BCEDP, the County stipulated that ''The parties agree in law and
fact that Sun Recyding. LLC. its principals and employees never intentionally violated the law."
Two hearing were conducted as part of the enforcement action, both of which addressed only the penalties to be
assessed. In the final hearing, the issue addressed was whether and to what extent the Companies derived an
"economic benefif' (a factor that can tncrease the penalty). The Hearing Officer ruled as a Condusions of Law:
Respondent, Sun Recycling, LLC, is to be commended for its immediate and continuous cooperation with
EPGMD ("Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department'') In remedying the
violations enumerated herein. Sun Recycling provides a valuable service to the community and has exemplified
impressive corporate citizenship in striving to bring these violations into compliance with Broward County
Code. Sun Recycling has spent a considerable amount of money on its cleanup efforts and has worked
diligently with County staff throughout the cleanup process.
The Hearing Officer confirmed that; "The parties agreed that Respondent never intentionally violated the law." (June 29,
2009).
4. (Question) Was the illegally dumped RSM at Treasure Cove ever cleaned up?
Response:
Page2
MAOS
635342v1 993021.0001
In the Treasure Cover matter, Sun Recycling was cited for receiving, depositing and utilizing recovered screen material
(RSM) from construction & demolition (C&D) debris processing prior to its having been tested and approved by Broward
County EDP for that use. Mr. Farache was the individual who supervised that facility at the time and sold the fill to the
developers ofTreasure Cove. Upon notice of the violation, the Companies immediately cooperated with the BCEDP to
resolve the matter. That cooperation included split sampling testing at the site (samples were split and tested by BCEDP
and by an independent environmental engineer hired by the Companies); development of a County approved
remediation plan and full performance of that plan, which included removal of the screened fill in all the locations
requested by the County and replacement with clean fill. Mr. Farache took part in every aspect of that corrective plan;
including attendance at on-site meetings with the County representatives and the environmental consultants;
development and submission of the remediation plan and supervision of the actual remediation. Mr. Farache also
attended the final meeting with the County where they approved the settlement and signed the final settlement document
which expressly stated that the remediation plan had been successfully completed!
The allegation that the remediation was not fully performed, i.e that the screened fill was not taken from the site), is
clearly not true. The County expressly found that the remediation had been performed and the County inspector, who
had approximately 20 years experience at the t1me of this investigation, testified he believed that the RSM material that
was supposed to be removed was removed and confirmed that the County would have required proof of that removal to
sign off.
5. (Question) Did SWS/Sun illegally dump RSM into the lake at the Dania Beach facility (Sun 3)? I have been provided
video that Farache says shows this illegal dumping occurring and have confirmed the County has fined SWS/Sun for
illegal dumping of RSM at the Dania facility.
Response:
The Companies unequivocally deny any illegal dumping into the lake at the Dania Beach facility. This was a permitted
lake fill operation and clean fill was properly deposited into the "lake", which properly is characterized as a "borrow pif'.
6. You indicated that you have been learning about RSM and referenced to the issue of RSM's proper application. To
assist in your understanding of RSM and its beneficial purposes and uses, I am including some general information,
as well as several documents that may be of value to you.
The Florida legislature has adopted laws, specifically 403.707 (12)(g), Fla. Stat., that encourage facilities to recycle and to
use recycled materials such as RSM. As confirmed by the regulations in place, RSM is suitable and widely used for clean
fill in residential circumstances, as well as for many other commercial and industrial fill applications. RSM's use as a soil
product or soil amendment for residential or commercial fill, and its use as Alternate Intermediate Cover Material (ACIM)
in landfills is all supported by extensive sampling and analytical data which demonstrated the safety of th1s recycled,
reclaimed product. In the last few years, RSM has been successfully used by golf course developers in new and
Page3
MAOS
635342v1 993021.0001
renovated gold course communities across Florida with great success. The granting of licenses to the Companies and
the ongoing regulation of those licenses also involves regular testing and sampling, all done to regulatory muster. Dr.
Christopher Teat, of Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research, Inc., is a toxicologist and expert on RSM
that the Companies have worked with in the past. I am enclosing some materials put together by Dr. Teat regarding RSM
generally, the relevant 2011 Florida DEP guidance document (which updated similar 1998 guidance), and also materials
addressing the RSM enforcement action discussed above in Question 3. The Companies have also agreed that if you
need any further information regarding Dr. Teafs work or his research on RSM generally that they would agree to make
Dr. Teat available to you in order to answer any questions you may have regarding RSM regulation, testing or potential
heaHh hazards. I am also enclosing one of SWS's summary correspondences that address RSM and the 2006 and
2007NOVs.
Enclosures: Guidelines for the Management of RSM from C&D Recycling Facilities in
Florida, Rev. No. 1 (April 15, 2011 ); Contaminated Soils, Sediments and Water, Vol. 1, Ch.
24, pp. 366-360 (2006 Ed.); SWS Summary Correspondence; March 19, 20091etter from Dr.
Teaf
Page4
MAOS
BroWqta -RSM .Nol'l-itttagjJorttil Violation
It be .dvly ifl"Qt ol regulatory rutes ond regufotfo.fis. throogh on
process are nof unusual In the woste industry and a public f'E,3cotd r.evfew ofall
providers would vctlrdafe fl!lat.
Sun on . of Soothem Waste Systems LLC', tD-rocesses conitr-<!cfion and
-Qeniotrf!ot1 m(()st O.dvanced recycfing processes, the competrW
!Jp to rn:tMe Is they tr-c1nsitlonfmg them into uzable pr.oducts.
This r-e.CyJing use.f.ob materiaJ io the economy c-onserves our
londi.llf. Sf)Q'Ce. Qne of usable products r\Sl.sultlng from fhl$- process is
recovered (-R.SM). RSM is the fine fraction derived from the rec,y.cfifig of
C&D and nof.islsf$_primorif.y of sofl and the small rnatt?ridls thot can poss thr04gh a
e..g. pteces of wood, concrete, drywoll $hlngje:s. This pr<:>dud rs
nol"' amq neutral. Sun Recycling has been .mam-ufdctuf.in{g and
dlstr:J.bvtln:g tht$ prodl:Jt sihc& 1'9'99.
Ai the :e.nd cl2006:. '$1:Jn Re<:tycling was notified by the Environmental Proteetro.n :ond Growth
Management -o.f Browetrd County. and the Florldo Department of
Envtro.nmentol Protetion. that RSM processed in two of its construction orn::l -demo11tion
racyoling fo<silitiet"S: .di(;i not regulatory stondards for of proper slz.e and
was delivered tq p'rope.tfles In Broward .and PQlm Beach Coutrtle-s. The .sdtid waste and
heovlly and therefore -it iS not fot O company such
as Sun to of' :administrative V.iokiltioliS req!Jlt:ing corrective octfqn, Of particvlor
concern four ims.tonces where the RSM hod deposited into focations by
the Svn met with personnel from the F!)EP and BCEPD ar-rd
deter-miAed that Q. f-ailure in institutional controls caused the probfems dr1d Sun etgreed to
remove .U=l-e mote.rioJ. ft.Qtn sites
an-odmihistro:tive hearing was held only to determine any octrons t-o be taken.
The $Vtdence presented at the hearing included reguldtory personnel. the prior r-e.QUiatory
history of Sun over a sev.en year period of Ume ond e-xperts on the fovorobJe env1'ronmental
effec;:t-s c;:-aused by S1.1n's activities. The Final Order from the hearing cotfcfuded that the
potential harm to the environment was minor and Sun had at all times cooperated with the
ecEPD c:md FOEP.
As a SUn RecyCling LLC wos charged by the Bro,word County Environmental Protection
and Growth Monogement Department in case # 06-0033 et. at wlfh a non-inten1ional
violation of low. Both parties entered into a Joini Sfipulatron whereby sun Recycling
.admitted to all the violations and the parties agreed that Sun never int-entionally VIolated the
law. It was agreed that there was a lack of institutional controls within the compony that
could have prevented fhe violations. Sun sought an administrative hearing for the sole
purpose of determiniAg the amount of penalties to be accessed.
MAOS
Following said stipulation the County determined as follows:
Taken dJrectly from the final order doted the 29'h of June, 2009
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW"
A'Re$ponderlf, Sun Recy.cllngt IJ.C, is to be commended f.or its immediate and continuous
cooperation with the EPGMD in remeQy/ng the Vlolatisns envmerated herein. Sun Recyclil'lg
provides a -valuable service to the cCJmmvnity and has exemplified impressive corporate
.cifizenship in striVing to bring these v-Iolations Into compliance with Broward Caunfy Csde
. Sun Recyallng has spent a considerable amgvnt of mc:mey on its cleanup efforts and has
worked diligently with County staff throughout the cleanup process. "
In conclusion
.. As a result of fhe hearing the that were issued to Su.n wete paid in full to
Broward County prtor to the deQdline.
Broword County never revol<:ed or denied Sun Recycling's operational permit, nor did
it terminate any of its solid waste service contracts with Southern Waste Systems.
In 10 years of oper.ation, this problem affected less than 1% of the anm.Jal production
of RSM from Sun facilities. The company has operated continuously In Palm Beach and
Br:oword counties and neither county has ever revoked or denied an operational
.permit.
The State of Florida encourages recycling and the use of recycled materials in a manner that
proteds public health and many counties use state guidelines to make local recyding
decisions. Florida DEP (1998) published ''Guidelines for Management of Recovered
Screen Material from C &D Debris Recycling Facilities in Florida
11
, based on recognition that
RSM can be effectively and safely managed, and that it meets agency health based criteria
set for the product. lt can be and is used as an appropriate and safe replacement for soil in
many fill applicatiohs in Florida. The legislative and regulatory approval of this recycling
activi'ty is well established.
MAOS

Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research, Inc.
2976 Wellington Circle West
Florida 32."109
Phone: (850) 681-6894
Fax: (850) 906-9777
e-mail: staffE!
1
hswmr.com
March 19, 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter prepared on behalf of Southern Waste Systems, LLC and Sun Recycling, LLC
("SWS/Sun"), is intended to explain the nature of Recovered Screen Material (RSM)
and its principal characteristics, as well as to clarify important details regarding a recent
situation which, in my opinion, has received undue attention.
I am a toxicologist with over 30 years of experience in Florida, other states, and
i,ntcrnationally concerning health risk evaluation from potential chemical exposures.
My experience is in areas of environmental and occupational risk evaluation, including
issues related to soil, water, air, and commercial/ industrial recycled materials. I have
worked with RSM on numerous projects since about 2004, and am familiar with the
composition, character, uses, and regulatory interpretation of this recycled product.
RSM, as the name accurately indicates, is a recycled, reclaimed product derived from
processing of Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris under controlled conditions.
RSM is produced by sequential sorting and screening of C&D material and associated
soil to remove larger fragments (e.g., stone, concrete, wallboard, metal, glass, wood).
Final RSM is the functional equivalent of soil, both in consistency and appearance.
The Florida Legislature, as articulated in Subparagraph 403.707(12)(g), Fla. Stat.,
encourages facilities to recycle and to use recycled materials such as RSM.
RSM is suitable and widely used for dean fill in residential circumstances, as well as for
many other commercial and industrial fill applications, pursuant to state regulations
(i.e., Subparagraph 62-701.730(13)(c), FAC) and by local licenses granted to SWS/Sun.
In addition to use as a soil product or soil amendment for residential or commercial filt
RSM is suitable for use as Alternate Intermediate Cover Material (AICM) in landfills.
The granting of licenses to SWS/Sun, and the subsequent widespread beneficial reuse
of RSM, is based on extensive sampling and analytical data which demonstrate the
safety of this recycled, rt:"!claimed product. Historical baseline sampling of RSM,
coupled with ongoing regular sampling, demonstrates that RSM is environmentally
benign, based on its ability to meet established state and local health-based soil
guidelines. Site-specific soil investigations have demonstrated that concentrations of
substances of common environmental and human health interest (e.g., arsenic, lead) in
RSM often are less than naturally occurring levels in native soil. Similar work has
shown low levels of Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH), of a type with
negligible potential to affect human health or the environment.
Established 1985
MAOS
Florida encourages recycling and use of recycled materials in a manner that protects
public health, and many counties use state guidelines to make local recycling decisions.
Florida DEP (1998) published ''Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material
from C&D Debris Recycli11g Facilities in Florida", based on recognition that RSM can be
effectively and safely managed, and that it meet.c; agency health-based criteria set for the
product. There is significant history developed over 5 to 10 years by SWS/Sun and
other entities which demonstrates a valuable community service and negligible impact
from RSM which is recycled by controlled and regulated processing of C&D debris. It
can be and is used as an appropriate and safe replacement for soil in many fill and
landfill cover applications in Florida. The legislative and regulatory approval of this
recycling activity in Florida is well-established.
In 2007, properties were identified in Broward and Palm Beach counties where off-
specification RSM was used in some residential applications. That material was
considered to be off-spec as a result of oversized pieces of material generated due to
faulty screening equipment that subsequently was repaired. In the context of an
administrative complaint, I was asked to assess potential health risks posed by the RSM.
I observed soil-like material on-site that J described generally as RSM, along with visible
larger materials at the surface in some areas. The larger fragments were scattered and
were not evenly distributed across the surface. A good analogy is that the properties
typically looked like undeveloped lots on which soil and some miscellaneous small
debris had been spread. In some instances, I observed property owners already
beginning to incorporate RSM into or under existing landscaping. Analysis of
RSM/ soil samples collected by County representatives did not show metals or
petroleum hydrocarbons at levels of health concern. Similarly, groundwater samples
did not show concentrations of health concern. While fragment size and appearance
may have cosmetic or visual significance, the potential hazards are best assessed by
analytical data from samples of the material. The size issue itself is variable, with FDEP
and Broward County typically selecting values less than one inch, while other agencies
and organizations in the U.S. and abroad have selected limits over 1 inch up to as great
as 3 inches. Given the historical analytical data for RSM, my experience from similar
circumstances, my knowledge of the environmental and toxicological characteristics of
the substances at issue, as well as mitigation agreements by SWS/Sun, it is my opinion
that the environmental impact or threat in these cases was "minimal". The issue was
addressed at an administrative level, not at a level suggesting health risks.
If you have additional questions, please call me at (850) 681-6894.

M. Teaf, Ph.D.
President & Director of Toxicology
/cmt
MAOS
GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
RECOVERED SCREEN MATERIAL FROM C&D
DEBRIS RECYCLING FACILITIES IN FLORIDA
Office of the Division of Waste Management
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Revision No. 1
April15, 2011
Solid Waste Section
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
- - ~ - * _ . . . _ . ___ _
- - - - ~ - -
MAOS
April15, 2011
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this document is intended for guidance only. It is not a rule and
does not create standards or criteria that must be followed by the regulated community.
Compliance with this document does not relieve the owner or operator from any liability for
environmental damages caused by the use of the recovered screen material, nor does it relieve
the owner or operator from the responsibility of complying with the Department's rules or any
local government requirements. This document does not establish policies or precedents
applicable to other recycling or cleanup projects.
ii
MAOS
April15, 2011
PREFACE
This revision, Revision No. 1, makes two substantive changes to the guidance document
entitled Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C&D Debris Recycling
Facilities in Florida. Revision No. 1 incorporates the definition of recovered screen material that
was promulgated on January 1, 2010 in Chapter 62-701 of the Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.). T h ~ current revision has also been updated to conform to the Division of Waste
Management's most recent data quality assurance and quality control protocols.
The guidelines detailed herein only apply to recovered screen material generated at permitted
construction and demolition debris recycling facilities. These guidelines supersede the
guidelines issued on September 28,1998 and will be periodically reviewed by the Department
and revised as necessary to ensure recovered screen material is properly managed in Florida.
iii
MAOS
April15, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................................................................... ii
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................. ill
TABLE OF CONTEN1S ......................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCfiON ..................................................................................................................................... 1
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 2
Data Quality Requirements ................................................................................................................ 3
Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 4
Baseline Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5
Potential Contaminants of Concern .............................................................................................. 6
Routine Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 8
High Frequency Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 9
Low Frequency Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 9
OFF-SITE USE REQUIREMEN1S ......................................................................................................... 10
General Prohibitions and Best Management Practices ................................................................. 11
Special Beneficial Use ........................................................................................................................ 11
Residential Beneficial Use ................................................................................................................. 12
Other Beneficial Use .......................................................................................................................... 12
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 13
iv
MAOS
Florida Department of Envircmmental Protecticm, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling facilities produce soil-like fines known in
Florida as recovered screen material (RSM). The RSM is commonly generated using screening
equipment to separate the fines from larger pieces of debris. The larger debris is then sorted
and processed for recycling or disposal. New markets began to emerge in Florida for
processed RSM in the years following Hurricane Andrew due to the inordinate quantities of
C&D debris that was generated during the storm. In 1996 the Florida Legislature also enacted
403.707(9)(g) Florida Statutes (F.S.), which contained language directing the Department to
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.
11
By direction given under 403.707(9)(g), F.S. the Department convened a workgroup of
experts, regulators, industry professionals and concerned citizens. Tiris
11
RSM Workgroup
11
was
tasked with a three-fold mission: (a) compile available information on the environmental and
health risks associated with RSM use, and initiate new investigation where needed to fill in
gaps in knowledge; (b) establish field sampling and analysis protocols to ensure that any
underlying chemical constituents present in RSM are accurately measured; and (c) identify off-
site uses for RSM that are compatible with the levels of measured underlying chemical
constituents.
The RSM Workgroup's finding were submitted to the Department for review in 1996, and later
published in final form in 1998 (Townsend et al.). The Department subsequently issued
guidelines for the management of recovered screen material from C&D debris recycling
facilities in Florida based on the workgroup's findings (FDEP, 1998). The guidelines contained
a detailed and multi-tiered analysis, monitoring and reporting scheme that was designed to
ensure RSM was used in a safe manner. For example, RSM could only be used in a residential
setting if the concentration of each regulated chemical constituent was below the most
Page 1 of13
MAOS
Florida Department of Enviranmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
April15, 2011
protective human health exposure levels and leaching tests did not indicate any likelihood for
adverse impacts to ground water.
There are a number of means routinely used by Department to actively monitor the RSM
generating industry. Beneficial use proposals for processed RSM are evaluated by staff
scientists and engineers. Specific conditions based on these guidelines for RSM use are
incorporated into C&D processing facility permits. The facility owner or operator is thus
required by permit to demonstrate that their RSM is managed and used in a manner that poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment. Finally, the Department updates
solid waste rules as the industry develops and as the science progresses for evaluating risks
associated with solid waste recycling. Most recently, in January 2010, a new definition for RSM
was promulgated in Rule 62-701.200(73) F.A.C.
11
Recovered screen material" means the fines fraction, consisting of soil and other small
materials, derived from the processing or recycling of construction and demolition debris 'Which
passes through a final screen size no greater than % of an inch.
The new definition restricts the maximum screen size opening, which serves to place an upper
bounds limit on the size of the RSM. This limitation is necessary to ensure that larger-sized
engineered materials such as asphalt roofing, foam insulation, metal and plastic are excluded
from the RSM stream.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The sampling and analysis requirements detailed in this section provide a scientifically sound
methodology for the RSM generator to use to demonstrate that their RSM is appropriate for its
intended beneficial use. C&D processors may request to use an alternative procedure when
operating conditions at the facility necessitate such actions. The Department will approve such
Page2 of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
requests on a case-by-case basis if a reasonable justification is provided. Only procedures that
conform to the data quality requirements of this section will be considered. Consideration will
also be given to alternative procedures that make use of the statistics-based methods
enumerated in Chapter Nine of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Document No. SW-846 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1992).
Data Quality Requirements
The Department's most recent standard operating procedures (SOPs), DEP-SOP-.
001/01 must be followed when collecting field samples of RSM (FDEP, 2008). The
Department's SOPs are available for download at the following web address:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/sas/sop/sops.htm
Laboratory analyses must be performed by laboratories certified by the Department
of Health and accredited under the National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Program.
Laboratory data must be generated using methods with detection limits at the
lowest level that can be reliably measured during routine laboratory operating
conditions within specified limits of precision and accuracy. If the detection limit is
above the Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs) and Soil Oeanup Target
Levels (SCTLs) listed in Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. (FDEP, 2005) an explanation must be
submitted to the Department explaining why the detection limit was elevated.
Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. is available for download at the following web address:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ waste/quick topics/rules/ default.htm
Laboratory data must be submitted to the Department as an electronic data deliverable,
in electronic format that is consistent with the requirements for importing data into the
Department's database. Electronic data deliverable guidance is available at the
following web address:
http: I I www .dep.state.fl.us/ waste/ categories I shw I pages/ADaPT.htm
Page3 of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
Envirorunental data must be processed, verified and validated using the Automated
Data Processing Tool (ADaP1) software. The ADaPT software is available for
download, at no cost, at the following web address:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/shw/pages/ADaPT.htm
Uncertainties and variability within the environmental data set should be calculated
using the FL-UCL tool. The FL-UCL tool is available for download, at no cost, at
the following web address:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/wc/pages/ProgramTechnicalSupport.htm
For more information about the Department's minimum sampling and analysis requirements
see the quality assurance expectations detailed in the Department's quality assurance
regulations contained in Chapter 62-160 F.A.C. (FDEP, 2008).
Sampling Procedure
This subsection describes the proper procedure for collecting an 8-hour composite sample.
These sampling procedures apply to the initial baseline analysis conducted prior to beneficial
use of RSM and also to the routine sampling conducted during the course of standard RSM
generation. The 8-hour composite sample is the sample collection type that must be used to
measure the average properties of the RSM. The C&D processor is responsible for taking all
necessary steps to avoid errors during sample collection. The processor must carefully plan the
sampling events, and follow the most recent SOPs cited in Chapter 62-160 F.A.C.B Care must
be taken to ensure that each individualS-hour composite sample consists of separate
subsamples collected at one hour intervals during the eight hour period. The sampling
protocols detailed in this subsection apply to RSM collected directly from the conveyor belt or
from the pile that forms in the direct proximity of the conveyor belt discharge. The procedures
are as follows:
Page4of13
MAOS
Florida Department o/Environmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C & D
Apri/15, 2011
Collect, store, composite and ship each subsample in accordance with the
instructions detailed in SOP General Sampling Procedures, FS 1000 (FDEP, 2008).
Collect volatile organic and volatile inorganic subsamples before other constituent
types.
Prepare the 8-hour composite sample from 8 subsamples collected at 60 minute
intervals. At each 60 minute interval, collect a subsample of undisturbed RSM.
If subsamples are collected directly from the RSM conveyor belt, collect each
subsample from the entire width and depth of the conveyor at a fixed point.
If subsamples are collected from the fresh RSM pile, the sampling location is
midway up the vertical height of the pile at a surface depth of approximately 6 to 12
inches into the RSM.
Collect sufficient volume of subsample to fill the pre-cleaned subsample container.
After eight subsamples are collected, combine the subsamples directly in the
composite sample container with no pre-mixing. Notify the laboratory that the
sample is an unmixed composite sample, and request that the laboratory thoroughly
mix the sample before sample preparation or analysis.
Baseline Analysis
Baseline analysis refers to the initial characterization of RSM that must be performed when the
C&D processor is seeking a beneficial use determination. The Department may approve the
beneficial use of RSM only after the C&D processor conducts a baseline chemical analysis on a
representative population of RSM sampled from the processor's waste stream. The
overarching goal of the baseline analysis is to identify trace constituents present at
concentrations exceeding human health toxicity criteria. If elevated trace constituents are
identified, they will be placed on a list of contaminants of concern (COq for targeted routine
monitoring. The results of baseline testing will be one critical factor used by the Department
when approving RSM beneficial use applications.
Page5of13
MAOS
Apri/15, 2011
Baseline analysis must be repeated whenever operational changes are implemented at the
facility, or whenever there is a change to the composition of the waste stream, and if such
changes could be expected to adversely impact the quality of processed RSM. For example, a
new baseline test must be performed whenever the generator's service area expands such that
new waste streams are processed at the facility.
Potential Contaminants of Concern
The groups of chemicals listed in Table 1 are the potential contaminants of concern that require
laboratory analysis in order to establish the baseline contaminant of concern list.
Tablel
Recommended analytical methods for totals analysis of potential contaminants of concern
Class of trace contaminant EPA Methods for Analysis t
RCRA metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag) US EPA SW-846 Method 6010, 7471.*
Volatile organic compounds
Semi-volatile organic compounds
Pesticides
US EPA SW-846 Method 8260
tAlternative analytical methods must have equivalent or better sensitivity and selectivity.
*Mercury is analyzed following Method 7471.
To establish baseline conditions the processor must prepare a minimum of 14, 8-hour
composite RSM samples collected over a time period of 7 to 14 days. The processor's sampling
team must adhere to the data quality requirements and sampling procedures detailed herein.
Pre-approval must be obtained from the Department if the processor wishes to sample
according to an alternative procedure. The analytical laboratory must be instructed to measure
the total concentration of each constituent identified in Table 1. The analytical laboratory must
also be instructed to prepare a leachate extract from each composite RSM sample following the
Page6of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), EPA Method 1312. Subsequently, a totals
. analysis for the Table 1 constituents must be performed on the SPLP extract.
The COC list is populated by comparing the 95% upper confidence level (UCL) of the mean
concentration of each potential contaminant of concern against the respective cleanup-target
level published in Table I or Table IT of Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. (FDEP,2005). The total
concentration is compared with the direct exposure criteria listed in the SCTL table of 62-777
F.A.C. In this way the risk to human health associated with direct exposure to RSM is assessed.
The total concentration of each measured chemical constituent present in the SPLP extract
must be compared with the groundwater criteria listed in the GCTL table to assess risk of
groundwater contamination associated with land application scenarios. If fewer than ten
observed values for a particular constituent are above the detection limit then use the highest
value measured above the detection limit for comparison with the cleanup target levels.*
Otherwise, the 95% UCL of the mean must be used for comparison with the clean up target
levels.
Reporting and Approval Reguirements
Before the Department will issue a beneficial use determination the C&D Processor must
submit a complete report of all findings to their regional district office and the Solid Waste
Section in Tallahassee. The processor's RSM is not authorized for sale or beneficial use until
the Department provides written approval. The Department's approval letter will detail the
list of COCs that require routine monitoring. The report must be submitted in an electronic
format consistent with the Department's requirements. A complete report includes the
following specific items:
* The FL UCL tool will not make recommendations if the data set is too small or if there are too many values
below detection limit. For example, if 14 samples are collected during the baseline analysis then the FL UCL tool
requires no more than four observations be below detection limit for a particular constituent in order to return a
recommended value for the 95 % UCL of the mean.
Page 7of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
A cover letter providing a brief description of the requested use of the RSM and
sampling results indicating all detections that exceed cleanup target levels.
The table must include the maximum detected concentration or the 95% UCL of the
mean concentration for each constituent, as determined above, and a list of the
applicable direct exposure criteria and groundwater criteria from the SCTL and GCTL
tables for comparison.
Routine Monitoring
Routine monitoring is performed in order to measure drift in the quality of RSM away from
baseline conditions. The routine monitoring gives the processor, Department and end-user
assurance that the approved offsite use scenario is appropriate for the level of contamination
present. After one year the C&D processor may request a reduction in the number of sampling
parameters and the sampling frequency, but only if the monitoring results demonstrate that
stability in RSM quality has been achieved. The Department will evaluate this request
primarily based on the results of the data collected during the high and low frequency routine
monitoring events. Any reduction in the monitoring requirements is conditional upon the
processor repeating the baseline analysis if changes are implemented to the waste processing
operations or waste stream in a manner that may adversely impact the quality of the RSM.
The rest of this section describes the procedure for collecting and reporting routine monitoring
data. The requirements are provided to aid in developing specific permit conditions for those
facilities intending to produce RSM for beneficial reuse. At a minimum, one 8-hour composite
Page8of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
sample is collected during each routine monitoring event following the procedures detailed in
the Sampling Procedure section of this guidance.
High Frequency Monitoring
High frequency monitoring must be conducted once each week or when 1,000 tons of RSM is
generated, whichever is less frequent. The laboratory must be instructed to measure the total
concentration of arsenic and each constituent present on the COC list The laboratory may be
instructed to randomly select four aliquots from the composite sample and initially analyze
only one while holding the remaining aliquots in storage pending the results. If the
concentration of any constituent is found to exceed its corresponding SCTL then the remaining
three aliquots should be analyzed.
Low Frequency Monitoring
Low frequency monitoring must be conducted once every three months or when 10,000 tons of
RSM is generated, whichever is less frequent. The laboratory must be instructed to measure
the total concentration of arsenic, lead, chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, nickel and any
other COC list constituent identified during baseline analysis. One aliquot of extract must also
be prepared using the ~ S P L P method followed by analysis of the extract for the full suite of
VOCs, semi-VOCs, and any other COCs identified during baseline sampling.
The Department must be notified within 24 hours if any routine monitoring result indicates
that the RSM contains or leaches a COC in excess of the applicable SCTL (use the
industrialj commercial SCTL unless the RSM is used in a residential area) or GCTL. The
Page9of13
MAOS
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for the Management of &covered Screen Material from C & D
Debris Recycling Fadlities in Florida
April15, 2011
processor may continue to sell or use the RSM until the Department provides notification to
cease and desist.
Once each quarter the processor must submit the results of each high and low frequency
monitoring event to their regional district office and the Solid Waste Section in Tallahassee.
The report must be submitted within 30 days of completing the quarterly monitoring event.
The report must be submitted in an electronic format consistent with the Department's
requirements. A complete report includes the following specific items:
A cover letter providing a brief description of results indicating all detections that
exceed cleanup target levels.
The table must include a list of the applicable direct exposure criteria and groundwater
criteria from the SCTL and GCTL tables for comparison.
OFF-SITE USE REQUIREMENTS
In all instances written approval from the Department must be granted to the C&D processor
before the RSM may be beneficially used or used off-site. The Department's approval will be
based upon the results of the baseline testing and routine monitoring. The facility must
continue conducting routine monitoring as described in the SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
section.
Page 10of13
MAOS
April 15, 2011
General Prohibitions and Best Management Practices
Experience has shown that the land application of RSM may potentially lead to violations of
the Department's secondary ground water standards for total dissolved solids and sulfate if
the gypsum wallboard fraction in the processed RSM is too high. The disposal of gypsum
wallboard in a high moisture environment under anaerobic conditions can also lead to the
generation of objectionable odors. Therefore, as a best management practice the C&D
processor must remove gypsum wallboard as much as practical from the C&D debris before
the waste stream is processed. In general, RSM may not be used as fill material in surface
waters or wetlands unless a permit specifically authorizing these uses has been issued by the
Department.
Special Beneficial Use
Use of RSM is allowed under the following special conditions with written approval from the
Department. Weekly monitoring may be discontinued if all RSM produced by the facility is
used in the manner detailed below:
Recovered screen material may be used at a permitted Class I or III landfill as
subsurface construction material, or as initial and intermediate cover provided it
also meets the criteria of Rule 62-701.200(53) and (55) F.A.C. (FDEP, 2010). Use as
initial and intermediate cover may require approval by the Department as part of
the landfill permit.
Recovered screen material may be used with encapsulation technologies, for
example, as part of the aggregate feed in the production of concrete or asphalt,
provided the applicant can demonstrate the proposed use will not result in
violations of the Department's ground water standards or criteria.
Page 11 of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
Residential Beneficial Use
Written approval from the Department must be granted to the RSM processing facility before
the RSM may be installed in the residential setting. The Department's approval will be based
upon the results of the baseline testing and routine monitoring. The Department's approval
letter will detail the list of COCs that require routine monitoring.
Residential use of RSM is allowed under the following conditions:
The 95% UCL of the mean for each contaminant of concern is below its respective
residential SCTL.
The leaching tests and other characterization data do not indicate that the use of the
RSM will result in violations of the Department's ground water standards or criteria.
Other Beneficial Use
Permission may be granted for RSM to be used in other applications on a case-by-case basis
provided the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not pose a significant risk
to human health or the environment. The Department may require institutional controls, such
as property deed restrictions or permanent access controls, depending on the proposed use of
theRSM.
Page 12of13
MAOS
April15, 2011
REFERENCES
Townsend T.G., Jang Y, LeeS, Leo K, Messick B, Tolymat T, Weber W. Characterization of
Recovered Screened Material from C&D Recycling Facilities in Florida. A final report
prepared for the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (Report No
98-13), Tallahassee, FL: 1998.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Guidelines for the Management of
Recovered Screen Material from C&D Debris Recycling Facilities in Florida, Solid Waste
Section, Tallahassee, FL: 1998.
Florida Administrative Code. Solid Waste Management Facilities, (Chapter 62-701), Florida
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
(USEPA SW-846) 2nd Ed, Washington, D.C. Office of Solid Waste, 1992.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Standard Operating Procedures for
Laboratory Operations and Sample Collection Activities, (DEP-QA-001/2008) Quality
Assurance Section, Tallahassee, FL: 2008.
Florida Administrative Code. Contaminant Cleanup Target Levels, (Chapter 62-777), Florida
Florida Administrative Code. Quality Assurance, (Chapter 62-160), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL: 2008.
Page 13of13
MAOS
Contaminated Soils, Sediments and Water
Volume 11, Chapter 24, pp. 366-360
2006
Chapter 24
BENEFICIAL USE OF C&D RECOVERED
SCREEN MATERIAL IN RESIDENTIAL
APPLICATIONS: A CASE STUDY
Brenda S. Clark
1
, Philip T. Medico
2
, Frank J. Bennudez
2
, Myles Clewner
1
,
Richard G. Wilkins
3
, R. Marie Coleman
4
, and Christopher M. Tea:f'
5
1
Giobex Engineermg & Developmenl, Inc .. 1239 E. Newport Cemer Dr., Sulle l/7, Deerfleld
Beach, FL, 33442;
2
Sun Recycling, LLC, 3251 SW 26th Terrace, Dania Beach, FL, 33312;
3
Broward County EnVIronmental Protection Department, 2/8 S.W. I" Avenue, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL 33301;
4
Hazardous Substance & Waste Management Research, Inc., 2976
Wellington C1rcfe, Tallahassee, FL 32309; scenter for Biamedrcal & Taxicolog1cal Research.
F l o r ~ d a State Urnv .. 2035 D1rac Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32310
Abstract: Florida has established guidelines to encourage recycling and use of recycled
materials in a manner protecting public health and the environment.
Recovered screened material (RSM) generated at a construction and
demolition (C&D) debris recovery fucility is a recycled material with reuse
potential. In order to reuse RSM, it must be shown that the material poses no
significant threat to public health or the envnonment. The Sun Recycling
facilities in Broward and Palm Beach counties are C&D facilities, generating
RSM (i.e., soli with wood, concrete. other C&D particles) through mechanical
separation using screens The process generates RSM meeting state
requirements for industrial, commercial, and residential use. RSM was used
on residential lots in Miramar to elevate low areas (excluding building pads)
In accord with Broward County Environmental Protection Department (EPD)
and Palm Beach County Department of Health (DOH) permits, Sun facilities
perform regular testing of RSM. RSM tests showed arsenic (As)
concentrations below state criteria. Quanerly testing did not detect volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), or
pesticides. RSM was delivered to homesites and mixed with existing site soil.
To address concerns raised by some residents, Miramar hired a consultant to
collect samples for arsenic and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
(TRPH), resulting m reports of some As levels above residential criteria
Further sampling/analysis of RSM and local soils in the neighborhood were
performed by Broward EPD and Sun. Results of As and speciated TRPH
.indu.>'
MAOS
analysis performed by the Miramar, Broward EPD, and Sun will be discussed.
A consensus conclusiOn of acceptable conditions was reached by all parties.
Key words: Recychng, RSM, arsenic, TRPH, C&D, public health, soil, residential
1. INTRODUCTION
Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris processing facilities generate,
among other recyclable products, a soil-like material which is the result of
multiple sorting and screening operations. This Recovered Screen Material
(RSM) consists primarily of soil particles and other materials that can pass
through a small screen (e.g., wood, rock, drywall, concrete). Florida Statutes
articulate the clear intent of the legislature to encourage recycling and use of
recycled materials, so long as that recycling process is conducted in a
manner that protects public health and the environment. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has established specific
criteria and guidelines for the use and reuse of RSM under the auspices of
the solid waste management rule and associated guidance documents (e.g.,
FDEP, 1998). The FDEP guidance defines requirements for the following:
sampling and analytical testing of RSM, establishment of use restrictions
(e.g., residential, commercial/industrial), and explicit criteria for RSM
management.
This paper describes a successful case study involving the use of RSM in
a residential application in Broward County, Florida, including important
aspects of site characterization, regulatory oversight, citizen concerns, public
dialogue, and ultimately a demonstration of safe and proper use of the RSM
product.
2. CASE STUDY DETAILS
As a part of the initial permitting process with local and state regulatory
agencies, RSM from a variety of batches at one C&D processing facility was
sampled over a period of weeks and months to develop a profile regarding
the chemical quality of the product, as well as its variability. Many samples
were collected and analyzed for metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semivolatile compounds (SVOCs), and pesticides. Throughout the initial
characterization period, the RSM samples failed to show exceedances
beyond state soil criteria in any of these categories. This demonstration of
acceptable RSM for future use is related to the sequence of the processing
elements at the facility and to the fact that it does not accept any materials
MAOS
tbaf contain potentially hazardous substances (e.g., hazardous waste,
batteries, tires, oil, drums, asbestos, or garbage).
In addition to the initial pre-permit RSM characterization, routine testing
was conducted at the C&D processing facility on a weekly/quarterly basis
for a variety of parameters to document ongoing permit compliance for
unrestricted uses ofthe RSM (e.g., residential).
This case study focuses on a several month period in 2004 when, due to
periodic flooding of low-lying properties, a number of homeowners in
Miramar, a small Broward County municipality, elected to have RSM placed
on their lots as fill material. Prior to placement of the RSM, sites were
cleared of vegetation and "demucked" to remove the highly organic surface
layer. Following RSM placement, the muck and soil were mixed with RSM,
and the areas were regraded and seeded.
3. RESULTS
Following the application of RSM to approximately 60 properties in one
subdivision neighborhood in Miramar, several property owners complained
to the City, and the City staff collected unannounced samples of what were
believed to be lots where soil and RSM had been mixed and graded. The
RSM was used to raise the elevation of the lots to address historical flooding
concerns.
Following analysis of those samples a number of statements were
publicized in the news media with regard to the "elevated concentrations of
arsenic and Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH)" in those
samples. In the simplest interpretation, the maximum arsenic concentration
(3.2 mglkg) and maximum TRPH concentrations (680 mglkg) in City
samples were in excess of FDEP default residential Soil Cleanup target
levels (SCTLs) of2.1 mglkg (arsenic) and 460 mg/kg (TRPH), respectively.
Principal concerns were raised about the potential hazards posed by the
observed concentrations. These complaints resulted in the City placing a
moratorium on further use of RSM, which initiated a several-months-long
process of resampling, assessment of background, naturally occurring soil
concentrations of arsenic, as well as a series of risk assessment steps which
sought to place the observed concentrations into appropriate perspective for
the City and for the residents.
MAOS
Table 1 Florida SCTLs for Individual TRPH Fractions
TRPH Fraction
scrL (mg/l(g)
Residential Industrial Leachability
Cs-C7 Aromatic 340 1800 34
Aromatic 490 3700 59
>Ca-CIO Aromatic 460 2700 340
>CwC12 Aromatic 900 5900 520
>Cta-Ct
6
Aromatic 1500 12000 1000

Aromatic 1300 11000 3200
>C21C!s Aromatic 2300 40000 25000
Cs-C6 Aliphatic 6200 33000 470
>C6Cs Aliphatic 8700 46000 1300
>CsC10 Aliphatic 850 4800 7000
>CwC12 Aliphatic 1700 10000 51000
>C12"c,. Aliphatic 2900 21000
*
>Ct6-C3s Aliphatic 42000 280000
*
Based on the acceptable concentratiOn of 5000 !l-g/L For groundwater and surface waters.
* Not a health concern for this exposure scenario.
SCTL = Soil Cleanup Target Level.
Followup sampling and analysis were conducted by Broward County
Department of Planning & Environmental Protection (DPEP), which now is
known as the Environmental Protection Department. Samples for assessing
RSM concentrations were selected from lots where RSM was applied and
mixed with soil. In addition, a number of unimpacted surface soil samples
were collected by Broward DPEP staff, in order to establish surface soil
background arsenic concentrations.
For arsenic, the three (3) City samples of RSM/soils showed 2.9 to 3.2
mglkg, which is quite consistent with known background concentrations in
many southeast Florida soils. In comparison, the six (6) samples collected
by County staff showed arsenic at 2.31 to 2.95 mglkg, values quite similar to
the City samples. The FDEP default SCTL for arsenic in unrestricted
circumstances is 2.1 mglkg. In addition to the RSM/soil samples, County
staff collected five (5) samples for assessment of background (i.e., naturally
occurring) arsenic in soils. Those data showed a background range of3.37
to 13 mglkg (average 6.9 mglkg), compared with U.S. Public Health Service
estimates of 5 mglkg as a U.S. average, while U.S. EPA estimates 3 mglkg
for Florida as a statewide average. A more recent University of Florida
study conducted for FDEP concluded that the general background arsenic
concentration was 6.6 mglkg, and was on the order of 12 mglkg for Broward
County. Thus, it clearly was demonstrated that arsenic in the RSM/soil
samples was not elevated as a result of the use of RSM. These
MAOS
detenninations were reached during consultation between the toxicologist
retained by the C&D facility, the toxicologist retained by the City of
Miramar, County s t a f ~ and City staff.
For TRPH, the issue is much more complex, since there are both
background considerations for TRPH, as well as differential toxicity of
various hydrocarbon molecular weight fractions. The state, FDEP, has
established 13 categories of petroleum hydrocarbon toxicity consistent with
the classifications of the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working
Group (TPHCWG, 1997), as shown in Table I. It frequently proves useful,
as in this case, to conduct more sophisticated analyses on the TRPH group,
in order to detennine which fractions are most dominant. For example,
weathered or high molecular weight hydrocarbons exhibit very limited
toxicity (residential SCTL 42,000 mgfkg for 16 to 35 carbons), while lighter
molecular weight, more volatile hydrocarbons exhibit greater toxicity
(residential SCTL 340 mgJkg for 5 to 7 carbons). City samples showed
TRPH in RSM/soil samples at 250 to 680 mgl_kg, while County samples
exhibited 486 to 2,810 mgJkg. Further, the County samples from
background locations exhibited 449 to 727 mgJkg TRPH, leading to a
conclusion that City results were due to naturally occurring background,
rather than RSM "contamination". Nevertheless, fraction-specific TRPH
analysis by the County demonstrated that essentially all of the TRPH was in
the high molecular weight, very low toxicity category and, thus, did not
represent a threat to public health.
Groundwater sampling did not show elevated concentrations of either
arsenic or TRPH components. Thus, the investigations and regulatory
decisions focused on potential soil impacts.
Following the collection and interpretation of the newer analytical data
for the site, several meetings were held among County staff, City staff and
scientific consultants to discuss appropriate responses. While there was a
consensus that the comprehensive data set did not indicate a human health or
ecological problem, a constructive decision was made to hold a public
meeting to present the data in an open forum and to respond to citizen
concerns and questions. At this meeting, brief presentations were made by
County and City representatives both of a scientific nature and an
administrative nature, given some questions about the need for pennits to
apply RSM as fill material. The meeting concluded amicably, and no
restrictions remain on the use ofRSM on residential lots in Broward County,
with the exception of ongoing mandatory monitoring protocols to ensure the
consistent composition of the RSM.
MAOS
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Residual Screen Material (RSM) from Construction & Demolition
(C&D) debris processing operations, when properly sampled, characterized,
and installed, can be suitable in mixed or unmixed condition for use as soil
under residential land uses without presented health risks. This case study
successfully demonstrates an appropriate application of RSM product
testing/analytical procedures, public involvement, and regulatory oversight
concerning such uses involving a commercial C&D facility permittee, state
and local governmental entities, and the general public. Both arsenic and
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) initially were suggested
to be health concerns associated with RSM. However, following further
sampling of site and background locations and more sophisticated analysis
for TRPH, a clear demonstration was made that arsenic and TRPH either
were present at levels which did not exceed natural background values, or
were present at levels that were not of concern from a human health
perspective. At the end of the process, there was general consensus by all
parties (City, County, permittee, public) that the RSM did not pose a threat
to human health or to the environment. This case study represents a success
in terms of innovative application of recycling technology, productive use of
sophisticated analytical techniques, and constructive dialogue among
agencies, the permittee and the general public.
REFERENCES
FDEP. 1998 Guidelines for the management of recovered Screen Material from C&D
Debns Recycling Facahlles m Florida Prepared by Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, FL.. September 28, 1998
TPHCWG. 1997. Draft, Volume IV: Development of Fraction-specific Reference Doses
(RIDs) and Reference Concentrations (RICs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Cnteria Working Group. Amherst Scientific Publishing,
Amherst, MA
MAOS
City of Miramar
An Equal OpportUnity Employer

Lori C.
June 18, 2012
Mr. Philip T, Medico, Jr.
GovernmentAffairs
Sun Recyclirtg, L.L:O & Bergeron Environmental and Recycling, LLC
. th .
3251 SW26. Terrace.
Oa,nia, FL ..
RE: Intent: te Award Letter for RFP - Solid Waste, Disposal
SerVices
eity.;Corri'ri:iiS'sibn:
' , ::
WfnstBrt'F.t Eiarnes

'' ' f1 tbe" ' '.

'. ", ,' '_,' :, ' ; < '' ' ' , ' ' ' ... ' ,'
:\'(' ,: >:{ ,. -,"
..
.
< Qofnmission: tor . .
. 2t:>:12 a,t:. Chambers, Gi_i<f . .
.. n).- . . . .. .:. '- . : :, .
: >' ' -'" ', - "' -' ' .J -" ,.-," ,-._ ' ,,, ,. '' ., - ' - ' _,. ' '
' '
.. or .. -

anY .. or .
,,: ', '' ' :,:(';J .. .
: - ....

',..;,,'!< :: ' ',-, "'','
. '
'.
the
Genter.
Y" _
. ! .
' '

.":cTty(;'fiM, ..

. .
' :'::;;;lj . .. ':. _ _-,:_b,._;s_'._?l;
.L . .. .. ; .
F.AK . , '(95'4,:190?:".3525.
' .>-- '" ,, ,'' <-
cc: . ' . .
. , ., ..
Vernon Hargray.,
. . .
Yve.tieMc4ea&: .
',,. ,-'-,'
MAOS

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BROWARD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BROWARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Petitioner,
vs.
SUN RECYCLING, LLC,
Notices of Violation: #06-0033
#06-0034
#06-0039
#07-0014
#07-0015
#07-0021
#07-0028
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ '
JOINT STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1 . That the parties stipulate to tl)e evidence in the binders known as Book 1
and Book 2.
2. Respondent, SUN RECYCLING, LLC., admits to the violations contained
in the Notices of Violation set forth above .
3. Respondent is exercising its right to an administrative hearing as it relates
to the penalties set forth in Section 27-22 of the Broward County Code.
The parties agree in law and fact that Sun Recycling, LLC, its principals
and employees never intentionally violated the law. Sun Recycling agrees
that there was a lack of institutional controls within the company that could
have prevented the violations and that the violations could have been
reasonably anticipated or foreseen.
4. That the parties agree that the Hearing Examiner shall retain jurisdiction in
MAOS

I
I
i
-
this matter until compliance has been completed. However, Petitioner
retains its right to pursue jurisdictional remedies in accordance with
Section 27-28, Browward County Code.
Dated: July_, 2007.
DEJ:Sh
7/13/07
Respectfully submitted,
and
Daphne Jones, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
115 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 423
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 357-7600 (Tel.)
954-357-7641 (Fax)
SunRecylcing-Proposed Joint Stipulation. DOC
2
MAOS
SEP-07-2007 FRI 03:04PM TRIPP SCOTT,PA
FAK NO. 9547618475
,., ....... ,..-.._.... .............................. ,"".--..... -.. ..
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER fOR THE BROWARD COUNTY
EtMRONMENTAL PROTECTION OEPARlMENT
fN ANO FOR BROWARD CotltfNt FLORIDA
BROWARD COUNTY
PROTECTION DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner,
i
Notices of Violation: 06-0033
'I
vs.
SUN RECYCUNG, lLC,
Respondent.
FINAL OJ!QSB
06..0034
08-0039
07w0014
07-0015
07-0il21
07-00,28
THfS MAlTER came before the undersigned hearing examiner for the Browa.rd
County EnVironmental ProteCtiOn Department f'EPD") at a hearing hetd on July 17,
2007 continued on August 29. 2007 Fort lauderdale, Florida. to tne
Joint Stipulation entered Into by Yh-e parties on o[iabout July 17, 2007, Respondent,
Sun Recycling, LLC, admJts to the viotations contained in the Notices of VIOlation -set
forth above-. Respondent oougm. an aDministrative hearing solefy as. it related to the
pellaltie.s set forth in Seotion 27-22 of the Br.oward Cou.11\y Code. The sole issue to be
determmed is whether fhe penalties being sought by Ef'D are reasonable.
EPD is seeking cil.lll pemllffies in the aggyegate amount oi an
adjustment factor of which equates t.o $129,167.00, and administrative -costs of
$11.268.00 for a tota! amount of $463,352.00. EPO also requests certain specif'Jed
corrective action detailed at tlie end of thfs Final O#er.
Daphne E. Jones, Esq. of tlw Broward CoLll1ty Attorney's Office represented the
EPD and presented the testimony of Glenn Mai!Tistrom, Joseph W. Lunx, DEP Waste
Program Administrator and Barbara Chow. t>latural Resource Speciaisf It Daniel E.
1
P. 02
.I
I
.\
I
:.\
;I
!
{:
' I
:!
'j
I.
,.
n
l!
l
l
I.
MAOS
SEP-07-2007 FRI 03:04 PH TRIPP SCOTT,PA
FAX NO. 8547618475
:L
Taylor, Esq. of Tripp Soott and Alfred J. Mafatto, Esq. of Greenberg Traurig
represented the Respondent and presented the of Robert 8. Gardner, PE,
. .
'
BCEE, Senior Vice President with SCS Engineers,[ and Christcpher Morris Teaf, Pn.D .
Associate Director of the Center for BiotnedlcaJ and T Researeh and Waste
. t .
Management at Florida State University and PreSident and Director of ToXicology far
Substance and Waste Management Research, hlc.
FJNDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent was with seven separ# Notices of Violation for murtiple
. !
violations which occurred between Juiy .25, .2006 and February 7, 2007. (See
Appendix Awhidl ;s attached hereto and incnrporatad herein by reference.}
2. On or about Jufy 17,2007 (document signed not dated}, the parties entered into
a Joint Stipulal.io!"l whereby Respondent to all of the violaficns contained
in the Notices ofVl.olatFon whFch are the subject of this dispute. The parties agreed
that Respondent never Intentloflaly vjoJated the law. RespondGnt agreed there
was a lack of !nstitUtionat co:ntrols wil:hlo the company that coufd have prevanted
the vio.lations and that the violations could been reasonably anticipated or
I
foreseen. Respondent sought the administrative hearing for lhe sole pu:pose of
determining the amount of penalties that shoUld be assessed against Respondent
for the violat}ons.
3. Glenn fl.tlalmstrom, EP.D, was qualified as an in solid waste. Mr. Jialmstrorn
tesmed that he personally conducted inspections on the sites which are the subject
of this hearing. Mr. Malmstrom testlfted that fils visual inspection of each of the
sites revealed that the material deposited on the Pfoperty to be used as fill
P. 03
r
I
MAOS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
l
I
l
SEP-07-2007 FRI 03:05 PM TRIPP SOOTT,PA
FflK NO. 9547618475
. 'I!
... --------")-- - -
appeared to be solid waste. Mr. Malmstrom that he saw fairly lai'g(:'J pieces
of woodc asphalt roofingt foam insulation, metal and plastic throughout the various
sites. Mr. Malmstrom testified that the deposftea on these Sites did oot
appear to have been processed suffieiellUy to .be considered as recovered screen
material (i'RSM) and further $ted that the matE!da!s did nGt \Nsuahy appear to be
suitable ror distribution as tl\1 materiaL Mr. M:fii1T'I3trom testified that he took a
composite of the finer materfal for li!lbormnry analy'Sis as weft as coarser
samptes, which were produced .at the heariogj Mr. Malmstrom testified that there
I
I
were substantial amounts of saUd waste dep0f%itad on all of the subject properties
[ .
as evidenced by the photographs which he ancl .wbmltted into evld9nce.
4. Mr. Malmstrom that he met with Respondentts representatives in
2006 wnerain he was advised that Respondent had
some mechanical probterns witl'l its prc.u;essing as weH 2il mar-.agement
pto:blems at the Sun 2 & 3 facilities. Mr. Ma!mstrom testified that Respondent'$
representatives that some overages were being with
materials in ifle final product and distribution.
5. Mr. Malm:sttorn testified that, accordlog to the R.ecavered screen MateriaJ Bas.ellne
Sampfing Report dated September 9, 2002, it that five semivo!atide
organic compounds were detec_ted io RSM sampJes at
exoeed ing the residential exposure soil cleanup target levels
(''SCTLsw). Additionally, "two SVOCs were detected ln RSM samples at total
concentratfoos exoeeding the leachability based On groundwater criteria SCTls."
As a result it was recommended that RespQndent begin exclUding asphalt, CCA
I I;
3
p, 04
MAOS
..._. -'ol'.
FAX NO. 9547618475
. !
wood, and roofing shtngtes from RSM through visual sereentng and best
management practk:es. Acco<lngiy, in the Recovered Screen Material
Supplemental Baseline Sampling Report datJ brch 20, 2003, it \ft./aS concluded
that the reduction of 1ha svocs concsofla!ions to levels below regulatory
standards appeared to be the resun of tne remo\lat ot these products from tha
i .
fReclstoc.k of the RSM generation. It was suggested that these praotiees be
continued. Mr. Malmstrom testifJSd that these studies put the Respondent on
notice that there were poor internal controls which were affectilrlg the disposal .and
end use of RSM materials.
i
6. Mr. Malmstrom testified that during several visits at Sun 2, he witnessed
i
Clty of Deerfield Beaoh truekis dump bf solid waste that did not appear to
be construction and demolition deOrls CC&D"). Mr. Malmstrom tes.tffied that the
debris contained bulky, curbside waste material such as televisions. c0fr1,puter
monitors and furniture. Mr. Mafmstrom te-stified that this is 'in direct viotation of
Respondent's sOlid waste Jioonse which aliCMr:> the fadlrty to recerve only C&D
waste.
7. Mr. Malmstrom that the quantit quatity ,and size of the sotid waste amount
to a moderate for harm lo the enviro".ment. He further testified that the
extent of deviation was major due to the faet that: Ri:!$pondentt was familiar wrfh the
rules of sotid waste and violated them; Respondent viotatsd me requirements of its
Sofid Waste Management License: the eame type of sclid waste was being widely
distributed to various sites -throughout 6roward Palrn Beach County,
P. 05
'
,,,
'I
'I
i
!
E
(
I
I
'
MAOS
'
SEP-07-2007 FRI 03:06PM TRIPP SGOTT,PA
FAX NO. 9547818475
................................... ,_ .. .,.."" ........ .......... ,...........__ -
wetland property; and Respondent was of the poor institUtional controts ar: itS
facifities.
8. Joseph lurix, DEP, was quaUf.erl as an e1,ert In sofld waste management
ta.ws and waste management fa;::ftitles. Mr. Lurix testified that
he had vfsited many of the sites which are the subject of this Where he
pers.onally \ltlftnessed quantifies of solid waste distributed throughovt
these properiles. In partiCU1ar, Mr. lurbt" testlfied that he sam large pieces of
styrofoam, nails, roofing materials and wood on various propertfes throughout ftte
county some of which extended across whole properties and some which were
i
close to private wens, septic tanks and other groundwaler.
9, Mr. Lurix testified that he met with Respondetlt"s manager, John Fox, who admitled
that :there was a problem with the star screen and that materials were going to
neighborhoods that should have been Mr. Lul'i}( 'estifted
Mr. Fox showed him a broken screen throuoo which to four inch material
could pass.
10.0n crossexaminatioo, Mr. Lu;ix stated that Responder:t has rosponded to the
concerns of the county and had bean worKing to remove the solid waste ftom at
feast one- of the wbject properties.
11.Sarbara Chow, E:PD, -was (1Ua1ified as an expert in Wetlands and Wetlands
Determination. Ms. Chow that she hao completed s field o.f .the
four wetland sites referred to as the Rivera, Fisher, Taylor and Hibbett properties.
Ms. Chow testified that Respondent nad substantiel amounts of solid
waste fiH on the subject propertieS. Ms. Chow testified that the C&D debris
P. 06
rl
\
!
I
E I
r
I
I
I
MAOS
... ---.. 1 ... ......._
FAK.NO. 9547618475
! I
. !
shingles and otfler prohibfted Ms- Chow testified that the
potential for harm to the wetlands is moderate rrife the extent of deviation is major.
Ms. Chow testified that Respondent has taken for piecing solid waste
on the subject 'NSflands and has begun ta remove the fill as required oy
EPD.
12. Mr. Robert Gardner was qualified as an in EnvimnmentaJ Engineering. Mr.
Gardner tesfified that he became tnvofved in this case Jo 2007, when he
began reviewing the testing data from Respondent's. weekty and quarte1ly
samplings. Mr. Gardner testified that the testing data shows no change from
baseline samples .and as such. oplood that the RSM generated by Respondent is
I
'
suit<mle for placement at lndi..IStrial and resldentlat setting$. Mr. Gardner testified
th;rt. based upon pre'Jailing studies rn the field as weif as own training and
experience, the effects cf RSM on fue environment pose na known risk. Mr.
Gardner further t-estified that that screen size .does not in any -...vay change l.,e
nature or charactelisHc of the waste o:tnd as sw;h. opined the known risks are
unaffected by the size or age of the solld waste.: Mr. Gardner testified that the solid
waste material generated by the Respoqaent and dispersed to the variowi
propertioes throughout me county pose mhlirMI henn to the enVironment. Mr.
Gardner testified that RSM carmot be deposited\ into water or -wetlands but opined
that this is precautionary only, stating that lhe risk of environms:ntai impact is
minimal.
13, On cross ehGlmination, Mr. Gardner admitted that he had no personal knowledge of
flow the sampling occurred for Uw testing of tha sttes. EPD contended mat the solid
P. 07
r
I
!
:I
\
.!

'J
I
. !
MAOS
1
I
l
I
I
l
l
l
l
t
SEP-07-2007 FRI 03:07PM TRIPP
FAX NO. 9547618475
, r : .
I
waste is not mere RSM, but of other Class lit waste that sh<>u*d nave been
rejected by Respondent Howaver, Mr. Gan:lr testified that 1he sampling data
does not suggest contamination by products other than C&D and he testitled that
thete would be no signiftcant impact to the environment and minlmaf harm even
14-CI'lristopher Teaf, Ph.D .. was quaJffisd as an 1.7JIQ'ert in toxioology, health risk
assessment and environmental chemistry. Or . Teat testified that he reviewed an of
the data and RSM sampling arn;aysis provtcted by Respondent. in addition to
meeting with Respondent's staff and visiting. the facilrties. Or. T eaf te.Etified 1hat,
based upon I'Jis review of tha sampling data, 'the RSM does oot pose a health
hazard. Dr. Teat Respondent's .cas.e to that involved in the Miramar study
wnerm the auth<>m eonetuded that ih-e RSM cUd not pose a slgnifJCant to
public health or to the environment. Or. raai testWted !l'lat the screen size and
particle si2e do not present a health or hazard. Dr. Teaf exptained
that size restrlctJons are based upon aeetnet?cs Cflly and have nothing to do W}th
health conoems. Or. Teaf te$-lifled that one must look at ttle
concentrations of the wrast-e ana deteon!ne the degree of harm. Dr. Teaf testlffed
that, based t:pon his review of the !Neel<ly and ql.la.rtsciy sampling tesults. his
training and experience and knowledge of sites such as those wh!ch are the ;subject
of this dispute, the degree of harm i:l) minimaL
15. Judicial (administrative} notice was taken of the follo\Mng:
s. Settterneni Agreement for NOV04-0017; NOV04-0024 and NOV04-0061
whE:!reln it was afieged that Respondent falled to strictly catrtror dust
7
P. 08
MAOS
. SEP-07-2007 FRI oa:oa PM TRIPP SGOTT,Ffi
FfiX NO, 8547618475
:ll
emissions from the mat-ertal recovery facilitY at 22a1 NW 1 atn Street in
Pompano Beach, in violation of condition# 15 of the Solid Waste
b. Settlement Agreement fer NOV02..oo83 wherein it was alleged that
Respondent received maferiar not .authorized by Sofid WEWte Menagernent
License RR98-18941.
c. Settlement Agreement fot NOV(l4..()046 and NOV04-00SO wherein it was
alleged that Respondent received aodlor deposited unacceptable debris .on
the ground and in the borrow pit In violation of spec!fic condition# 1 of the
Solid Waste Management License SW-8?00020-02.
d. Settlement Agreement for NOV01-30766; NOV01-30759;
NO\f01 .. 30769; N0\/0130770;
i
!
30773 and wherein it ll'llaS affeged t/lat Respondent.
f. Received and deposited. saUd waste- on !and service and Respondent
allegedly recehtecf and deposited. non..clean debt!s in violation ot
condition# 1 of Solid Waste Management License RR9&-15406.
ii. Disposed of solid waste f.rom a, non-lfcensed disposaf facility in
violation of condition # 12 of Solid Waste Management Ucense
RRSB-18941.
iii. Operated w1thout an operator or spotter tr.ained in accordanos with
F.A.C. ru!:es ... and faUedto include irt itS June 2001 reports to DPEP a
record of ali types of materia! and aU disposal sites shown in the daily
r. m
MAOS
SEP-07-2007 FRI 03:Q8PM TRIPP SCDTT,PA
FAX NO. 9547618475
11'
..
' I
i
.... ------..- . . --.......... -. .
records in vioJstion r:l Z:3 of Solid Waste Manageinent
Ueense RR97-19101.
I
iv. Shipped recoveTed screened rna'tertal (RSM) from facility I 1 to an
unapproved fiU site in vhltatlon of specific condition # 1 o of Solid
Waste Management license RR9! S10'f.
'
v. Operated without an operntoc or spotter trained in accordance with
F.A.C. rules .. and faited to incklde its June 2001 reporls to DPEP a
record of an types Of materiat and all disposal sites shown In the daily
'
records in violation of condition # 23 of Solid Waste MaOiliQement
license RR.9B-1894 '2.
vi. Shipped recovered screened (RSM) from # 1 to
unapproved till Sites in violation )Jf speclffc condition I 1 0 of Solid
Waste Management License RR91-19101.
'
e. Settlement Agreement for NOVOS--0064 wherein It was alleged that
Respondent failed to comply with Speciiic Condition Nos. 9 and 10 of the
Solid lf.Jasta Management Ucense RR98-1S941-02. by re<Oovering pressore
treated and painted wood debri::;. with clean wood and sending
I
all of the materral m another facility for precessing attd by receiving and
processing Class HI solid waste.
f. Final Order for NOV02-0011 wherein it is aKeged that Respondent fajJed to
strictly control {he dust at all times by fugmve particulate matter to
leave the material recovery facility in violation of Specific Conoitloo #16 of
Solld Waste Management License 8941.
p, 10 r
l
(
l
I
I
I
I,
II
'
MAOS
SEP-07-2007 FRI 03!09 PH TRIPP SCOTT,PA
FAX NO. 9547618475
: .
. .... --.. _ .................... --. .... .. .._ ..
I:
LAW
Jt is uncontroverted that the Respondent c:owmtttad the violations as contained
I .
in the Notices I'Jf VIOfatfon which are th$ subject of this .eause. In determining
the approptiale penalties to impose. sedion 27...22 of the Broward County Code
enumerates certain criteria that allaH be during tM determination of a
penaity. The weight of !he evidenoe soggests that too potential for harm is minor.
However, itle sub:siantfal amount of solid waste distributed to the vast number or sites
. '
throughout the county. including wetland areas, .suQ9ests a devtation ftom
the 84"oWiifd County Code- and as weH as a cfeiiberate-
. -
violation of Respondent's Sotid Waste Ueense. The evidence reflects a
history of noncompU.anoe by Respondent and suggests an e.cooomic beneflf for sueh
noncompliance !nsofar as pro( Imposition of pena.Wes .and costs has not deterred
fcom engaging in further 'Violations of similar oh$rac\er. The evidanoa is
ctear that Respondent knew or Should have 'known that it was not wJth
County code, partim.Aarly since the requirements were $pecificalty outlined in
Respondent's Solid Waste Management licen:ieS and the joint stipuration -whereby
Respondent agrees mat there was a lack of instHutlonal controls and that the violation
could 11ave been reasonably anticip-ated or foreseen.
By way of mitigation, the evidence reflects that Respondent has at ail times
relevant hereto cooperated with EPD, has ateady' taken action to remediate some ci
the subjeot sites and has indicmed a wfllingness 'to remediate all of the sires in
accordance with County code and prooedures_
\MREFORE, it is trereby ORDERED AND AOJUDGEO that
10
P. II
MAOS
I:
I
'
I
FAX NO, 9547618475
'!I
_,_ .. _, ............... ---
" .
. --- ..........
l) In NOV00-0033, Respondent shali pay a civil penalty of $8
1
899.00.
2) Jn NOVQ6..00S4. Resportdertt shall pc;y a civil penatl.y of $8,899.00.
'
3) Jn Respondent shan a civil penalty of $8,250.00.
4) fn NOV07-0014, Respondent shall a dvlJ peMity()f $lW,OOO.OO.
S) fn NOV07 .. oo15, Respof'Kient pay a ct'V!! peoatty of $50,000.00.
6) in NOV07-0021, Respondent shaU pay-a civil penalty of $S.S99.00.
7) ln NOV07 -0028, Respondent shari a CIVH penatty of $8,899.00.
An adjustment factor of -!tO% be Imposed based up.on
i
Respondents history of noncornpnanoe and to lensure and eontinuad
compliance. Adm!rtistratlve costs are :a1so imposed: in the amount oj $11,268.00. This
amounts to a total sum due and owing of .$2::54,652.!>0. Of this total amwnt,
$234,152.00 shall be paid to lhe aroward County Environmental Protection
Oepartment ("EPD'j and S20,SOO.OO shari be paid to Florida Oepartf'Oent of
Env!ronmentsl Protection. S.E. florida Df.strict - West Paim Seach Jn
addition, the fo.Mowing corrective action shall be Imposed in thiS oase:
fifteen (15} days from the datf3 of the Order, Respondent shail
provide t-o EF'D for approval a Action Pian tRAPj which: 1) identifies the
actions to be taken by the Respondent to ensure compliance of fui RSM
ope;ationslproductlon and record--keepjng at an : facifities and 2) addres-ses the
remediation of the thirty-five {35} properties tmpacted with solid Willste. The RAP sha!J
oontamlioclude, but not be lli'nited to the iol!owing:
Q tdentify 1hose locations that have- already received rcmed"Jal action and provide
detaHs on the actlon(s) that have taken
P. 12
MAOS
,.,.wa Vl '-I:.IVI 11\1 uJotu .ru Jl'i.U'r iJvUII, rH
,.__p. . - ..........
1) Amount of material removed. Was it comp1ete or partfal?
.2} fd'ant;ty conlractor, hauler, and disposallocation(s}.
a1 Amount and type of replacement matertar provided) tt any .
. i
4} tdentify contraoo>r. hauler, etc.
a Identify the locations where aCtion is stBI required.
l) Identify proposed aotioo(-s) to take place,
2) Provide 3 for actio11 cornptetlion for each focation.
J) Identify contractor, haUler, and disposal tccation.(s), etc.
.. Identify the locations where removal earmot be cc:mducted.
l} Oetaa circumstances preventing penon.
Provkle a Ust any additionat locations uncovered by sun Recycling
requiring remedial action.
.. Detail controls implemented by Sttn Recycling, LLC at the facilities
{Sun Recycling #2 aM Sun Recycting #3) related to RSM production.
distribution, testing, and reporting ro provide assurances that fi.vture similar
i
viof.alions wiU not occur.
Respondent shall immediately begin to remove all solid waste 'from the
fr.te (35) properties identifled in me Notices of Vtolation upon i!iiPproval of the RAP
by EPD. of U1e thjrty-five (35) impacted properties shall commence
with the four (4} wetland sites located in Southwest Ranches (NOV00.0033,
NOVOS..D034, NOV07-002i, and NOVD70028) and the me {2) sites located in
Wef.t Palm Beach where the material was placed in the water table and Oh .a siie
thai has a priv.ate wef.l (NOV07 -0015, Counts 1 & 2 and Counts 21 & 22}. Wfthln ien
1Z
MAOS
-----''"
SEP-01-2007 FRI 03:11 PM TRIPP
NO. 9547618475
'I I
......
(1 0) days from the date of remediation of each $He, Respondent shaH provide to
EPD waste disposal recelptstmanlfesta for the removal of the soUd waste. The
disposal receiptslmanifests4 at a mininlum. must identify the site rernediated,
quantity of soti-d' waste removed, the dlsposeJ and the hauler's name and
address.
The undersigned Hearing retain jurisdtctloo over th!s matter ant!
grants to EPD 1he right to petition for additional penaffies shOUld any of the solid
waste remrun on any of the thirty--five (:35) impacted sites.
DONE AND ORDERED on this 2007 .
....... "....... .... . ._..-,.
Copies Furnished to:
,i ............... .,.
rr\ ;- .. ...
I if... l ...... r
I ,I '
\ ..... -.............. L"' .... ,.' ,..(.
'""' ....... J ..... .
\ .... \ .. .. ..( :.. ... .... ..
CLARJ<,
I'iEARlNG .
Daphne E. Jones, Esq., Assistant County Attorney
Daniel E. Taylor, Esq., Attomey for Respondent
Joon Stagnari, EPD Enforcement Administrator
RECEIVED
.SEP .. 5 ZJ07
i3
P. 14
I I
\
8
MAOS
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE BROWARD COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
BROWARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUN RECYCLING, LLC,
Respondent.
Notices of Violation: 06-0033
06-0034
06-0039
07-0014
07-0015
07-0021
07-0028
07-0050
-----------------------------------'
FINAL ORDER ON ECONOMIC BENEFIT PENAL TV
THIS MA TIER came before the undersigned hearing examiner for the Broward
County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department ("EPGMD") at
a special set hearing held on June 29, 2009 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The sole
issue to be determined is whether Sun Recycling, LLC ("Sun Recycling") realized an
economic benefit as a result of leaving Recovered Screened Material ("RSM") in place
at the twenty-five (25) properties which are the subject of these violations and if so, at
what economic benefit to the Respondent.
EPGMD is seeking a recommended economic benefit penalty in the amount of
$37,968.00.
Daphne E. Jones, Esq. of the Broward County Attorney's Office represented the
EPGMD and presented the testimony of Glenn Malmstrom, Natural Resource
Specialist II. Daniel E. Taylor, Esq. of Tripp Scott represented the Respondent and
was accompanied at the hearing by Frank Bermudez, a representative of Sun
Recycling.
1
MAOS
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent was charged with seven separate Notices of Violation for
multiple violations which occurred between July 25, 2006 and February 7, 2007.
(See Notices of Violation: 06-0033; 06-0034; 06-0039; 07-0014; 07-0015; 07-0021;
and 07 -0028.}
2. On or about July 17, 2007 (document signed but not dated), the parties
entered into a Joint Stipulation whereby Respondent admitted to al! of the violations
contained in said Notices of Violation. The parties agreed that Respondent never
intentionally violated the law. Respondent agreed that there was a lack of
institutional controls within the company that could have prevented the violations
and that the violations could have been reasonably anticipated or foreseen.
Respondent sought an administrative hearing for the sole purpose of determining
the amount of penalties that should be assessed against Respondent for the
violations.
3. On August 31, 2007, a Final Order was entered wherein Respondent
was ordered to pay civil penalties in the amount of $234,152.00 to the Broward
County Environmental Protection Department ("EPGMD") and $20,500.00 to
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, S.E. Florida District - West Palm
Beach ("FDEP").
4. On March 7, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Agreed Final Order
in Case Number NOV07 -0050 wherein the parties agreed that Respondent would
pay a civil penalty of $8,400.00 and administrative costs of $300.00 for a total of
$8,700.00. An Agreed Final Order was entered on June 29, 2009.
2
MAOS
5. With regard to Notices of Violation 06-0033; 06-0034; 06-0039; 07-0014;
07-0015; 07-0021; and 07-0028, the parties stipulated as follows:
Respondent agrees to withdraw/dismiss with prejudice its appeal with
the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) regarding the
Notices of Violation listed in paragraph 5 supra. Within five (5) days
from the rendition of the Final Order, Respondent shall file a motion to
withdraw/dismiss its appeaL Copies of said notice shall be provided to
the EPGMD within five (5) days of filing the motion.
Respondent agrees to pay in full penalties and costs of $234,152.00
previously imposed and owed to the County in the Final Order for the
Notices of Violation listed in paragraph 5 supra., plus any additional
economic benefit penalty imposed by the Hearing Examiner under
those same NOVs, plus a penalty of $8,700.00 for NOV07-0050. The
total penalty and cost amount shall be paid in three (3} consecutive
equal monthly payments beginning August 30, 2009, with subsequent
payments due every thirty (30) days thereafter. If Respondent fails to
make full payment within three (3) months, interest shall begin to
accrue on the unpaid balance at a rate of 8% per year until payment
is made in full. The County reserves the right to take further legal
action to collect.
6. With regard to Notices of Violation 06-0033; 06-0034; 06-0039; 07-0014;
07-0015; 07-0021; and 07-0028, EPGMD's Glen Malmstrom testified that
Respondent hired consultant HDR Engineering, Inc. ("HDR") in order to assist with
3
!
i
I
I
I
I
MAOS
,.
l
I
I
the Recovered Screened Material Cleanup Plan ("RSM Cleanup Plan") ordered as
part of the corrective action in the Final Order dated August 31, 2007. Mr.
Malmstrom testified that he worked closely with representatives of Sun Recycling
and HDR's Brenda Ann Smith Clark, P.E., in overseeing completion of the Cleanup
Plan. Mr. Malmstrom stated that the EPGMD used the report generated by HDR in
calculating the recommended economic benefit penalty. Mr. Malmstrom testified
that the estimated clean up cost was based on $5.1 0/cy and that, of the RSM that
was the subject of the Cleanup Plan, approximately 25% of the material was
unacceptable and should have been otherwise disposed. Therefore, only 25% of
the estimated cost was assessed against Sun Recycling. Mr. Malmstrom testified
that Sun Recycling was cooperative and worked diligently to remedy the violations
to the satisfaction of the EPGMD.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent, Sun Recycling, LLC, is to be commended for its immediate
and continuous cooperation with the EPGMD in remedying the violations
enumerated herein. Sun Recycling provides a valuable service to the community
and has exemplified impressive corporate citizenship in striving to bring these
violations into compliance with Broward County Code. Sun Recycling has spent a
considerable amount of money on its cleanup efforts and has worked diligently with
County staff throughout the cleanup process.
Nonetheless, the evidence is uncontroverted that Respondent has realized an
economic benefit as a result of leaving RSM in place at the subject locations. The
4
MAOS
recommended economic benefit penalty is based upon the data provided by
Respondent's consultant.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Respondent shall pay in full penalties and costs of $234,152.00 previously
imposed and owed to the County in the Final Order for the Notices of Violation listed in
paragraph 5 supra., plus an additional economic benefit penalty in the amount of
$37,968.00, plus a penalty of $8,700.00 for NOV0?-0050. The total penalty and cost
amount shall be paid in three (3) consecutive equal monthly payments beginning
August 30, 2009, with subsequent payments due every thirty (30) days thereafter. If
Respondent fails to make full payment within three (3) months, interest shall begin to
accrue on the unpaid balance at a rate of 8% per year until payment is made in full.
The County reserves the right to take further legal action to collect.
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Respondent shall withdraw/dismiss
with prejudice its appeal with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (4
1
h DCA)
regarding the Notices of Violation listed in paragraph 5 supra. Within five (5) days from
the rendition of the Final Order, Respondent shall file a motion to withdraw/dismiss its
appeal. Copies of said notice shall be provided to the EPGMD within five (5) days of
filing the motion.
. \ <.Q.c.....
RENEE C ' ~ ESQ.
HEARING E X A M ~ R //
.. -. .. _____ ....-/
Copies Furnished to:
Daphne E. Jones, Esq., Assistant County Attorney
Daniel E. Taylor, Esq., Attorney for Respondent
John Stagnari, EPGMD Enforcement Administrator
5
RECEIVED
JUl -6 2009
EPD .. ENFORCEMENT
MAOS

Tripp Scott Exhibits For SWS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tripp Scott Exhibits For SWS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Planning and Environmental Protection

You might also like