Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DONALD C. LONG AND MARY ANN LONG vs. OKALOOSA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 79-000876 (1979)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 79-000876 Visitors: 24
Judges: THOMAS C. OLDHAM
Agency: Department of Environmental Protection
Latest Update: May 19, 1980
Summary: Whether Respondent Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners should be issued a permit for a Class I sanitary landfill near the intersection of State Road 4 and State Road 4B south of Baker, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. and Chapter 17-7, F.A.C.Permit for landfill should be granted. Respondents adequately planned for containment.
79-0876.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


DONALD C. LONG and MARY ANN )

LONG, husband and wife, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 79-876

)

OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ) and STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )

)

Respondents. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


A hearing was held in the above captioned matter, after due notice, at Crestview and Pensacola, Florida, on February 28-29, 1980, before Thomas C. Oldham, Hearing Officer.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioners: Wright Moulton, Esquire

Post Office Box 591 Pensacola, Florida 32593


For Respondent Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Assistant General Counsel Environmental Department of Environmental Regulation Regulation: 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Board of County John B. Dowd, Esquire Commissioners Okaloosa County Attorney Okaloosa County: Post Office Box 1964

Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether Respondent Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners should be issued a permit for a Class I sanitary landfill near the intersection of State Road 4 and State Road 4B south of Baker, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. and Chapter 17-7, F.A.C.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. On January 31, 1979, Respondent Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners filed an application with the Northwest Florida District Office of Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a solid waste resource recovery and management facility near Baker, Florida at the

    intersection of State Road 4 and State Road 4B. The proposed facility would be a sanitary landfill approximately 36 acres in size which would receive solid waste for disposal from the municipalities of Baker, Milligan, Holt, Crestview, and Blackman. Approximately six to eight additional acres at the site were previously used by the County as a dump for household trash and garbage for a period of approximately eight years. Some of the waste was burned and the remainder was buried. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 1)


  2. The proposed landfill is located in a rural area primarily used for agriculture which is sparsely populated. The site is surrounded by forested lands but some recent removal of trees has opened a portion of the site to public view from State Road 4. The land at the site slopes gradually in a west- east direction, and the slope is more pronounced on county land adjoining the east border of the site for a distance of about 900 feet. At this location, several springs form the headwaters of Mill Creek which flows cast through two lakes located on about 224 acres of private property owned by Petitioners Donald

    C. and Mary Ann Long. Mill Creek becomes a defined water course after leaving the Long property and flows into the Yellow River which is approximately two and one-half miles from the Mill Creek headwaters. The Yellow diver flows some 10 to 20 miles into Blackwater Bay near Milton. A shallow well from which potable water 15 obtained is located on the Long property but not within 1,000 feet of the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2)


  3. The applicant intends to use the trench method in disposing of solid waste. Trenches will be excavated to a depth of about 15 feet, but in no case will the bottom of a trench be underlain by less than two feet of the "fine sandy loam" which occurs in a layer of varying depth beneath the overlying Lakeland sand soil. Test holes dug in the landfill site indicate that the bottom of the "fine sandy loam" layer in depths of some three to twelve feet is located about eighteen feet below the surface of the ground. The applicant intends to check at 100 foot intervals while digging trenches to insure that at least two feet of that material underlies the trench bottom. If not, sufficient additional amounts of the material will be placed in the trench and compacted to make a two-foot thick layer. There will be a distance of 50 feet between centers of trenches. The trenches will be 30 feet wide at the top and 15 feet wide at the bottom. The bottom of each trench will have a slope of less than 5 percent designed to drain the trenches and lifts of rainwater before they are filled. The upper lift will vary in depth from 5 to 7 feet depending upon the final contour desired. Wastes will be deposited either at the top or bottom of the working face of the trench and will be spread by a crawler tractor in two foot layers and then compacted. Compacted waste will be covered daily with one foot of soil and a final cover of at least two feet of sandy clay material will be obtained from a county borrow pit adjacent to the landfill and placed over trenches to prevent the movement of water into the buried solid waste. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Exhibits 1-2)


  4. The applicant plans to construct a barrier to contain the movement of leachate along the eastern border of the landfill which will be a minimum of five feet wide and as deep as necessary to "tie-in" with the existing layer of "fine sandy loam" beneath the site. The barrier is designed to prevent leachate from moving horizontally downslope toward Mill Creek. The barrier material will be compacted, but not the sides of the trenches. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten)


  5. The groundwaters under the site are from 55 to 65 feet below the surface of the land. Although the elevation of groundwaters normally will follow the contour of the land surface, borings at the site have not been made

    to the depth of the watertable. The approximation of the depth of the groundwaters was obtained from data of two monitoring wells located on county land directly east of the proposed landfill site. Twenty-four holes were dug across the site to determine the location of the "fine sandy loam" soil layer which exists below the surface. Eight additional holes were dug to obtain samples of the material for a texture analysis. In its natural state, this material has a permeability rate of about 2.5 to 5 inches per hour. After compaction, the permeability rate will be about .02 to .2 inches per hour. No permeability rate is required by pertinent DER regulations for liner material. Recent soil tests of material taken from the county borrow pit some 200 yards west of the landfill site showed a permeability rate of .004 inches to .0027 inches per hour. A recent sample taken from the bottom of an existing pit at the landfill reflected a permeability rate of .01 inch per hour. Proposed guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contemplate a permeability rate of only .00014 inches per hour for liner materials to restrict the rate of flow of leachate from the bottom of a landfill. The material proposed to be used by the applicant for liner material therefore will permit fairly rapid movement of leachate through the sides and bottoms of trenches, and under the eastern barrier. Further, the coarser sand underlying the "fine sandy loam" liner layer has a much higher permeability rate. As a result, an unknown amount of leachate will eventually reach the groundwater table and flow laterally downslope in an easterly direction. Leachate generation will be impeded by the vegetated, relatively impervious final top layer over the landfill, the wedge of soil located between each trench, and the eastern barrier. These measures will serve also to attenuate suspended solids in the leachate, but not organic materials and most metals. There will also be a certain amount of dilution after any leachate reaches the groundwater table. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Meister, Tomlinson, Exhibits 1-2, 5, 7)


  6. Water samples taken from in and around the area of the springs located both on county and private property to the east and from wells in the general area show that the water generally is of high quality. There is no indication that past landfill operations at the site have degraded the water quality in the vicinity of the nearby creeks, ponds and wells. (Testimony of Meister, Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2, 8-9)


  7. The applicant plans to control surface runoff and any consequent erosion by means of terraces, berms, and swales. However, other than notations on engineering plans of provision for a highway drainage swale, no design of such items is shown in the application. Prior erosion in the area has been satisfactorily corrected in the past by the county by the use of similar methods to those planned for the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 2)


  8. The application was reviewed by DER's Southwest District permitting engineer. He found that the application and supporting documents met the statutory and regulatory criteria for the issuance of a construction permit. However, soil borings did not extend at least ten feet below the proposed excavations. (Testimony of Diltz, Exhibit 2)


  9. By letter of March 27, 1979, the Northwest District Manager of DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue a construction permit for the proposed sanitary landfill under standard and special conditions. The special conditions required construction of two approved monitoring wells east of the landfill and analysis of water samples from the wells and from a surface water sampling point in the headwaters of Mill Creek prior to issuance of an operation permit. A further condition required the applicant to submit verification that the bottoms of trenches contained at least two feet of the material specified in the

    application. At the hearing, DER and Okaloosa County submitted a stipulation wherein they agreed that additional monitoring wells should be placed upgradient from the site, at the downstream boundary of the first trench, at the north end of the clay barrier, and immediately east of boring number 8 prior to issuance of an operation permit. The conditions further required that well logs will be kept on all monitoring wells and reports on soils, geology and groundwater elevation he submitted to DER prior to issuance of an operating permit.

    Further, any identification of leachate contamination in the wells by a method to be spelled out in any operation permit will require extension of the earthen barrier west to State Road 4. Finally, a special condition required that the bottom lining material of all trenches and the barrier must be compacted prior to the issuance of an operating permit. (Exhibit 4)


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  10. Section 403.707, Florida Statutes, provides that no resource recovery and management facility or site shall be constructed without an appropriate and currently valid permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. That statutory provision incorporates all applicable permitting provisions of Section 403.087 and 403.088, Florida Statutes.


  11. Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, implements Chapter 403 and regulates the disposal of solid wastes on or in the land, and establishes criteria for locating and operating sanitary landfills.


  12. Petitioners contend that the applicant has not met some of the sanitary landfill criteria specified in Rule 17-7.05, F.A.C. Specifically, they assert that there is inadequate site specific data as to soil characteristics, continuity and engineering properties due to inadequate placement and an insufficient number of soil borings. It is further claimed in this regard that the quantity of liner material is unknown and that there are inadequate controls to insure that the applicant will comply with its intended compaction of such material. The evidence, however, establishes that the applicant has substantially complied with the provisions of the Departmental rule with respect to determination of soil characteristics, continuity, and availability.

    Further, one of the special conditions to the proposed construction permit provides that the applicant must submit written verification as to the use of liner material as specified in the application, and the stipulation between the county and the DER requires compaction of both trench bottoms and the earthen barrier prior to the issuance of an operation permit.


  13. Petitioner also claims that the applicant failed to provide an adequate hydrological survey or information in its report concerning geological formations and groundwater elevations to a depth of at least ten feet below proposed excavations and lowest elevation of the site. It is true that site specific data in this regard was not provided by the applicant since the existing soil boring do not extend to the requisite depth. It is considered however, that this deficiency will be cured by the stipulated requirement that monitoring well data be provided to the DER prior to the issuance of an operation permit.


  14. Petitioners further assert that the soil material to be used in the trench bottoms and the side barrier have an excessively high permeability rate which will cause leachate formed in the solid waste to rapidly move under the landfill into the spring waters to the east. In this respect, it first should be noted that Chapter 17-7 does not require either lining material for the bottoms of trenches, or barriers such as the applicant has agreed to install.

    Rule 17-7.05(3)(c) provides merely that the cover material should be easily workable, compactable and not contain organic matter conducive to the harborage and/or breeding of vectors, and that it should safeguard against water pollution originating from the disposal of solid waste. The applicant proposes to go beyond such requirements by providing compacted liner material which has a relatively law permeability rate in the trench bottoms, and also to provide a side barrier compacted of the same material. These measures are considered more than adequate for construction design and, if after operation, monitoring wells disclose that leachate is emanating from the landfill to a degree that pollutant are discharged into the water table in such a manner as to cause the quality of water in receiving waters to be degraded beyond state standards, Rule 17- 7.05(3)(c) requires that such leachate be collected and treated. The DER possesses adequate enforcement authority to insure compliance with this standard. In addition, the use of a sandy clay material as a final cover over the top of the landfill, together with a vegetative cover, will minimize infiltration of surface water and consequent generation of leachate.


  15. Petitioners also believe that the prohibition set forth in Rule 17- 7.04(2)(a) which provides that solid waste shall not be placed in or within 200 feet of any natural or artificial body of water is an inadequate standard when consideration is given to the presence of springs and wetlands somewhat further distant from the proposed landfill. However, since the proposed facility will not violate the regulatory provision, Petitioners' claim in this regard cannot be deemed meritorious.


  16. The applicant's county engineer acknowledged that the removal of certain trees in the northwest area of the site permits viewing of the landfill from State Road 4 to some extent. Rule 17-7.04(2)(i) prohibits placing solid waste in any area open to public view from any major thoroughfare without proper screening where it can practically be provided, unless otherwise approved by the Department. It appears that an additional condition should be attached to the permit to insure full compliance with that provision.


  17. The applicant has not provided design features for the swales, berms, and the like which are planned to provide for control of surface runoff. An additional condition should be attached to the permit to require such specifications prior to issuance of an operation permit.


  18. In all other respects, the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that construction of the proposed solid waste resource recovery and management facility will not cause a violation of the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. It is therefore concluded that the permit should be issued subject to the conditions set forth in the Notice of Intent issued by DER, those additional conditions contained in the stipulation of February 28, 1980, and the further conditions set forth in the preceding paragraphs 7 and 8.


  19. Proposed Recommended Orders filed by the parties have been fully considered and those matters not adopted or discussed in this Recommended Order are considered to be either unnecessary, inapplicable, or unwarranted in fact or law, and consequently are hereby rejected.


RECOMMENDATION


That the requested permit be issued to the Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners as herein specified.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida.


THOMAS C. OLDHAM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Wright Moulton, Esquire Post Office Box 591 Pensacola, Florida 32593


John R. Dowd, Esquire Okaloosa County Attorney Post Office Box 1964

Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548


Docket for Case No: 79-000876
Issue Date Proceedings
May 19, 1980 Final Order filed.
Mar. 28, 1980 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 79-000876
Issue Date Document Summary
May 15, 1980 Agency Final Order
Mar. 28, 1980 Recommended Order Permit for landfill should be granted. Respondents adequately planned for containment.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer