STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CITIZENS VOICE ASSOCIATION OF ) HOLMES COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 92-179
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTORS ) ASSOCIATION, INC. and FLORIDA ) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) REGULATION, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, P. Michael Ruff, in Bonifay, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Mr. Kenneth Allison
Post Office Box 52 Bonifay, Florida 32425
For Respondent: Cathy M. Sellers, Esquire (EPAI) Merry E. Lindberg, Esquire
STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS
215 South Monroe Street Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Jefferson Braswell, Esquire
(DER) Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues in this case concern whether the applicant, Environmental Protectors Association, Inc. (EPAI), has provided reasonable assurances that its proposed construction and operation of a Class I, Class III and asbestos municipal solid waste landfill and the closure of an existing Class I municipal solid waste landfill is and will be in compliance with applicable requirements contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-701, FAC, and therefore, whether the permit described in the notice of intent should be granted.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This cause concerns an application by EPAI to construct and operate a 20- acre Class I, Class III, and an asbestos municipal solid waste landfill, as well as its proposal to close an existing 25.5-acre Class I solid waste landfill.
The site at issue is located approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the City of Bonifay, in Holmes County, Florida. The Department reviewed the permit application and on October 25, 1991, it issued a notice of intent to issue the permit. The notice of intent was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed project in the Holmes County Advertiser on November 8, 1991.
Petitioner, Citizens Voice Association (CVA), filed a petition in opposition to the permit with the Department on November 18, 1991, requesting a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. That petition was dismissed by the Department with leave to amend on the ground that the Petitioner failed to allege sufficient facts to show standing. An amended petition was filed on December 30, 1991 by Dwight D. Rich. On January 3, 1992, as supplemented on February 3, 1992, the applicant-Respondent filed a motion to dismiss that amended petition on the ground that the Petitioner failed to allege standing and that the amended petition was filed by a different party from that filed by the original Petitioner, thus, in effect, rendering it an untimely filing by the original party Petitioner. In the meantime, the amended petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the undersigned Hearing Officer. Thereafter, an order was issued by the undersigned Hearing Officer dismissing the amended petition with leave to amend so as to address the defects raised in the motion to dismiss. On April 13, 1992, a second amended petition was filed by CVA, supplemented on April 15, 1992. On April 16, 1992, EPAI filed a motion to dismiss the second amended petition on the ground that it suffered the same basic defects as to standing allegations as did the amended petition. That motion was denied, subject to the presentation of proof by CVA concerning the identity of the members it contended would suffer substantial injury to their interests, with respect to their use of the ground or surface waters alleged to be adversely affected, as well as proof of the specific ways in which the members of the CVA may suffer specific injuries, due to the proposed landfill construction and operation.
Thereafter, the parties entered into various stipulations, including a prehearing stipulation concerning issues to be litigated and the cause came on for hearing as noticed. At the hearing, the Applicant-Respondent presented the testimony of 11 witnesses, six of whom were tendered and accepted as experts.
EPAI offered 22 exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence. The CVA called two witnesses, one of whom was accepted as an expert. Two of CVA's exhibits were admitted into evidence. The Department (DER) did not call any witnesses or offer any independent exhibits for admission into evidence. In addition to the 13 witnesses referenced in the transcript, members of the general public were afforded the opportunity to present testimony regarding perceived effects of the proposed landfill on themselves and their community in a "public comment" portion of the hearing. Ten Holmes County residents availed themselves of the opportunity to so testify.
Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the EPAI renewed its motion to dismiss the second amended petition on the ground that the Petitioner failed to offer proof at hearing of the identity of the members of the CVA and how their substantial interests would be affected by the landfill installation and operation. The applicant also moved for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs against the Petitioner, memorializing it with a written motion served
on the Petitioner within seven days of conclusion of the hearing as ordered by the Hearing Officer. Thereafter, a transcript of the proceedings was filed and proposed recommended orders were timely filed thereafter with the Hearing Officer. The proposed findings of fact contained therein are treated in this Recommended Order and specifically ruled upon in the Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This proceeding concerns an application for authority to construct and operate a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and an asbestos municipal solid waste landfill, as well as to close an existing 25.5-acre Class I municipal solid waste landfill located in Holmes County, Florida. This facility would function as a new regional landfill, in part, to replace the existing landfill in Holmes County. The applicant, EPAI, is a Florida corporation formed for the purpose of constructing and operating the proposed facility. EPAI has an option to purchase the site involved from its present owner, which will be accomplished after the facility is permitted, if it is, and all necessary permits for construction and operation have been obtained, then the applicant will sell stock in its corporation to City Management Corporation (City) domiciled in Detroit, Michigan. EPAI will then continue to exist as a wholly-owned subsidiary of City and will proceed to construct and operate the new landfill and initiate and complete all closure operations for the existing landfill.
The Department of Environmental Regulation is an agency of the State of Florida subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 701, FAC, as pertinent to this proceeding. It is thus charged with regulating solid waste management facilities, including permitting their construction, operation, and closure. It is charged with reviewing applications for such projects and issuing permits therefor if the statutes and rules it is charged with enforcing are found to have been complied with by a permit applicant. It has performed that function in this case up until the point that jurisdiction of the permit application dispute engendered by the filing of the subject petition resulted in transfer of the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
The Petitioner, CVA, is a group of Holmes County citizens opposing issuance of the landfill permit at issue. Based upon rulings on the motions to dismiss and extant law, CVA was required to present proof of its standing at the final hearing held in this cause. CVA called two witnesses, neither of whom presented evidence relevant to the issue of standing. CVA did not present any evidence, either through testimony or exhibits, to identify its members, to establish that a substantial number of its members would be affected by the issuance of the permit and the construction and operation of the landfill nor evidence which would identify members whose substantial interests will be affected by the construction and operation in a way different from any effect on the interests of the public at large.
Project Background
Holmes County currently leases a site on which its existing landfill is located. The site consists of 84 acres owned by Stone Container Corporation, the successor in interest to International Paper Company. The existing landfill itself covers approximately 25.5 acres. The proposed facility to be located on the same tract would serve as a new regional landfill to meet the solid waste disposal needs of Holmes County, as well as surrounding counties. The proposed facility would consist of approximately 20 acres divided into Class I, Class
III, and asbestos landfill facilities. The project will be located on To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, lying approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the City of Bonifay in Holmes County.
The northern portion of the present landfill is an unlined cell operated by the county which began receiving waste in 1979 and ceased depositing waste sometime in 1987. The southside cell of the landfill is clay lined with a leachate collection system. That portion of the county facility ceased accepting waste sometime in 1990. Holmes County is unable to properly operate or to close the existing landfill. Consequently, in June of 1989, the county and the Department entered into a consent order whereby the county agreed to meet certain operational, groundwater monitoring, landfill cell design, administrative and other requirements within certain time periods. The county attempted to meet the terms of that consent order but was unable to do so, primarily for financial reasons. In 1990, the county applied to the Department for a permit to close the existing landfill in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The closure permit application was denied by Department order of May 22, 1991. Waste disposal at the Holmes County landfill had ceased in 1990, but it has not been properly closed pursuant to law and Department rules. Currently, it only has a temporary cover of soil and seeded grass in order to stabilize its slopes on the portion of the landfill commonly known as the "highrise". The closure costs for the existing landfill were estimated at approximately $700,000.00, which is beyond the resources of the county. Residents of unincorporated Holmes County currently are disposing of their solid waste by hauling it to the regional landfill in Campbellton in Jackson County nearby or by dumping it in unauthorized disposal areas, such as streams or roadsides. The City of Bonifay disposes its solid waste in the Campbellton landfill, as well. The Campbellton landfill, however, does not accept several solid waste components, such as yard trash.
Since the county was unable to obtain the necessary permits to either operate or to close the existing landfill and was unable to meet State-mandated solid waste disposal and recycling requirements, it entered into an agreement with EPAI in May of 1990, whereby that entity assumed financial and legal responsibility for closure of the existing landfill, including obtaining the necessary permits from DER to close it, upon issuance of DER permits necessary to construct and operate a new Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill at the same general site.
The May 21, 1990 agreement between EPAI and the county authorized EPAI to so proceed before DER. Once EPAI obtained the permits necessary, the agreement provided that the county would surrender all right, title and interest in the 84-acre site to EPAI, convey all structures, equipment and appurtenances theretofore used by the county for its landfill operation to the corporation and to assign EPAI any legally assignable benefits which the county would receive under the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act, including recycling grants, if applicable.
EPAI, the applicant, has an option to purchase the 84-acre site from Stone Container Corporation. After the issuance of any permits for closure and for construction and operation of the new facilities, the option would be exercised and the property would be conveyed by Stone Container Corporation to EPAI. Once it has purchased that property and the county has abandoned its lease on the property, pursuant to the May 21, 1990 agreement, EPAI would then hold fee title ownership and possession rights to the site. Once it obtained the necessary permits for construction and operation of the new landfill, EPAI
will sell its stock to City. EPAI would then continue to exist as a wholly- owned subsidiary of City and will construct and operate the new landfill and close the existing landfill.
City is a wholly-integrated waste management corporation based in Detroit, Michigan. It has been operating in the solid waste management field since 1961 and has extensive experience in landfill construction, operation and closure. It operates seven regional landfills, approximately ten transfer stations, and 30-40 residential and commercial solid waste collection companies in Michigan. It also operates hazardous waste facilities in Michigan and in Tampa, Florida. Through construction and operation of its regional landfill and hazardous waste facilities, it is familiar with and accustomed to compliance with all pertinent state and federal regulations applicable to such facilities. City holds a DER permit for its hazardous waste facility in the Tampa, Florida, area and has had a history of no major violations of applicable laws and rules. The corporation was shown to be financially sound.
EPAI will operate the proposed facility, should it be permitted, as a regional landfill serving neighboring counties between Okaloosa and Jackson Counties, south to the Gulf of Mexico, and north to the Alabama border. The economic feasibility, however, was not shown to depend on interstate transport or disposal of out-of-state wastes in the landfill.
Section 17-701.030, FAC, sets forth the permit submittal requirements for solid waste management facilities. CVA stipulated that EPAI met all applicable permit application submittal requirements in this section, except those in Sections 17-701.030(5)(h) & (i) and 17-701.030(7), FAC.
EPAI has an option to purchase the landfill site from Stone Container Corporation, the current owner. EPAI has met the ownership requirement in Section 17-701.030(5)(h), FAC. The applicant will establish an escrow account to insure financial responsibility for closing and long-term care and maintenance of the landfill. A specific condition has been agreed to be placed in the permit requiring the applicant to submit written proof of having established financial assurance for closure and long-term care of the entire site 60 days prior to the acceptance of any solid waste at the facility and within 30 days after permit issuance for operations at the existing landfill. City has the financial ability to establish the escrow account and to provide the necessary financial assurance within 30 days after permit issuance. The applicant has thus satisfied the requirements of 17-701.030(5)(i), FAC, with regard to financial responsibility.
Section 17-701.030(7), FAC, requires DER to forward a copy of the permit application to the Water Management District within seven days of receipt of the application. The Water Management District would then prepare an advisory report for DER on the landfill's potential impact on water resources with recommendations regarding disposition of the application. The Department sent the application to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, but the District did not prepare an advisory report. The administrator for the waste management program for the Department's northwest district office, who oversees solid waste facility permitting, testified that, as a matter of course, the District does not prepare an advisory report. Moreover, because the reports are advisory only, DER is not required to respond to any comments or follow any recommendations which may be made by the District in such a report. The Department normally issues solid waste facility permits as a matter of policy without having received a water management district report. 1/
Location and Site Requirements
An aerial photograph of this area was prepared, as required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC. It shows the land uses, zoning, dwellings, wells, roads, and other significant features within one mile of the proposed landfill. This map shows several dwellings located within a mile of the site. The closest dwelling, as determined by aerial photograph and performance of a "windshield" survey, is approximately 2,400 feet from the site. The closest potable water well is at the dwelling located approximately 2,400 feet from the site. There are no existing or approved shallow wells within 500 feet of the proposed waste disposal areas at the landfill. Accordingly, the proposed landfill satisfies the condition in Section 17-701.040(2)(c), FAC, that solid waste not be disposed of within 500 feet of an existing or approved shallow water well.
The surficial aquifer is located approximately 30 feet from the ground surface at the landfill site. The sediments in the area in which waste is to be disposed of consists of layers of clay and sandy clay having a very low vertical conductivity. The waste disposal cells will not be excavated down to the surficial aquifer. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in ground water. Waste will not be disposed of in a sinkhole or in a limestone or gravel pit, as prohibited by Sections 17-701.030(2)(a) and 17-701.040(2)(b), FAC.
The 100-year flood zone is located at approximately 120 feet national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD). The proposed landfill will be located at approximately 125 feet NGVD elevation and within a perimeter berm system. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in an area subject to periodic and frequent flooding, as prohibited by Section 17-701.040(2)(e), FAC.
The waste disposal areas are over 200 feet from Long Round Bay, the closest water body. Therefore, the 200-foot setback requirement is met. See, Section 17-701.040(2)(g), FAC.
To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, on which the landfill is located, is not a major thoroughfare. There are no other major thoroughfares in the vicinity from which the landfill is visible. Accordingly, waste will not be disposed of in an area open to public view from a major thoroughfare. See, Section 17- 701.040(2)(h), FAC.
The landfill site is not located on the right-of-way of a public highway, road or alley, and is not located within the bounds of any airport property. The landfill will not be located within a prohibited distance from airports, as proscribed by Section 17-701.040(2)(k), FAC. See also, Sections 17-701.040(2)(j) and (2)(i), FAC.
There are no Class I surface waters within 3,000 feet of the landfill site so the setback provisions in Section 17-701.040(7), FAC, are satisfied. No lead-acid batteries, used oil, yard trash, white goods, or whole waste tires will be accepted at the Class I landfill cell. Only trash and yard trash will be accepted at the Class III cell. Therefore, the prohibitions in Section 17- 701.040(8), FAC, are not violated.
A ground water monitoring plan has been developed for the landfill site, pursuant to Section 17-28.700(6), FAC, as required by Section 17- 701.050(3)(a), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. and submitted as part of the initial permit application. This plan addresses monitoring well placement, monitoring, and monitoring plan requirements. It proposes corrective action, as required by
Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. Subsequent modifications to that plan were developed by Dr. Thomas Herbert, an expert in geology, hydrogeology, well installation and water quality monitoring. These modifications particularly address monitoring well location and provide additional assurances that the ground water monitoring plan complies with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. These proposed modifications were submitted to DER prior to hearing.
A site foundation analysis using appropriate ASTM methods to determine stability for disposal of waste, cover material, and structures constructed on site was performed and the results were submitted to DER as part of the initial application. Additional foundation stability information and the results of another field investigation regarding sinkhole development potential at the site was submitted to the Department. The field investigations and reports in evidence provide assurance that the disposal site location will provide adequate support for the landfill, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC.
The landfill site is easily accessible by collection vehicles and other types of vehicles required to use the site. The site design provides for all weather roadways to be located throughout the site for ready ingress, egress, and movement around the site.
The proposed landfill is located to safeguard against water pollution originating from disposal of solid waste. See Section 17-701.050(3)(c)2., FAC. The bottom of the waste disposal cells will be located at least six feet above the top of the surficial aquifer. To ensure that ground water is not polluted by waste disposal, the Class I cell will be lined with a composite liner system comprised of a lower unit consisting of 24 inches of compacted clay having a maximum permeability of
1 X 10-7 centimeters per second, and an upper synthetic liner unit consisting of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) of 80 mil thickness. Leachate generated by the waste in the landfill will be collected by a leachate collection and removal system. The leachate control system consists of a two- foot thick layer of sand having a minimum permeability of 1 X 10-3 centimeters per second, with a permeable geotextile filter cloth layer and a highly permeable geonet layer to collect and direct the leachate into a drainage system consisting of a collection pipe system to transfer the leachate to a containment lagoon. Once in the leachate lagoon, the leachate will be evaporated, recirculated over the working face of the landfill, or transported off site for treatment at a waste water treatment plant. The waste disposal areas are located at approximately 125 foot NGVD elevation. This is well above the 100- year flood plain and they are not located in water bodies or wetlands.
An adequate quantity of acceptable earth cover is available on site. See, Section 17-701.050(3)(c)3., FAC. The soil for cover will be obtained from the northeast portion of the site located across To Shoo Fly Bridge Road from the landfill site.
The landfill site was shown to conform to proper zoning, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(c)4., FAC. The 1991 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element for Holmes County designates this site for "public/semi- public/educational" land uses. The "public facilities land uses" designation includes "utilities and other service facilities" of which municipal solid waste landfills are an example. No other land use designation in the Holmes County 1991 Comprehensive Plan expressly includes landfill uses.
CVA adduced testimony from Hilton Meadows, its expert witness, as to plant species he observed in the vicinity of the site. He observed plants that he identified as being species that grow on the edge of or in wetlands, but none of these species were shown to exist on the landfill site itself. Mr. Meadows observed them in locations outside the perimeter berms of the landfill site but did not identify their specific locations other than a general direction from the perimeter berms outside of which he observed the plants. He did not quantify the wetland species he observed so as to establish their dominance and did not conduct a jurisdictional wetland survey, as envisioned by Chapter 17- 301, FAC.
Landfill Design Requirements
As required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC, an aerial photograph was submitted with the permit drawings. Plot plans were submitted with the permit application, in evidence as EPAI exhibit 1, showing dimensions of the site, location of soil borings, proposed trenching or disposal areas, original elevations, proposed final contours, and previously-filled waste disposal areas. Topographic maps were also submitted with the correct scale and contour intervals required by Section 17-701.050(4)(c), FAC, which show numerous details such as proposed fill areas, borrow areas, access roads, grading, and other details of the design and the site. The design plans also include a report on the current and projected population for the area, the geographic area to be served by the landfill, the anticipated type, quantity and source of the solid waste, the anticipated useful life of the site, and the source and characteristics of cover materials. The landfill will be a regional facility serving the residents of Holmes and surrounding counties. The current population of the area to be served is approximately 63,183 with the projected population for the year 2000 being 76,792. The landfill will receive municipal sanitary solid waste, asbestos, petroleum-contaminated soils, and yard trash.
It will not receive used oil, lead-acid batteries, biomedical wastes, hazardous wastes, or septic sludge. The permit application was shown to satisfy all design requirements of Section 17-701.050(4), FAC.
Geology, Hydrogeology, and Foundation Stability
Dr. Thomas Herbert, a registered professional geologist and licensed well driller in Florida testified of geologic and hydrogeologic investigations and analyses he performed. Mr. Herbert has over 25 years experience in the fields of geology and hydrogeology and was tendered and accepted as an expert in those fields. Dr. Herbert drilled shallow and deep core borings, which were converted into monitor wells to monitor ground water in the surficial and deep aquifers under the landfill site. In addition, he drilled several medium-depth borings along the western boundary of the site to analyze geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in this area, which is the portion of the site closest to Long Round Bay. Dr. Herbert used a hollow stem auger to take the soil borings and install the monitoring wells. This is a device which allows sampling tools to be placed down a hollow drill barrel for more accurate sediment sampling. Dr. Herbert used a continuous sampling system wherein a five-foot core barrel sampled the soil conditions ahead of the turning drill auger. Continuous sampling is preferable to other types of soil sampling equipment because it provides a detailed representative sample of the soil on the site and enables the sampler to precisely determine whether soil materials occur in small thin layers or bands on the site or whether there is a massive deposit of relatively uniform soils. The continuous sampling method also minimizes mixing of soils and creates an undisturbed profile that can be
examined once the core barrel is opened. This type of sampling yields a very accurate picture of soil conditions on the site.
In addition to the borings taken on the site by Dr. Herbert, other core borings were taken on site by Ardaman & Associates, a geotechnical engineering firm, for the purpose of analyzing the site foundation to determine the site's stability and potential for developing sinkholes. These core boring profiles were analyzed, along with those performed by Dr. Herbert, in determining the site geologic and hydrogeologic conditions.
In addition to the core borings, Dr. Herbert reviewed studies on the geology and hydrogeology of the area, as well as the field investigations reported by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, as part of the original permit application submittal. In order to gather additional information on the geology and hydrogeology of the site, gamma ray logging was performed on the wells installed by Dr. Herbert, as well as on the existing wells at the site. Gamma ray logging measures natural gamma radiation from the sediments and permits identification of soil type based on the amount of gamma radiation coming through the soils. Generally, the higher the clay content, the higher the gamma ray count. Gamma ray logging provides an accurate means for determining clay, sand, or sandy clay soils. By examining gamma ray logs of wells he installed and sampled, as well as for wells already existing on the site, Dr. Herbert was able to obtain extensive information about the subsurface soil conditions at the site.
Based on these information sources, the geology of the site was determined. The sediments ranging from the surface of the site down to more than 100 feet below the surface are part of the citronelle formation, which consists of consolidated to partially cemented sand, silt, and clay sediments, called clastics, deposited in the Plio-Pleistocene age, between one and four million years ago. The citronelle formation at the site is predominantly clay, with some thin sand lenses running through the clays. The sand lenses or "stringers" grade laterally into the clays or silts. A surficial aquifer is located between 30 and 40 feet below the land surface at the site and is confined immediately above and below by dense, dry clay layers. The top confining unit is estimated to be approximately 10 feet thick. The lower clay confining unit, down to approximately 100 feet below the land surface, consists of dense, dry clays with thin units of sandy or silty clays or clayey sands. Below the citronelle foundation, at approximately 100 feet below land surface, there is a sequence of weathered carbonate rock or mud, termed "residuum". This material is too fine-grained to yield water in usable quantities. Competent limestone is first encountered below the carbonate "residuum" at approximately
262 feet below the surface. This limestone is likely part of the lisbon- tallahatta formation, which is part of the Claiborne Aquifer.
In order to investigate an area in the western portion of the site depicted in the Post, Buckley report as being sandy, Dr. Herbert installed a deep core boring and analyzed the soils in that area. He thus determined that rather than being solid sand, as depicted in the Post, Buckley report, the sediments in this area are actually sands interbedded with clay and silt stringers, which decrease the sediments' horizontal and vertical conductivity. He determined that the area is a sandy channel bounded laterally and below by dense clays. As with the rest of the site, the surficial aquifer also is confined in this area. As part of his ground water monitoring plan recommendations, Dr. Herbert recommended installation of an additional monitor well in this area.
The core borings and gamma ray logging allowed accurate determination of the site hydrogeology. Transient surface water, termed "vadose" water, percolates down from the land surface through layers of clay, sand, and silt. Within these sediment layers, there are lenses of clay ranging from a few inches to a foot thick. Vadose water is trapped on top of the clay layers, creating shallow saturated zones called "perched" zones, ranging from one to a few inches thick. The vadose water and perched zones are not connected to any ground water systems. Below these perched zones, dense, dry clay layers create a confining layer above the surficial aquifer. The surficial aquifer occurs in discontinuous sandy layers 30 to 40 feet below the land surface. Beneath the surficial aquifer, dense, dry clay layers form a lower confining unit. These confining clay layers overlying and underlying the surficial aquifer create pressure or hydraulic "head", on the water in the surficial aquifer. When a core boring or well penetrates through the upper clay confining layer, the water in the surficial aquifer rises up the well or core casing, due to the hydraulic head, to a level called the potentiometric surface, which is at a higher elevation than the elevation at which the surficial acquifer is actually located. Based on the confined nature of the surficial aquifer, it was determined that water table elevations reported in the hydrogeologic report initially submitted as part of the application are actually potentiometric surface elevations. This is consistent with the information provided in the additional information submittal as part of the permit application which indicates that the potentiometric surface at the landfill site may be five to seven feet below the bottom of the liner. This was confirmed at hearing by Mike Markey, a professional geologist with the Department, who reviewed the permit application and hydrogeologic report submitted by Dr. Herbert and prepared a memorandum dated September 2, 1992, stating that his "previous concern regarding separation of the 'water table' aquifer and HDPE liner is no longer an issue because the 'water table' aquifer was not found" by Dr. Herbert. The surficial aquifer on the landfill site cannot yield enough water to support long-term use as a potable water source. Due to the high clay content in the aquifer, the water has a high sediment content and low water quality, rendering it unusable for domestic purposes.
The overall horizontal conductivity for the surficial aquifer on a site-wide basis is estimated to be low due to the discontinuous sand layers comprising the surficial aquifer on the site. While some zones within the aquifer may have high horizontal conductivity, these zones have limited lateral extent and change rapidly into zones of low horizontal conductivity. The steep hydraulic gradient from the highest to lowest areas of the site further indicates that the surficial aquifer has low horizontal conductivity. If water were rapidly moving through the surficial aquifer across the site, the hydraulic gradient would be much less steep. The presence of the hydraulic gradient across the site indicates that the clay in the surficial aquifer system is so pervasive that the water in that system essentially is stagnant.
Based upon his extensive experience and familiarity with the clastic sediments like those found at the landfill site, Dr. Herbert estimated the vertical permeability of the sediments comprising the upper and lower confining layers of the surficial aquifer to be in the range of 1 X 10-6 to 1 X 10-8 centimeters per second. These projected permeability values are very low, thus, very little water is moving vertically through the surficial aquifer to deeper depths.
The original hydrogeology report on the site submitted as part of the application indicated that the ground water flow is to the west, southwest, and northwest based upon monitoring well and piezometric data. Dr. Herbert's
subsequent field investigations confirmed the ground water flow direction as reported in the permit application.
Dr. Herbert estimated that the surficial aquifer will be located between 8 and 15 feet below the finished bottom elevation of the Class I waste disposal cell.
The intermediate aquifer system is located beginning 80 or 90 feet below the landfill site and is defined as all strata that lie between and retard the exchange of water between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer, including the lower clay confining unit directly underlying the surficial aquifer. In this part of west Florida, the intermediate system is estimated to be 50 to 60 feet thick and acts as an "aquatard", which means that it retards the passage of water from the surficial aquifer to lower levels. The standard penetration test (SPT), which is an engineering test of soil density, yielded values of 40 to 50 blows per inch for soils sampled in the top 20 feet of the intermediate system throughout the site. These SPT values indicate the soils in the intermediate system are extremely dense, over-compacted clay materials. Below the clays, the lower portion of the intermediate system consists of a weathered limestone residuum. Due to the extremely fine grain size of the residuum, it will not yield water in quantities sufficient to support a well.
The deep core borings taken at the site indicate that the Floridan aquifer limestone underlying the landfill site has undergone paleokarst evolution. The underlying limestone has been dissolved away over a long period of time, creating the limestone residuum detected in the deep core borings. Based on the deep core borings taken at the site, Dr. Herbert concluded there is no competent Floridan aquifer limestone capable of supporting wells underlying the landfill site, and the Floridan aquifer either is not present under the site or exists only as a relict or remnant of the limestone formations that make up the Floridan aquifer system in other parts of Florida.
The core borings taken on site indicate that the paleokarst terrain underlying the landfill contains no cavities, large openings, sinkholes or other features in the rock that could cause the landfill foundation to collapse. All karst features in this area are filled in and "healed" by the carbonate residuum overlying the limestone under the landfill.
Dr. Herbert also investigated the geologic nature of Long Round Bay. In addition to reviewing literature regarding the geology of west Florida in the vicinity of Holmes County and topographic maps depicting the site, Dr. Herbert took at least one sediment core boring in Long Round Bay and also circumnavigated the perimeter of the Bay. Based on information from these sources, Dr. Herbert opined that Long Round Bay, like many other drainage basins in the area north of Bonifay, is a collapse feature of the paleokarst sequence in the vicinity, and is a topographic depression caused by weathering away of the limestone over time.
The sediments underlying Long Round Bay consist of deep citronelle clays washed into the collapse feature. Long Round Bay is relatively flat with poorly defined outlets and receives surface drainage from the surrounding area. Because there are no defined channels connecting Long Round Bay to Wright's Creek, water movement from Long Round Bay into Wright's Creek is extremely slow. Long Round Bay is likely not an aquifer recharge area because there is no direct karst connection between Long Round Bay and any aquifer. Clays have run off the surrounding area and accumulated in Long Round Bay for thousands of years
sealing off any connections between it and any underlying aquifer. In addition to Dr. Herbert's determination of the potential for active karst formation under the landfill site, Ardaman & Associates performed the foundation analysis of the site, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC. The foundation analysis was supervised by William Jordan, a registered professional engineer. He has an extensive education in geotechnical engineering, as well as 11 years of experience in that field. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in geotechnical engineering and materials testing.
As part of the foundation analysis, Ardaman & Associates performed two deep core borings to determine the potential for development of sinkholes at the site. Both borings were taken on the western side of the landfill site, closest to Long Round Bay. One of the borings was performed in an area having a relatively high sand content in the soil, as identified in the hydrogeology report submitted in the permit application. The borings were drilled down to approximately 160 feet below the surface, to the top of the weathered limestone horizon. In Mr. Jordan's extensive experience in foundation testing and analysis, presence or potential for sinkhole development is usually evident at the horizon of the limestone or within the top 15 feet of the limestone. The core borings did not reveal any joints, open seams, cavities, or very loose or soft zones at the horizon or on top of the limestone. In addition, the sediments overlying the limestone horizon were determined to consist of medium dense to dense and medium stiff to stiff sediments, which indicate lack of sinkhole activity or potential. No indication of active or imminent sinkhole conditions were found on the site, either through the core borings or from surficial observation.
In addition to the deep core borings, Ardaman & Associates, under Mr. Jordan's supervision, also performed four other core borings to a depth of 60 feet below the land surface. These borings indicated the sediments at the site are composed of clayey sands, very clayey sands, "lean" sandy clays, and sandy "fat" clays. The SPT tests performed on the soils indicate the site soils range from medium to high density and are stiff to very stiff and hard.
Mr. Jordan performed a settlement analysis of the landfill based on the types of sediments present on site and assuming a compacted unit weight of
37 pounds per cubic foot for the landfill waste. This unit weight is a typical weight value for compacted municipal waste. For settlement analysis, Mr. Jordan used the SMRF elastic compression and consolidation methods, both of which are professionally accepted standard methods for determining settlement of large structures, including landfills. Using these methods, he determined that the total settlement for the landfill over its total life would be between three and five and one-half inches. Based on the uniformity of the subsurface conditions and density of the soils on the site, any settlement would be uniform and thus would not result in tearing or other failure of the landfill liner.
Mr. Jordan performed a bearing capacity analysis of the site. Based on the sediments on site, he estimated the safety factor against bearing capacity to be in excess of 10. The minimum acceptable safety factor for large habitable structures, such as buildings, is in the neighborhood of two to three. Thus, the safety factor determined for the landfill site far exceeds the minimum standard for bearing capacity.
Mr. Jordan performed an embankment slope stability analysis for the perimeter berm of the landfill. The inside slope of the perimeter berm has a 3:1 slope and the outside slope has a 4:1 slope. Mr. Jordan's stability analysis was performed on the inside slope of the berm which is steeper and,
therefore, less stable. Due to the stability of the clay sediments composing the subgrade of the perimeter berm, and based on his extensive experience in slope stability analysis, Mr. Jordan determined there is no danger of deep circular arc failure of the landfill berm. He used a professionally accepted standard slope stability evaluation method called the "infinite slope" method, to analyze the probability for shallow circular arc failure of the berm. He determined a safety factor of 2.0 to 2.4 for the embankment slope, which is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the minimum accepted safety factor of between 1.3 and 1.5 for embankment slopes.
Mr. Jordan also performed an analysis of the site subgrade stability for compaction. Mr. Jordan's analysis showed that the stiff or medium dense silty to clayey sands and clays on the site provide a stable base against which compaction over the life of the landfill can safely occur.
Based on the foundation analysis performed by Mr. Jordan on the landfill site, it is evident that the landfill will not be located in an open sinkhole or in an area where geologic foundations or subterranean features will not provide adequate support for the landfill. (See Section 17-701.040(2)(a), FAC). The foundation analysis indicates the landfill will be installed upon a base or in a hydrogeologic setting capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement compression, as required by Section 17- 701.050(5)(b)2., FAC. The foundation analysis further indicates the site will provide support for the landfill, including the waste, cover and structures built on the site (See Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC).
Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a, FAC, requires the lower component of the landfill liner to consist of a compacted soil layer having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 centimeters per second. Mr. Jordan analyzed nine additional core borings to determine if the native soils on the site meet the conductivity standard in the rule or if off-site soils must be blended with on- site soils to achieve the standard. To test whether the on-site soil will meet the conductivity standard, soils were compacted to approximately 95% of the standard maximum for density, which is the industry standard compaction for soil permeability testing. The soils from eight of the nine borings taken at the site exhibited conductivity values of approximately 4.8 X 10-8 centimeters per second. This value is five times less conductive than the value required by the above-cited rule. Only one boring exhibited a conductivity value in excess of the maximum value established in the rule. Based on the conductivity values determined at the site, it is likely the native soils on the landfill site will meet or exceed the maximum conductivity value mandated in the above-cited rule. If the on-site soils do not meet this standard, then bentonite or another material from off site will be blended with the on-site soils to achieve the conductivity standard mandated by the rule.
Ground Water Monitoring and Water Quality
As required by Section 17-701.050(3)(a), FAC, a ground water monitoring plan for the landfill site was completed in accordance with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was submitted as part of the application. This plan was incorporated into the notice of intent and the attached draft permit for the landfill, as part of specific condition
The ground water monitoring plan subsequently was modified and supplemented by Dr. Herbert to include monitor wells required to be installed by Holmes County on the site, pursuant to the consent order entered into by the county and
DER on June 26, 1989, as well as the wells installed by Dr. Herbert as part of his hydrogeologic investigation.
DER established a zone of discharge for the landfill site, as required by Rule 17-28.700(4), FAC. The horizontal boundary of the zone of discharge extends to the ground water monitoring compliance wells located at the western, northern, and southern portions of the site and to a line coextensive with the eastern property line for the southeastern portion of the property. The horizontal zone of discharge boundary is located inside the western, northern, and southern property boundaries. The vertical zone of discharge extends from the land surface down to the top of the clay layer underlying the site at approximately +50 to +60 feet NGVD. These zones are established in compliance with Section 17-28.700(4), FAC.
The groundwater monitoring plan provides for 15 monitor wells to be located in close proximity to the waste disposal areas and the site boundaries to monitor compliance with all applicable ground water quality standards in Sections 17-3.402, 17-3.404, and 17-550.310, FAC. Four of these wells will be located near the western property boundary to closely monitor water quality to insure contaminants do not seep into Long Round Bay.
To detect contamination that may violate applicable surface water quality standards in Sections 17-302.500, 17-302.510, and 17-302.560, FAC, at the edge of and beyond the zone of discharge, the ground water monitoring plan provides for several surface water sampling points on the landfill site near the edge of the zone of discharge. If contaminants are detected in the surface water monitoring system, remediation activities can be implemented to insure the surface water quality standards set forth in the above-cited rules are not violated outside the zone of discharge.
As required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)1., FAC, the ground water monitoring plan provides for a well to be located to detect natural, unaffected background quality of the ground water. The monitoring plan also provides for a well to be installed at the edge of the zone of discharge downgradient from the discharge site, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)2., FAC, and for installation of two intermediate wells downgradient from the site within the zone of discharge to detect chemical, physical, and microbial characteristics of the discharge plume, in excess of the requirement for one such well contained in Section 17-701.050(6)(g)3., FAC. The location of the other wells in the ground water monitoring plan was determined according to the hydrogeologic complexity of the site to insure adequate reliable monitoring data in generally accepted engineering or hydrogeologic practice, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)4., FAC. Due to the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer system, and given the location of the intermediate monitoring wells, any contamination detected at the site can be remediated through recovery wells before it reaches the edge of the zone of discharge. Moreover, due to the confined nature of the surficial aquifer system, there is very little free water in the aquifer. Accordingly, any contamination could be quickly removed by recovery of ground water and de-watering of the area in which the contamination is detected through remediation wells. Also, given the location of the monitoring wells on the site, the northerly direction of the surficial aquifer ground water flow on the northern portion of the site near the existing landfill, and the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer, contamination emanating from the existing cell could be discerned from that emanating from the new cell and recovery and remediation operations directed accordingly.
The DER intent to issue and draft permit specify an extensive list of parameters which must be sampled at the ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling points on the landfill site, as required by Sections 17- 3.402, 17-302.510, 17-302.560, and 17-550.310, FAC. These parameters must be sampled and reported to DER on a quarterly basis. In addition, annual water quality reports must be submitted to DER for the site. Based on the large amounts of clay content and the low horizontal and vertical conductivity values of the on-site sediments, the stagnant nature of the surficial aquifer system, the virtual absence of the Floridan aquifer under the site, and the location of the monitoring wells, the ground and surface water monitoring program provides reasonable assurance that the applicable water quality standards in the rules cited above will not be violated within and outside the zone of discharge.
Liner Design, Performance, Quality Control, and Installation
Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1., FAC, requires that a composite liner and leachate collection and removal system be installed in a landfill such as that proposed. Mr. Leo Overmann, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill engineering. He has over 10 years experience in landfill engineering, design, and construction and has worked on the design and construction of over 50 landfill facilities and 250 landfill disposal cells. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in liner design, quality control plans, and leachate control systems design and performance.
It is thus established that the composite liner will have an initial 24-inch layer of compacted clay having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 cm/sec. The 24-inch clay layer proposed by the applicant exceeds the 18- inch minimum thickness provided in the above-cited rule and will be placed in the field in layers or lifts of six inches or less. Each lift will then be treated and compacted to proper specifications in accordance with sound engineering practice in order to insure a tight bond between the clay layers. In the process of placing the clay lifts on the site, any roots, holes,
channels, lenses, cracks, pipes, or organic matter in the clay will be broken up and removed, as required by the above-cited rule. In order to insure conductivity of the clay liner component does not exceed the above figure, testing will be done at the site or off-site by constructing a "test pad". A test pad is a site at which the liner construction techniques are tested using the clay material that will comprise the lower liner unit. Once the pad is constructed, the hydraulic conductivity of the clay can be tested to determine the most suitable construction methods in order to meet the above-mentioned conductivity standard and the other design and performance standards in the rule section cited last above. The applicant's liner quality control plan provides for testing of the clay liner hydraulic conductivity and compliance with the other liner design and performance standards in the rule (See Section 17- 701.050(5)(c), FAC).
A synthetic geomembrane liner consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE) will be placed directly on top of and in contact with the clay liner. If the geomembrane should leak, the clay will then retard leachate migration. Although Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC, only requires a 60-mil thickness liner, the applicant has proposed to use a 80-mil liner. The thicker HDPE liner is less susceptible to stress and wear and tear in the daily landfill operation than is the thinner 60-mil liner required by the rule. The water vapor transmission rate of the 80-mil liner will be approximately 1 X 10-12 cm/sec, which is 10 times less transmissive than the maximum water vapor transmission standard of 1 X 10-11 cm/sec established in Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC.
The design also provides for a drainage layer and primary leachate collection and removal system to be installed above the HDPE liner, as required by the above-cited rule. The drainage layer above the liner consists in ascending order, of a layer of geonet material having an equivalent permeability of approximately three cm/sec; a layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile cloth, and a two-foot thick layer of sand. The sand provides a permeable layer which allows liquid to pass through it while protecting the underlying synthetic components of the drainage system and liner. The geotextile cloth component of the drainage layer filters fine particles while allowing liquid to pass through it to the geonet layer. The geonet layer is approximately 3,000 times more conductive than required by Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC, so as to allow rapid drainage of leachate off of the HDPE liner. The drainage layer is designed to reduce the leachate head or hydraulic pressure on the liner to one inch within one week following a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. This was determined by use of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. This model is the standard computer model used in the landfill design and construction industry to determine leachate depth over the synthetic liner in lined landfills. The HELP model calculations submitted in the permit application were prepared by Pearce Barrett, the EPAI landfill design engineer, an expert witness. The HELP model analyzes water and rainfall that falls on active waste disposal cells and percolates through the waste, and the model helps determine the amount of leachate that will accumulate on top of the liner. To determine this amount, the HELP model uses several parameters, including rainfall amount, landfill size, and the number of waste and protective cover layers. The HELP model in this instance involved employment of Tallahassee-collected rainfall data because long-term, site-specific data for the landfill site was not available. The Tallahassee rainfall average is greater than the rainfall average for Chipley, which is closer to the landfill site and, therefore, provides a more conservative, "worst-case" rainfall figure for employment in the HELP model calculations. The HELP is itself a very conservative model, generating a worst-case determination of the amount of leachate that will end up on top of the landfill liner. The model's analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate will be reduced to a one-inch depth on the liner within one week after a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
The landfill project design specifications, in the permit application, provide that all materials in direct contact with the liner shall be free of rocks, roots, sharps, or particles larger than 3/8 of an inch. The geonet and geotextile material are in direct contact with the top of the HDPE liner and the clay liner is located directly below the HDPE liner. The project design specifically provides that the clay material comprising the clay liner component will not contain roots, rocks, or other particles in excess of 3/8 of an inch. No waste materials thus will come into contact with the clay liner.
The design specifications also provide additional protection for the liner by requiring that the initial waste placed in the landfill be select waste that is monitored and screened for such things as metal objects, wooden posts, automobile frames and parts, and other sharp, heavy objects which could tear the liner. The liner design contained in the application meets the design requirements of Rule 17-701.050(5)(d), FAC. Section 17-701.050(5)(b), FAC, requires that the liner be constructed of materials having appropriate chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients, physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed, climatic conditions, stress of installation, and daily operations. The liner is constructed of HDPE, which is superior to other types of plastic for use as municipal and hazardous waste landfill liners due to its physical and chemical properties. It is a material composed of long polymeric chain
molecules, which are highly resistant to physical failure and to chemical weakening or alteration. The liner is of sufficient strength and thickness to resist punctures, tearing, and bursting. The liner has a safety factor of over seven, which is three and one-half times greater than the minimum acceptable safety factor of two, required in the Department's rules for landfill liners.
The liner proposed in this instance will not fail due to pressure gradients, including static head or external hydrogeologic forces. Mr. Overmann evaluated the effects of a hydrologic head of one foot over the HDPE liner and the clay liner component and determined that the protective sand layer will insure the HDPE liner does not fail. Mr. Overmann relied on the testimony of Dr. Herbert with respect to hydrogeologic site characteristics in concluding that hydrogeologic forces will not cause liner failure. The 80-mil liner proposed by EPAI will be more resistant to the stresses of installation and daily operation than will a 60-mil liner. The two-foot sand layer above the drainage layer and the HDPE liner will also help protect the liner from stresses of daily operation.
Mr. Overmann analyzed the liner's potential for failure between the point at which it is anchored on the edge of the landfill and the base of the landfill where settlement is greatest due to waste deposition. He determined that the HDPE liner would elongate on the order of one percent of its length. This is far less than 700 to 800 percent elongation required to break the liner material. Based on the site foundation analysis and the proposed liner design for the landfill, the liner will not fail due to hydrogeologic or foundation conditions at the site. The liner meets the performance requirements set forth in Rule 17-701.050(5)(b)2., FAC.
The liner meets requirements that it cover all of the earth likely to be in contact with waste or leachate. The liner extends beyond the limits of the waste disposal cells to an anchor trench where the HDPE liner is anchored by soils and other materials to hold it in place during installation and operation. The liner design provides reasonable assurance that the liner performance standards contained in the above rule will be satisfied. There are no site- specific conditions at the Holmes County landfill site that would require extraordinary design measures beyond those specified in the rule cited above.
The permit application includes a quality control and assurance plan for the soil and HDPE liner components and for the sand, geotextile, and geonet components of the drainage layer. A quality control plan is one in which the manufacturer or contractor monitors the quality of the product or services; a quality assurance plan is one in which an independent third party monitors the construction methods, procedures, processes, and results to insure they meet project specifications. The quality control/quality assurance plan requires the subgrade below the clay liner to be prepared to insure that it provides a dry, level, firm base on which to place the clay liner. The plan provides that low- permeability clay comprising the liner will be placed in lifts of specified thickness and kneaded with a sheepsfoot roller or other equipment. Low- permeability soil panels will be placed adjacent to the clay liner and scarified and overlapped at the end to achieve a tight bond. Each clay lift will be compacted and tested to insure it meets the specified density requirements and moisture specifications before a subsequent lift is placed. Lined surfaces will be graded and rolled to provide a smooth surface. The surface of the final low- permeability soil layer will be free of rocks, stones, sticks, sharp objects, debris, and other harmful materials. If any cracks should develop in the clay liner, the contractor must re-homogenize, knead, and recompact the liner to the depth of the deepest crack. The liner will be protected from the elements by a temporary protective cover used over areas of the clay liner exposed for more
than 24 hours. The plan also provides specifications for visual inspection of the liner, measurement of in-place dry density of the soil, and measurement of hydraulic conductivity on undisturbed samples of the completed liner. These tests will be performed under the supervision of the professional engineer in charge of liner installation to insure that performance standards are met.
There will be a quality control plan for installation of the HDPE liner in accordance with the DER approved quality control plan that incorporates the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. The quality assurance and quality control plan calls for the use of numbered or identified rolls of the HDPE liner. The numbering system allows for identification of the manufacturing date and machine location, so that the liner quality can be traced to insure that there are no manufacturing anomalies, such as improper manufactured thickness of the liner. The plan also addresses in detail the installation of the HDPE liner. The liner is installed by unrolling it off spools in sections over the clay liner. As it is unrolled, it is tested for thickness with a micrometer and is visually inspected for flaws or potential flaws along the length of the roll. Flaws detected are marked, coded, and repaired. Records are prepared documenting each flaw. If flaws appear frequently, the HDPE is rejected and removed from the site. As the sheets are installed, they are overlapped and bonded together by heat fusing to create a watertight seam. As the sheets are seamed, they are tested in place by nondestructive testing methods to insure seam continuity and detect any leaks or flaws. If flaws are detected, they are documented and the seam is repaired.
The seams are also subject to destructive testing, in which a sample of the seam is removed in the field and tested in the laboratory for shearing or peeling apart of the sheets. If destructive testing reveals seam flaws, additional field and laboratory testing is performed and necessary repairs are made. All tests, repairs, and retests are carefully documented, and a map depicting the location of all repairs is prepared for quality control and performance monitoring.
The plan for the installation of the geonet, geotextile, and sand layers provides specifications for storage, installation, inspection, testing, and repair of the geonet and geotextile layers. The liner construction and installation will be in conformance with the methods and procedures contained in EPA publication EPA/600/2-88/052, Lining of Waste Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities, as required by Section 17-701.050(5)(a), FAC. The quality assurance and quality control plan proposed exceeds the requirements contained in Section 17-701.050(5)(c), FAC.
Leachate Collection and Removal System
The landfill design includes a leachate collection and removal system. See Section 17-701.050(5)(e)&(f), FAC. The leachate collection and removal system meets the requirements in the above rule by providing that the design incorporate at least a 12-inch drainage layer above the liner with a hydraulic conductivity of not less than 1 X 10-3 cm/sec at a slope to promote drainage. The drainage layer consists of a geonet layer, a geotextile layer, and a two- foot sand layer. The geonet has a hydraulic conductivity of two to three cm/sec, many times more permeable than required by the rule; and the sand layer will have a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1 X 10-3 cm/sec.
The leachate collection and removal system meets regulatory requirements contained in the above-cited rule that the design include a drainage tile or pipe collection system of appropriate size and spacing, with sumps and pumps or other means to efficiently remove the leachate. The design
provides that the Class I cell will be divided into operating disposal cells. The design includes a piping system consisting of a 6-inch diameter pipe to be placed down the center of each of the operating cells and encased in a granular river rock medium. The HELP model calculations included in the permit application and evidence indicate that the leachate will be removed efficiently and effectively and that the leachate head will be maintained in compliance with the performance standards in the rule. The piping system is on a slope that drains to a central location or sump. Based on a design preference of City, the piping design will be slightly modified in the construction drawings to provide that rather than going through the HDPE liner, the leachate piping will run up the side of the cell wall and leachate will be pumped out of the cell into the leachate lagoon.
The leachate collection and removal system design provides for a granular material or synthetic fabric filter overlying or surrounding the leachate collection and removal system to prevent clogging of the system by infiltration of fine sediments from the waste or drainage layer. A layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile will be wrapped around the granular river rock material surrounding the piping system to filter out fine particles. The design also provides a method for testing whether the system is clogged and for cleaning the system if it becomes clogged. A clean-out tool can be run through the openings in the leachate collection piping system to monitor and pressure clean the pipes if they become clogged. Thus, the leachate collection and removal system will satisfy the leachate system design requirements of Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC.
The leachate collection and removal system will meet the performance standards in paragraph (e) of that rule, as well. The leachate collection and removal system will be located immediately above the liner and will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to collect and remove leachate from the landfill. The HELP model analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate depth will not exceed one foot on top of the liner.
The leachate collection and removal system will be constructed of materials which are chemically resistant to the waste disposed of in the landfill and leachate expected to be generated. The geonet will be comprised of HDPE, which is chemically resistant to waste and leachate due to its molecular structure. The collection piping system also will be composed of HDPE. The geotextile layer will be composed of a non-woven polyester or polypropylene fabric, which has been determined to be resistant to and compatible with municipal solid waste leachates. The sand layer will consist of non-carbonate materials that are chemically resistant to or compatible with leachate.
The evidence shows that the system will be of sufficient strength and thickness to prevent collapse under the pressures exerted by overlying waste, cover materials, and equipment used at the landfill. Geonet drainage layers, HDPE piping, geotextile fabric, and sand layers such as those proposed are routinely and effectively used in landfills, including those that are deeper than the landfill proposed in the instant situation. The leachate collection and removal system meets requirements in paragraph (e) of the above rule, as well, that the system be designed and operated to function without clogging through the active life and closure period of the landfill. The geonet and geotextile layers will prevent the piping system from clogging. If clogging occurs, the system is designed to allow cleaning of the pipes.
The collection and removal system will be designed and constructed to provide for removal of the leachate within the drainage system to a central
collection point for treatment and disposal. The leachate will drain by gravity from the sump into the leachate lagoon, but will be altered during construction to provide for pumping of leachate out of the system into the lagoon in order to prevent having to penetrate the HDPE liner with piping. Once the leachate is pumped into the lagoon, it will be recirculated over the landfill face, evaporated from the lagoon, or removed off site for treatment and disposal at a waste disposal and treatment plant.
Surface Water and Storm Water Management System
The storm water management system for the landfill is designed and sized according to local drainage patterns, soil permeability, annual precipitation calculations, area land use, and other characteristics of the surrounding watershed. (See Rule 17-701.050(5)(h), FAC). The engineering expert for the applicant, Mr. Barrett, designed the storm water management system. He considered the presence of dense clay soils on the site which do not provide good percolation because of low permeability, with regard to storm water falling on the site. He also took into account existing drainage patterns, as well as the annual precipitation. The retention and detention ponds and drainage ways designed into the system consist of three detention basins located at the north, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the site and one retention basin located on the western portion of the site. The site is divided into watersheds and is drained by an on-site gravity system consisting of runoff collection pipes to intercept the overland flow and convey the runoff into the retention and detention facilities. Runoff from the northern watershed is treated in detention basin 1, that from the southeast watershed in basin 3, and runoff from the southwest watershed area in detention basin 4. Runoff from the western area or watershed is treated in retention basin 2.
A computer model was used by Mr. Barrett in determining the appropriate design for the storm water management system. The model is called the hydrologic engineering center-1 model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is a model routinely and widely accepted in the storm water engineering design profession and discipline for designing such systems. It has historically been accepted by the Florida Department of Transportation, DER, the Corps of Engineers, and a number of counties and municipalities. A number of parameters, such as total runoff area, watershed characteristics, rainfall amount, time of concentration, lag time, and route description, were put into the model to develop the storm water management system design. Because no actual runoff data was available to calibrate the model, the model was run using data for two hypothetical storm events, the 25-year, 24-hour storm and the 10- year, 24-hour storm. Total rainfall amounts for these events were obtained from rainfall intensity duration-frequency curves developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for this geographical area.
The detention basins are wet treatment facilities having permanent pools of water. Wetlands vegetation grows on the littoral slopes of the detention basins and removes pollutants from the storm water by natural uptake of pollutants contained in the water through the roots, stems, and leaves of the plants. Based on the HEC-1 model, the detention basins are designed to store one inch of runoff over the permanent pool control elevation and to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall, as required by Section 17-25.040(5), FAC, for projects having drainage areas of less than 100 acres. Each basin has several pipes to allow outflow when the water level exceeds the one-half retention level. As water rises to the outflow pipe level, it flows out of the basin and eventually discharges off site. The outflow pipes are two to three inches in diameter, allowing discharge of a controlled volume of water at a controlled
rate. The discharge structures will be constructed in accordance with construction drawings that will include erosion control devices, such as rip- rap. The basins also have vertical riser pipes that discharge if water reaches a higher set elevation, specified in the permit application. Only if the water level rises to an elevation exceeding the 25-year, 24-hour storm elevation would the water flow over the berm. As required by Section 17-25.025(8), FAC, the storm water management system design provides for skimmers to be installed on discharge structures to skim oil, grease, and debris off water discharged from the basins. No more than one-half of the volume will be discharged in the first
60 hours following a storm event. The detention basin slopes that exceed a four to one slope down to a depth of two feet below control elevation will be fenced for safety purposes. See Rule 17-25.025(6), FAC.
The retention basin is designed to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall with filtration of the first one-half inch through a sand filter bed in the bottom of the basin within 72 hours following the storm event. The sand filter bed will consist of clean well-graded sand having a minimum horizontal and vertical conductivity or percolation rate of six inches per hour. The retention basin has vertical risers, as provided in the application. Erosion and sediment control "best management practices" will be used during construction to retain sediment on site, as referenced in Rule 17-25.025(7), FAC. Other best management practices, such as sodding embankments or stabilizing slopes with geomats or sand bags will be used.
The system is designed to minimize mixing of the storm water with the leachate. (Rule 17-701.050(5)(h)3., FAC). As waste is placed in the landfill, berms are constructed laterally across the cell face to segregate the waste disposal areas from other areas in the cell not yet receiving waste. Storm water coming into contact with waste flows down through it and eventually is collected and removed from that cell by the leachate collection and removal system described above. Storm water falling in a portion of a cell in which waste has not been deposited is collected by piping and pumped to the storm water management system for treatment of storm water because it does not constitute leachate, not having traversed on or through waste. Storm water will not come into contact with the waste within the system as designed. There are not any pipes connecting the waste disposal cells to the storm water system or basins.
The storm water system in the permit application was designed in accordance with the criteria enunciated in the above-cited rule. This fact was established by the unrefuted expert testimony of Mr. Barrett and was independently confirmed by three other engineers, including the storm water program engineer of DER, each of whom reviewed the storm water system design. The storm water program engineer inspected the site and determined that the proposed management system will not pose any risk to downstream property, as required by the statute and rules enforced by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD).
CVA adduced the testimony of Mr. Hilton Meadows in an effort to demonstrate that the storm water management system design in EPAI's application, and case-in-chief, does not meet applicable criteria in Chapters 17-701 and 17- 25, FAC, referenced above. Mr. Meadows attempted to demonstrate, by calculations determined using the "rational formula", that storm water will be discharged off the landfill site at a rate of 16.11 acre feet per minute during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. An acre foot of water is a depth of one foot of water covering a surface acre in area. According to Mr. Meadows, all storm water would be thus discharged off site at a single discharge point creating a
"blowout" of the storm water management system structure at that point which would flood and erode Long Round Bay off the site. In rebuttal, however, Mr. Barrett explained that Mr. Meadows' calculations merely determined the total amount of water that would fall on the landfill site during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and failed to consider the time-volume reduction of storm water off the site over a 24-hour time period. Mr. Barrett clearly established that 16.11 acre feet of water would not be discharged per minute off the site during the
25-year, 24-hour storm event. It was further demonstrated that Mr. Meadows did not perform any computer modeling in analyzing site-specific compliance of the proposed storm water management system design against the framework of the applicable design and performance standards in Chapters 17-25 and 17-701, FAC. CVA did not adduce any preponderant evidence which would demonstrate that the storm water management system proposed will not meet the design performance standards contained in the rules and rule chapters referenced above. In view of the more extensive background, education, knowledge, and training acquired both through education and experience; in view of the more extensive and detailed investigation and calculations underlying his design, including the computer modeling effort referenced above; and in view of his corroboration by three other witnesses within the storm water engineering discipline, the opinions of Mr. Barrett, and the witnesses corroborating his testimony, are accepted over that of Mr. Meadows.
Gas Control System
The gas control system for the landfill will meet the design requirements contained in Rule 17-701.050(5)(j), FAC. It will be a passive system, meaning that no mechanical methods are necessary to withdraw gas from the landfill. A ventilation system will be installed as the final cap is placed on the landfill and will consist of perforated PVC pipes placed vertically down through the soil cover layers, to reach the solid waste disposal areas. The pipes are wrapped in geotextile fabric in order to prevent them from being infiltrated by fine soil particles which could cause clogging of the system.
The pipes will run laterally across the top of the waste disposal areas to transfer gas to the vertical vents which vent the gases to the atmosphere. If gas production should exceed the capacity of the passive ventilation system, vegetation will be damaged and odor will become objectionable. If that occurs, a pump can be connected to the system to extract gases mechanically and vent them into the atmosphere or flame them off as a more positive control method.
The proposed gas system is typical for landfills of this size and has been well tested for efficiency at other such facilities. The gas control system will not interfere with or cause failure of the liner or the leachate control systems.
The gas control system is designed to prevent explosion and fires due to methane accumulation, damage to vegetation on the final cover of the closed portions of the landfill or vegetation beyond the perimeter of the property. It will control any objectionable odors migrating off site. The system, as proposed and proven in this case, meets the design requirements contained in the above-cited rule.
Landfill Operation
Paul Sgriccia, vice president of City, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill design, operation, and management. He has extensive professional experience in (and supervises a 20-person staff) designing landfills, obtaining permitting, and overseeing daily operation, environmental regulation compliance, compliance monitoring, hydrogeology, and groundwater monitoring with regard to landfill projects proposed, being constructed, or operated by City. Additionally, he is trained as an engineer.
He was tendered and accepted as an expert in the fields of landfill operations and landfill management.
The above-cited rule chapter requires landfills to have a ground water monitoring system that complies with monitor well location, construction, and sampling requirements of Sections 17-3.401, 17-4.26, and 17-28.700, FAC, and ground water sampling and testing in accordance with those sections, as well as Section 17-22, Parts III and IV, FAC. Mr. Sgriccia's testimony shows that the ground water monitoring plan proposed and considered in conjunction with the hydrogeologic investigation and ground water monitoring recommendations made by Dr. Herbert will meet these regulatory requirements. The recommendations made by Dr. Herbert concerning ground water monitoring should be incorporated as conditions on issuance of the permit. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to notify DER one year in advance of its ground water monitoring schedule so that DER can be present to collect "split samples", as referenced in Rule 17- 701.050(6)(a)3., FAC. Any grant of a permit should also be conditioned on this policy being strictly followed.
The application also contains an operation plan, as required by the above-cited rule at paragraph (6)(b). The operation plan provides that EPAI will be the entity responsible for the operation and maintenance of the landfill. The plan provides that in the event of a natural disaster or equipment failure that would prevent waste from being deposited at the landfill, the waste will be disposed of at the Springhill landfill in adjacent Jackson County, pursuant to an agreement between EPAI and Waste Management, Inc., the operator of that landfill.
The operation plan contains detailed procedures to control the type of waste received at the facility. Hazardous waste, biomedical waste, lead-acid batteries, white goods, used oil, and waste tires will not be accepted for disposal at the proposed landfill. Asbestos will only be accepted if it is in the proper regulatory approved containers. The operation plan specifies inspection procedures and procedures to be followed if prohibited wastes are discovered. All vehicles hauling waste to the landfill will be weighed and inspected by the operator or appointed attendants at the entry to the landfill. A load inspection will be performed to determine if the waste conforms to the approved waste description before the waste can be disposed. Paperwork, checks, controls, and records maintenance will be performed, as well as random load inspections for municipal solid waste generated by households. Spotters will observe the actual unloading of each vehicle at the active cells. Unacceptable waste will be rejected and cannot be disposed of at the site. Unacceptable waste that is already unloaded inadvertently at the site will be required to be removed immediately. DER will be notified of attempts to dispose of unacceptable waste at the landfill site.
The operation plan provides for weighing and measuring of incoming waste and vehicle traffic control and unloading control. All these vehicles will be weighed and inspected before proceeding to disposal cells. The operation plan provides a method and sequence for filling waste into the disposal cells. Waste disposal will begin in the southwest corner of cell one and waste will be disposed in that cell up to an established final grade and the final capping process will be commenced before beginning disposal in another cell.
Waste will be compacted on a daily basis when a load is received. Compaction equipment operates continuously over disposed waste loads to obtain maximum compaction. A daily cover of six inches of clean soil will be applied
at the end of the day unless more waste will be disposed on the working face within 18 hours. Daily cover helps reduce disease-vectors, such as flies and rodents, as well as to reduce windborne litter.
The gas control system will be maintained to insure that riser pipe vents are not dislodged and will be monitored to insure that explosive limits of methane are not reached. When leachate levels in the lagoon reach a certain level, the leachate will be withdrawn and recirculated back over the working face of the disposal area or else hauled off site to a waste water treatment facility for treatment and disposal. Leachate recirculation is becoming an accepted treatment method by regulatory agencies and is considered an effective industry standard treatment method. Leachate is recirculated by application to the active working face of the disposal cell by a watering truck and is dropped on the cell through a distribution bar or open valve pipe at the back of the truck. Leachate will not be applied during rainfall nor will it be aerially sprayed on the cell. Municipal solid waste has significant absorption capacity, so that large quantities of recirculated leachate are absorbed by the waste.
The leachate that does eventually run through the waste is collected in the leachate collection and removal system and does not mix with runoff going into the storm water management system. The leachate lagoon is surrounded by a containment dike area with a loading station inside the dike for removal of leachate by truck for off-site treatment at a waste water treatment plant. A hose is hooked to a tank truck and leachate is pumped into the truck. Any spills during the loading process will be contained by the dike and will flow back into the leachate lagoon. The storm water management system will be operated to insure that there is no mingling of leachate with storm water runoff. The design provides for three diversion berms running the length of the Class I disposal cell which divide the cell into four smaller working cells.
Any rainwater falling in the clean, unused cells will be removed to the storm water management system. The rain coming into contact with the working face is leachate and is collected and removed from the cell by the leachate control system. The operation plan addresses and satisfies each requirement of Section 17-701.050(6)(b), FAC.
Rule 17-701.050(6)(c), FAC, requires certain operational design features to be incorporated in the landfill. Thus, the entire site will be enclosed by a minimum four-foot high fence with a gate that will be locked during off hours. To Shoo Fly Bridge Road is a county-maintained, all-weather road that provides main access to the landfill site. In addition, the roads on the site will be stabilized, all-weather roads. The operation plan provides for signs indicating the name of the operating authority, traffic flow, hours of operation, and any disposal charges, as well as scales for weighing the waste loads received at the site. Dust will be controlled by water spraying to avoid contaminated runoff due to chemical sprays and oils. Dust will be further minimized by use of paved roads, minimizing the areas of disturbed soil, vegetating stockpiles as soon as possible, and vegetating final and intermediate cover areas. Daily cover, use of portable fences, and cleaning operations by operating personnel will provide litter control. Firefighting equipment and facilities adequate to insure the safety of employees will be located on site. Daily cover will be used to minimize the potential for fire and fire extinguishers and water will be used to fight fires. If a fire is too large to effectively fight with on-site equipment, the Holmes County Fire Department will be called to assist.
The operation plan for the landfill meets the requirements depicted in the above-cited rule at paragraph (d) in terms of personnel and facilities requirements. A certified attendant will be on site during all hours of
operation and a telephone will be located on site. Equipment requirements are contained in the above-cited rule at paragraph (e). The applicant will thus maintain and operate a large bulldozer, soil scraper, front-end loader, water truck, motor-grader for cleaning roads, and portable pumps for storm water management and leachate management. In the event of an equipment breakdown, the plan provides for an agreement between the operator and a local heavy-equipment company to provide a compactor and other essential equipment within 24 hours.
The equipment will have protective roll bars or roll cages, fire extinguishers on board, and windshields. The operation plan otherwise provides for protective devices and gear for heavy equipment and for personnel themselves, such as dust masks and hearing protection devices, hygienic facilities in the maintenance building and office, potable water, electric power, emergency first aid facilities and the like. Employees will be hired locally and trained in appropriate safety procedures and practices.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 17-701.050(6)(j), FAC, the operation plan calls for solid waste in the Class I cell to be spread in layers of approximately two-feet in thickness and compacted to approximately one-foot thickness before the next layer is applied. Weekly compaction of the waste will be accomplished by heavy equipment at the Class III cell. The compostible materials and the yard trash at the Class III cell will be removed and composted on site. Bulky materials that are not easily compacted will be worked into the other waste materials to the extent practicable.
As required by paragraph (k) of the above-cited rule, the compacted solid waste material will be formed into cells with the working face and side grades above surface at a slope of no greater than 30 degrees. The cell depth will be determined by the area in operation, daily volume of waste, width of the working face, and good safety practices. Waste will be placed into the cell beginning at the southwest corner and spread northward, eventually reaching grade level. As elevation of the cell approaches final grade, intermediate and final cover is applied to the cell. The final slope grade will be approximately 4:1 and will be terraced.
The operation plan meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(1) of the above-cited rule that the cell working face be only wide enough to accommodate vehicles discharging waste and to minimize the exposed area and use of unnecessary cover material. The waste will not be spread across the entire cell immediately but instead will be spread on a small working face. The typical working area may be 50 feet by 50 feet or slightly larger, and will become larger as more loads of waste are received. Waste is deposited on the working face and compacted until final grade is reached, working across the face of the active cell in a terraced effect. Intermediate and final cover are applied to the portions of the cell that have reached design dimensions. The working face is kept as small as possible to minimize leachate generation, disease-vector problems, and the need for daily cover.
The landfill operation meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(m) of the above-cited rule to the effect that initial cover will be applied to enclose each working cell except the working face, which may be left uncovered if solid waste will be placed on the working face within 18 hours. If there are adverse environmental impacts or problems with disease-vectors, initial cover will be placed on the working face at the end of each day for the Class I landfill cell and once a week for the Class III cell.
The operation plan provides that an intermediate cover of one foot of compacted soil will be applied in addition to the six-inch daily cover within
seven days of completion of the cell if final cover or an additional lift is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion, as required by paragraph (6)(n) of the above-cited rule.
The landfill will be closed in accordance with Sections 17-701.050(4) and 17-701.070-.076, FAC. The operation plan further provides that daily cover will control disease-vectors, such as flies, rather than employing use of pesticides. Uncontrolled or unauthorized scavenging will not be permitted at the landfill and will be controlled by fences and on-site personnel.
Class III Cell
The proposed Class III cell will be located over the old Class I cell last used by Holmes County. This area has a recompacted clay liner and a leachate collection system in place. Only yard trash will be deposited in the Class III cell, however. Based upon the Class III cell design and operating plan that will permit only yard trash disposal in it, any leachate generated from the Class III cell will not pose any threat to or violate applicable water quality standards in or outside the zone of discharge.
Asbestos disposal is proposed at the landfill site. A separate asbestos disposal cell is proposed. The operation plan will provide that the asbestos be covered daily with a proper dust suppressant or six inches of non- asbestos material or will be disposed of in an area where proper warning signs, fences and barriers are present. Asbestos accepted for disposal at the landfill will be bagged and accompanied by shipping documents as required by EPA rules appearing in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation. Persons working around asbestos will be specifically trained in its handling and must use appropriate protective equipment, as required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants set forth at 40 CFR 61.25 and other applicable federal regulations.
The applicant proposes to dispose of petroleum contaminated soils at the landfill, as well. These soils will be mixed in with the waste on the working face. The soils will not be used as an intermediate cover or come into contact with surface water that will be conveyed to and treated in the storm water management system.
Landfill Closure
The application includes general plans and schedules for closure of the new and existing landfills. Once final grade is reached, an intermediate cover is applied over the daily cover if the working face will not receive any more waste or will receive final cover within 180 days. The gas control system will then be installed and the final cover consisting of an impermeable synthetic cap will be applied. The final cover will be a plastic cap constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), HDPE, or some other synthetic material and covered by one foot of protective soil, topped by six inches of topsoil to promote vegetation growth. Soils for the closure effort will be obtained on site and will not be obtained by dredging in any jurisdictional wetlands. The final design provides for a terraced landfill profile for the new Class I cell. The waste levels will not exceed 10 feet in height and will be terraced at a 4:1 slope. The terraces will slope back against the cell wall and will be underlain by a subdrain to collect runoff and convey it to the storm water management system. This will prevent erosion of the final cover, waste exposure, and thus, additional leachate generation.
The application contains a closure plan containing a general landfill information report and various other plans, investigations, and reports addressing all criteria and factors required to be addressed by Section 17- 701.073(6)(a)-(i), FAC. All such plans, reports and investigations were certified by Pearce Barrett, a registered professional engineer, expert witness and landfill designer for the applicant.
The application contains a detailed estimate of closure costs and a monitoring and long-term care plan for the landfill meeting the requirements of Sections 17-701.075 and 17-701.076, FAC. An interest-bearing escrow account will be established for the landfill within 30 days of permanent issuance to cover the closure costs. Funds for closure, monitoring and long-term care of the landfill will be set aside as tipping fees are paid. As portions of the landfill are closed, funds in the escrow account will be available to pay for closure. This type of landfill closure and closure funding is termed "close as you go". This insures that available funds to close the landfill will be present so that funding problems such as those associated with the existing landfill will not arise. The long-term care plan provided for in the permit application and in the applicant's evidence provides for monitoring and maintenance of the landfill for a 20-year period after closure is complete. The storm water management system will be maintained and ground water monitored as part of this long-term care plan.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Respondent, EPAI, seeks approval of a permit authorizing construction of a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill, as well as authorization and permit to close an existing 25.5-acre Class I landfill in Holmes County, Florida.
The Petitioner, CVA, did not prove at hearing its standing to challenge the permit issuance, as required by the Hearing Officer's Order of September 3, 1992. CVA established by direct or circumstantial evidence that it is an organization whose mission is to attempt to protect the environmental concerns of its membership, including those involved in this case or some of them, arising under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules. CVA, however, failed to establish that any of its members has substantial interests subjected to potential injury by the construction and operation of the proposed landfills which are any different than the interests held by the public generally. Such indirect interests in the subject matter of this proceeding are not sufficient to accord the Petitioner, CVA, with standing to challenge permit issuance. See Grove Isle v. Bayshore Homeowners Association, 418 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, Chapter 17-701, FAC, and rules referenced in Chapter 17-701, FAC, establish the requirements an applicant for a landfill permit must meet to be entitled to issuance of the permit.
The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that it has provided reasonable assurances that it meets the statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. JWC Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The "reasonable assurances" standard does not mean that the applicant must provide absolute guarantees that the
permit requirements will be met nor does the standard require that the applicant "eliminate all contrary possibilities" or address "theoretical impacts". See Manasota-88, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Company, 12 FALR 319, 325 (Final Order February 19, 1990); Florida Keys Citizens Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers,
8 FALR 5564, 5577 (Final Order October 17, 1986), reversed on other grounds, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The standard, rather, requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurances which take into account contingencies which might reasonably be expected. Cornwell v. Southwood Properties, Inc., 12 FALR 4972, 4987 (Final Order December 6, 1990).
The applicant's burden mandated by JWC requires the applicant to make a preliminary showing of its entitlement to the permit, as delineated in its application. The Petitioner then has the burden of proving by contrary evidence of equivalent quality the facts alleged in its petition. If the applicant makes a preliminary showing of entitlement, the Petitioner has the burden to adduce evidence presenting more than speculative concerns of potential or possible adverse environmental impacts. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, 11 FALR 467, 480-81 (Final Order February 2, 1988).
In this case, the applicant has established by preponderant evidence that it meets all applicable statutory and regulatory criteria contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and 17-701, FAC, and related rules. Throughout the proceeding, CVA has alleged largely speculative concerns regarding the landfill and, at the hearing, did not adduce evidence of equivalent quality to support those concerns and to rebut EPAI's demonstration that the landfill is reasonably assured to meet all applicable statutory and regulatory rule requirements contained in those statutory and regulatory rule chapters. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the permit.
CVA stipulated that EPAI's application meets the requirements in Section 17-701.030(4), FAC, except those regarding property ownership, project conformance with proper zoning, and submittal of an advisory report by the water management district. The applicant demonstrated that it has entered into an option contract with Stone Container Corporation to purchase the property on which the landfill will be located, contingent upon issuance of the permit. The applicant also presented competent, substantial evidence demonstrating that the "public/semi-public/educational" land use designation for the site in the Holmes County Comprehensive Plan permits landfill use of the site. The Northwest Florida Water Management District did not prepare an advisory report for the project, as required by Section 17-701.030(7), FAC. A solid waste program administrator for DER, however, testified that as a matter of course, the district does not prepare such reports; and as a matter of policy, the Department does not rely on them in making its permitting decisions because the reports are advisory only and DER is not bound by any recommendations or comments that may be presented in such a report by the district. It was not demonstrated that the district's failure to prepare the report materially affected the permit review by DER in its ultimate initial decision. Thus, it was established that the failure by the district to provide such a report is harmless error that is not dispositive in this proceeding. Save Trail Ridge v. Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc., 14 FALR 129, 135-136 (Final Order November 1, 1991); Ibid., endnote one, supra. EPAI has provided reasonable assurances that the permit application meets the requirements of Section 17-701.030, FAC.
It was also established by preponderant evidence by the applicant that the project will not violate Section 17-701.040, FAC. Although the Petitioner alleged that water table levels would be above the bottom of the cell liner and that the site is susceptible to sinkhole formation, it produced no
evidence to support these allegations. Further, EPAI produced affirmative evidence that, indeed, such eventualities would not occur. The applicant demonstrated that the proposed project meets the requirements of the above-cited rule.
The applicant also established by preponderant evidence that the landfill will meet all the location and site requirements of Section 17- 701.050(3) and (4), FAC. The Petitioner presented no evidence to rebut that demonstration. Although it was alleged that the site is prone to sinkhole development and the landfill will pollute ground water and surface waters in Long Round Bay, the Petitioner produced no competent, substantial evidence to support these allegations. Reasonable assurances have been provided by the applicant's evidence on these issues that the landfill permit application meets the requirements of Section 17-701.050(3) and (4), FAC.
The Petitioner attempted to establish that jurisdictional wetlands are present on the landfill site. It adduced testimony from Mr. Hilton Meadows regarding the presence of wetland plant species alleged to be in the vicinity of the landfill site. However, by that witness' own admission, he did not see wetland species growing on the landfill site itself, only near the base of the perimeter berm and off the landfill site. He did not determine a location of the landward extent of waters of the State by a determination of the dominance of any wetland plant species he observed on or in the vicinity of the landfill site, as specifically required by Chapter 17-301, FAC, for establishment of DER jurisdiction.
Neither Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, nor Chapter 17-701, FAC, require a landfill applicant to demonstrate absence of DER jurisdictional wetlands on a proposed landfill site to obtain a permit. Thus, the burden to demonstrate the presence of jurisdictional wetlands is on the party asserting that the wetlands exist. In this instance, CVA failed to establish the presence of DER jurisdictional wetlands on the landfill site.
The applicant established by preponderant evidence that the proposed landfill meets all design and performance standards of Rule 17-701.050(5)(a)- (f), FAC, concerning leachate control and liner systems for the landfill. Extensive expert testimony and documentary evidence was presented demonstrating that the landfill complies with each of the criteria regarding these systems. Although the Petitioner alleged numerous design and performance problems regarding the liner, leachate control system, and other features of the landfill, it presented no evidence to support these allegations or to rebut EPAI's demonstration that the landfill meets all applicable design and performance criteria contained in the above-cited rule. Thus, reasonable assurances have been provided that the permit application meets the requirements of the rule cited next above.
Preponderant evidence was adduced, culminating in the above Findings of Fact, establishing that the gas control system will meet the performance and design standards of Rule 17-701.050(5)(i) and (j), FAC. In addition to the detail provided in the permit application, expert testimony from two witnesses was adduced concerning compliance of the gas control system with the standards contained in that last-cited rule. The Petitioner presented no evidence to rebut that demonstration. In that event, reasonable assurances have been provided that the landfill installation and operation will meet the requirements of that rule.
The landfill was shown to be reasonably assured to meet the performance and design standards of Rule 17-701.050(5)(g) and (h), FAC, for storm water management systems. The applicant presented extensive evidence demonstrating compliance of the proposed storm water management system with the design criteria of Chapter 17-25, FAC. Once a storm water system is shown to meet the design criteria in Chapter 17-25, FAC, the applicant is clothed with a rebuttable presumption that the system will meet the applicable water quality standards in Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, FAC. Section 17-25.025(1), FAC. CVA did not present competent, substantial evidence to rebut the proof that the proposed storm water management system meets the criteria of Chapter 17-25, FAC. The only witness who addressed the design and performance of the storm water management system proposed for the site merely determined, using an overly- simplified mathematical formula, the amount of water that would fall on the site during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. He did not perform any computer modeling using site-specific characteristics, such as site size, watershed features, time of concentration, run-off lag time, or other pertinent considerations to analyze site-specific design and performance. His testimony was not credible on this subject, as pointed out by the error determined by Mr. Barrett in the Petitioner's expert's testimony concerning the time period for 16 acre feet of water to exit the site.
If the applicant can demonstrate that the project meets design standards of Rule 17-701.050, FAC, it then benefits from a presumption that the proposed landfill project will meet the performance standards. See Huelsman v. WAC of Okaloosa County, 11 FALR 3777, 3787 (Final Order May 29, 1989). This presumption can only be rebutted by site-specific evidence demonstrating that notwithstanding the proposed landfill meets the design standards in that rule, it will not actually meet the performance standards. See McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 971-72 (Final Order January 22, 1990). In the instant case, CVA presented no site-specific evidence to rebut EPAI's proof that the proposed landfill fully meets all design and performance criteria in the above-cited rule. Thus, as a matter of law, EPAI has provided reasonable assurances that the landfill meets all design and performance criteria contained in the above-cited rule.
Because the applicant demonstrated that the landfill will meet the performance standards in the above-cited rule, it is accorded the presumption at law that it has provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards and criteria contained in Chapter 17-3, FAC, will also be met. See Section 17- 701.050(5), FAC. CVA presented no evidence at hearing to rebut this presumption. Reasonable assurances have thus been provided that the project will meet the water quality standards and criteria in Sections 17-3.402 and 17- 3.404, FAC, and all other applicable water quality criteria and standards in Chapter 17-3, FAC.
Expert testimony and documentary evidence established that because of the location and nature of the surficial aquifer, the absence of the Floridan aquifer system, the pervasive clay sediments on site, the low horizontal and vertical conductivity of these sediments, as well as the location of the extensive ground water monitoring well network that the water quality standards in Sections 17-302.500 and 17-302.510, .560, and .310, FAC, and all other applicable water quality standards and criteria in Chapters 17-302 and 17-550, FAC, will be met at and beyond the edges of the zone of discharge established for the landfill. CVA adduced no evidence to rebut the demonstration that the project meets all applicable water quality criteria and standards. Reasonable
assurances have thus been provided that the proposed landfill project will satisfy all applicable water quality standards and criteria of Chapters 17-302 and 17-550, FAC.
Preponderant evidence was adduced showing that operational standards in Section 17-701.050(6), FAC, will be met. CVA adduced no evidence to rebut that demonstration and thus the landfill is reasonably assured to meet the requirements of this section.
Preponderant evidence was established that special waste handling standards in Section 17-701.060(5), FAC, for handling and disposal of asbestos will be met. In addition to the provisions in the application addressing asbestos handling and disposal, EPAI presented the testimony of two expert witnesses regarding compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations with regard thereto. Although CVA alleged that asbestos disposal would be improperly handled and accomplished at the landfill site, no evidence was adduced by CVA demonstrating that the proposed landfill project will not meet all applicable regulatory requirements. EPAI has established by preponderant evidence reasonable assurances that the proposed landfill will meet the requirements of Section 17-701.060, FAC, in this regard.
Preponderant evidence was adduced establishing that all applicable closure and financial responsibility requirements of Sections 17-701.070, .073, and .076, FAC, will be reasonably assured to be met. The applicant submitted a closure plan for the existing and the proposed landfill and adduced evidence in support of it culminating in the above Findings of Fact concerning that subject matter. A detailed closure cost estimate and the establishment of an escrow account to operate and close the landfills and to monitor and maintain them for a period of 20 years after closure was demonstrated by the applicant's evidence and no countervailing evidence was produced by CVA at the hearing to rebut EPAI's demonstration that it meets the requirements of the above-cited rules.
Preponderant evidence was adduced which demonstrated that the project will meet all applicable criteria in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-701, FAC, and related and pendant rules. CVA did not adduce evidence to preponderantly support the allegations of its petition nor did it present any countervailing evidence sufficient to rebut EPAI's proof of entitlement to the permit. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed landfill project for which permitting is sought meets all applicable criteria in those statutory and regulatory chapters and that it is entitled to issuance of the subject permit.
The applicant has filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs with an accompanying memorandum of law in support of the motion, and responses thereto have been filed by the Petitioner, as well as replies to the Petitioner's responses by the applicant, EPAI. It is alleged that attorney's fees and costs should be awarded because this action had been filed by the Petitioner, CVA, for an improper purpose, as envisioned by Section 120.59(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). "Improper purpose" is defined in that section as participation in a 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding primarily to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of permitting or of securing approval or licensure with regard to the activity proposed by the application. A party has been held to participate in a proceeding for an improper purpose if the primary intent of that party is any one of four purposes: (1) to harass the opposing party, (2) to cause unnecessary delay to the achievement of the opposing party's purposes, (3) for any frivolous purpose, or (4) to needlessly increase the opposing party's costs
of securing a license or agency approval of the activity at issue. See Burke v. Harbor Estates Associates, Inc., 591 So.2d 1034, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The Hearing Officer has given careful consideration to the motion for attorney's fees and costs and supporting memorandum and the reply thereto and the responses to the Petitioner's reply to the motion and related legal authority and argument. After careful deliberation on this matter, it is determined that the motion should be denied. There is no doubt that the Petitioner did not prove its standing, that its expert witness was very late in accomplishing any preparation for assisting in presentation of the Petitioner's case, and that a number of the issues raised by the Petitioner prior to the hearing were not the subject of any evidence at the hearing. It is also true that the gravamen of much of the complaints raised by the Petitioner in pursuing this case, in reality, amounted to a desire that the landfill not be located near members' residences. The fact remains, however, that a number of the issues raised by the Petitioner in its pleadings were material, environmental degradation-related issues which it could legitimately raise in a proceeding such as this arising under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and which, had substantial proof of them been offered by the Petitioner, might have seriously endangered or defeated entitlement to this permit. Because some of the issues were material and relevant ones and because the Hearing Officer finds that the Petitioner pursued those issues in this proceeding in good faith, without the underlying purpose of delay or any of the other definitional purposes of improper participation envisioned by the above-cited statutory section, it is determined that the Petitioner did not proceed in this cause for an "improper purpose", as defined above. It is true that a number of the issues raised by the Petitioner are not properly cognizable in a Chapter 403 and a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, proceeding such as this, and should properly be raised in another forum (zoning considerations, land ownership considerations and the like). The fact remains, however, that enough of the issues raised were relevant and material and the Petitioner acted in good faith in pursuing them. Therefore, it should not be penalized by an award of attorney's fees and costs against it merely because it was represented, at most of the critical times before and during hearing, by a lay representative who, although he made a valiant effort, was too unschooled in environmental law and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, law and procedure to effectively present those issues and evidence related thereto. Although contending with Petitioner's representative's lack of schooling in administrative law and procedure and environmental law may have greatly inconvenienced the applicant and lengthened this proceeding unnecessarily, such inconvenience does not constitute harassment, unnecessary delay, proceeding for a frivolous purpose, or proceeding out of a desire to simply needlessly increase the cost of permitting the activity for which permitting is sought. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner, CVA, proceeded for an improper purpose, as envisioned by Section 120.59(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), and the motion for attorney's fees and costs should be denied.
Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation dismissing the petition filed in opposition to the permit application and approving EPAI's application for the permit at issue, authorizing construction and operation of a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and
asbestos landfill, as well as authority to close the existing 25.5-acre Class I landfill in Holmes County, Florida, in the manner and under the conditions delineated in the application, as amended, the Intent to Issue and draft permit and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is further
RECOMMENDED that the motion for attorney's fees and cost be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.
P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1993.
ENDNOTE
1/ Chapter 92-346, Laws of Florida, provides that submittal of the District's advisory report to DER is no longer mandatory for issuance of the Class I landfill permit and that failure to submit the report is not grounds for denial of a permit.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-179
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
1-4. Accepted.
5-8. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive.
9. Accepted, but not itself dispositive. The evidence of record at the hearing was competent and dispositive in this de novo proceeding.
10-12. Accepted, but not materially dispositive.
Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence.
Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected, as being an incorrect conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact.
Accepted.
Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
19-32. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
33. Accepted.
34-53. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's
findings of fact on this subject matter and not in their entirety supported by preponderant evidence of record.
54-59. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive proposed findings of fact.
60-74. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, not material to the factual and legal issues presented in this case.
75-81. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented concerning the Floridan aquifer at any rate.
82. Accepted.
83-94. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the preponderant evidence and testimony of record.
Rejected, as immaterial in the context of the issues presented for litigation and resolution in this case.
Rejected, as irrelevant.
Rejected, as irrelevant in this permitting proceeding under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules.
Respondent, EPAI's Proposed Findings of Fact
Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact herein.
Respondent, DER's Proposed Findings of Fact
Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact herein.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Mr. Kenneth Allison Post Office Box 52 Bonifay, FL 32425
Cathy M. Sellers, Esq. Merry E. Lindberg, Esq. STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS
215 South Monroe Street Suite 601
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Jefferson Braswell, Esq.
Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the agency written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 14, 1993 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 06, 1993 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 9/21-25/92. |
| Mar. 16, 1993 | CC (ltr form) Response to Questions filed. (From F. E. Recio/NWFWM) |
| Jan. 07, 1993 | (Petitioner) Memorandum for the Record filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1992 | (Respondents) Notice of Supplemental Authority filed. |
| Dec. 08, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Intent to Submit Late-Filed Exhibit filed. |
| Dec. 08, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Intent to Submit Late-Filed Exhibit filed. |
| Nov. 17, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to EPAI`S Reply on Motion for Attorney`s Fees and Costs filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1992 | (Respondent) Reply to Petitioner`s Response to EPAI`S Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs; Request That Hearing Officer Retain Jurisdiction To Determine Amount of Attorney Fees and Costs filed. |
| Nov. 04, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Travel filed. |
| Oct. 22, 1992 | Amendment to Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 21, 1992 | (Respondent) Motion for Leve to File Corrected Proposed Recommended Order; Respondent EPAI`S Corrected Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1992 | Respondent EPAI`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1992 | Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1992 | Affidavit of Dwight Rich filed. |
| Oct. 16, 1992 | Petitioner Citizens Voice Association`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 13, 1992 | (Respondent) Reply to Petitioner`s Response to EPAI`S Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Objection to Untimely Proffer of Evidence filed. |
| Oct. 12, 1992 | Order sent out. (motion to extend the 40 page limit for the proposed recommended order is granted to the extent of the 40 page extension) |
| Oct. 09, 1992 | (Respondent) Motion for Enlargement of Page Limit for Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1992 | Response to Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and Memorandum of Law filed. (From Ken Allison) |
| Oct. 06, 1992 | Transcript (8 Vols) filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1992 | (Respondent) Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Renewed Motion to Dismiss; Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and Memorandum of Law filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1992 | (TAGGED original & copy) Deposition of Hilton T. Meadows; Notice of Filing Deposition of Hilton T. Meadows filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1992 | Petitioner`s Response to Respondent Environmental Protectors Association`s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss of 25 September, 1992 filed. |
| Sep. 25, 1992 | Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Sep. 21, 1992 | Final Hearing Held 9/21-25/92; for applicable time frames, refer to CASE STATUS form stapled on right side of Clerk's Office case file. |
| Sep. 21, 1992 | Prehearing Brief filed. |
| Sep. 16, 1992 | Respondent EPAI`S Submission Under Prehearing Rules; Department of Environmental Regulation`s Witness List; Joint Stipulation of Exhibits filed. |
| Sep. 09, 1992 | (Petitioner) Response to Hearing Officer`s Order of September 3, you`re. |
| Sep. 08, 1992 | (Environmental Protectors Assn) Response to Motion for Judicial Notice filed. |
| Sep. 03, 1992 | Order sent out. (Motion to Dismiss Denied) |
| Sep. 01, 1992 | (Petitioner) Response to Environmental Protectors Association, Inc., Second Interrogatory filed. |
| Aug. 28, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Judicial Notice filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to Notice of Intent to Use Summaries filed. |
| Aug. 21, 1992 | CC Respondent, Environmental Protectors Association, Inc. Second Interrogatories to Petitioner, Citizens Voice Association of Holmes Countyfiled. |
| Aug. 20, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition; Notice of Intent to Use Summaries filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1992 | Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Department of Environmental Regulation filed. |
| Jul. 31, 1992 | Notice of Telephonic Conference filed. (From Candi E. Culbreath) |
| Jul. 28, 1992 | Affidavit of Kenneth L. Allison filed. |
| Jul. 20, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 20, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Jul. 10, 1992 | Notice of Withdrawal filed. (From Vickery G. George) |
| Jul. 07, 1992 | Respondent Department of Environmenal Regulation's Motion for Protective Order in Response to Petitioner's Request for Order Directing Production of Documents w/Exhibits 1-5 filed. |
| Jun. 30, 1992 | (Petitioner's) Request for an Order Directing Production of Documentsfiled. |
| Jun. 17, 1992 | Order sent out. (hearing rescheduled for September 21-25, 1992; commencing at 10:30 on September 21st; Bonifay) |
| Jun. 09, 1992 | Letter to PMR from K. Allison (re: Notice of Circuit Court Case) filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1992 | (Petitioner's Additional Information Concerning Petitioner's Fourth Request for Documents filed. |
| May 29, 1992 | Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation`s Response to Co-Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance and Joint Request to Set Hearing and Reschedule Prehearing Conference filed. |
| May 28, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to Petitioner's Third Request for Production ofDocuments; Response to Petitioner's Fourth Request for Production of Documents; Notice of Vacation filed. |
| May 28, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to Petitioner`s First Request for Production of Documents; Response to Petitioner`s Second Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| May 26, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance and Joint Request to Set Hearing and Reschedule Prehearing Conference filed. |
| May 22, 1992 | Respondent, Environmental Protectors Association, Inc. Response to Petitioner's First Interrogatories filed. |
| May 21, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| May 19, 1992 | Fourth Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| May 07, 1992 | Joint Response to Hearing Officer Order filed. |
| May 04, 1992 | (Petitioner) Second Response to Enviromental Protectors Association`s First Interrogatories to Petitioner, Citizens Voice Association filed. |
| May 04, 1992 | (Petitioner) Third Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Apr. 30, 1992 | Order sent out. (joint motion granted) |
| Apr. 29, 1992 | Joint Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1992 | (Respodnents) Second Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1992 | Response to Environmental Protectors Association's lst Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1992 | Response to Environmental Protectors Association`s 1st Interrogs. to Petitioner, Citizens Voice Association; Respondent, Environmental Protectors Association, Inc. First Interrogs. to Petitioner, Citizens Voice Association of Holmes County; Citizens Voice |
| Apr. 20, 1992 | Amended Notice of Hearing and Order sent out. (hearing set for May hand 13, 1992; 9:00am; Bonifay) |
| Apr. 17, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1992 | Respondent Environmental Protectors Association, Inc. Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Petition w/Exhibits A-E filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1992 | Respondent, Environmental Protectors Association, Inc. First Interrogatories to Petitioner, Citizens Voice Association of Holmes County filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1992 | Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Citizens Voice Associationof Holmes County; First Request for Production of Documents; Respondent Environmental Protectors Assoication, Inc.'s Motion to Expedite Response to First Interro gatories and First Reque |
| Apr. 15, 1992 | (Petitioner) Additional Response to Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Apr. 13, 1992 | (Petitioner) Petition filed. |
| Apr. 06, 1992 | Re-Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5-12-92; 9:00am; Bonifay) |
| Mar. 25, 1992 | Order sent out. (amended petition shall be filed within 20 days, hearing will be scheduled, by separate notice for May 12 and 13, 1992) |
| Mar. 24, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for May 12-13, 1992; 9:00am; Bonifay) |
| Feb. 03, 1992 | Respondent Enviromental Protectors Association, Inc. Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition filed. |
| Jan. 27, 1992 | Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation`s Response to the Hearing Officer`s Initial Order filed. |
| Jan. 27, 1992 | (Petitioners) Response filed. |
| Jan. 27, 1992 | Response of Respondent Environmental Protectors Association, Inc., to Division Order; Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Jan. 27, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1992 | Letter. to PMR from Ken Allison re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1992 | CC Letter to DER from Dwight Rich (re: Motion to Dismiss) filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1992 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jan. 13, 1992 | Intent to Issue filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1992 | Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record; Amended Petition for an Administrative Hearing; Petition for An Administrative Hearing; Order Dismissing Petition With Leave to Amend; Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 13, 1993 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 06, 1993 | Recommended Order | Landfill permits granted because applicant expert accepted over petitioner's corroboration; Lack of countervailing evidence. Attorney fees vs Petitioner denied |
