The Issue Whether permit application SWO 13-5152, should be granted under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. This case involves the application of Respondents City of North Miami and Munisport, Inc. to Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for an operating permit under the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, to operate a sanitary landfill located in North Miami, Florida. DER granted provisional approval of the application by the issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue the permit on January 27, 1978. Petitioners filed the instant petition of February 13, 1978, challenging the issuance of the proposed permit. Final hearing herein was originally scheduled for April 7, 1978, but at the instance of the parties was continued and reset to commence on October 18, 1978. During the course of the final hearing, 29 witnesses presented testimony, including six public witnesses. (List of public witnesses - Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3) A total of 35 exhibits were admitted in evidence. Three exhibits (Exhibits 5, 13 and 15) were rejected by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact By application dated November 14, 1977, Respondent City of North Miami, Florida, as owner, and Respondent Munisport, Inc. as the "responsible operating authority" requested Respondent DER to issue a permit to operate a solid waste resource recovery and management facility consisting of 345.90 acres located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. The site, known as the North Miami Recreation Development, had been operating as a sanitary landfill under temporary operating permits (TOP) issued by the DER on May 8, 1975 and September 21, 1976. The 1976 TOP provided for an expiration date of July 1, 1977, and contained various conditions designed to give the permittees a reasonable period of time to conform to the DER regulations relative to sanitary landfills. These included standard requirements such as the rendering of reports on the operation of the facility and prohibiting the deposit of raw and infectious waste, or hazardous waste that had not been rendered safe and sanitary prior to delivery. Additionally, the permit conditions required the facility to be so operated that it would cause minimum adverse effects on the environment, such as objectionable odors, contaminated storm water runoff, or leachates causing degradation of surface of ground waters. Further, the permit provided for a three-month review program after its issuance to consider the feasibility of dumping solid waste in 63 acres of submerged land subject to previous filling with clean fill and/or construction debris, filling of land above mean high water with garbage either above clean fill or above trenches filled with wood and construction debris and covered with clean fill, and a six-week period of weekly water quality monitoring at agreed to sites for analysis by both permittees and the Dade County Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The permit further prohibited the placement of refuse waterward of the mean high water line or in trenches cut below the natural ground water table. (Exhibits 1, 4). By letter of January 27, 1978, DER gave notice to the applicant of its intent to issue the requested operation permit for the solid waste disposal facility and stated therein the following reasons for its determination: The solid waste disposal site is in the public interest. The Department feels that the site will not substantially affect the water quality or interfere with the area's wildlife. The applications and plans for this facility have been evaluated and found to be in conformance with Chapter 403, F.S., Chapter 17-4, FAC, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The letter stated standard conditions to which the permit would be subject, including special conditions that had been noted in the 1976 TOP. It also prescribed specific conditions that no solid wastes could be placed within 30 feet of any existing or future lake area, no dumping below water at any time nor in any dewatered excavations, and that a quarterly water quality monitoring program at monitoring wells No. 4 through 12 be sampled for specified substances. Proposed Condition 16 stated as follows: Solid waste shall be deposited in locations consistent with those approved in the Army Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill permit #75B-0869. No solid waste shall be deposited in the areas commonly known as the wetlands and transitional zones of said wetlands, as shown on the attached map. Subject to the Corps approval of proposed modifications to permit #75B-0869, a revised DER solid waste permit will be issued consistent with the approved modifications. A sketch of the landfill site purporting to designate the landfill deposal area, wetlands and transitional zone, and mean high water line was attached. (Exhibit 3) The Petitioners consist of the Florida Audubon Society, which has some 2,000 members residing in Dade County, Tropical Audubon Society, which is affiliated with Florida Audubon Society; Keystone Point Homeowners Association, Inc., comprised of approximately 425 owners of mostly waterfront or canal homes in North Miami within a mile of the landfill site; Thomas Pafford, North Miami, Florida, who uses the waters of Biscayne Bay and nearby wetlands for recreational purposes; and Maureen B. Harwitz, who resides within a half mile of the landfill site and uses Biscayne Bay and the mangrove preserve adjacent to the landfill site for recreational purposes. Members of the above-named organizational groups use the waters surrounding the landfill site for recreational purposes and are concerned that the waters and fish and animal life therein will be adversely affected if the operation permit is granted. (Testimony of Lee, Brown, Pafford, Lippelman, Harwitz) Munisport has been operating the North Miami landfill under a lease with the City of North Miami since approximately 1974. The ultimate aim is to convert the area into a recreational complex consisting of golf courses, club house, and other sports facilities. The site was used as an unregulated dump for many years prior to initiation of the Munisport operation. The site has been the subject of previously issued state and Corps of Engineer dredge and fill permits which are not the subject of this proceeding. The landfill site occupies an area generally between Northwest 135th Street on the south and Northwest 151st Street on the north. It lies between Biscayne Boulevard on the west, and state mangrove preserves and land of Florida International University on the east. It is less than a mile to Biscayne Bay on the east side of the landfill. The nearest point of entry is in the southeast area where Arch Creek empties into the Bay. At this time, Munisport has filled approximately 210 acres at the site with ten feet or more of fill material. A final cover has been completed over about 70 acres of this land and a golf course is presently being constructed. Pursuant to the dredge and fill permits, five lakes approximately 35 feet deep are nearly completed and some six or seven more are to be dug in the future pursuant to those permits. These lakes are separated from the solid waste by a 30 foot wide dike of clean fill. Although some cover material has been trucked to the site, about 1.6 million cubic yards of fill from the excavated lakes have been or will be utilized in cover operations for the landfill. The solid waste layer averages 15 feet in depth and lies about two feet above the ground water table. About 230 acres lie within the upland fill area above the mean high water line which is not within the area of jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The mean high water line has been established by appropriate procedures under Chapter 177, F.S., and the surveying procedures were approved by the Department of Natural Resources on April 6, 1978. Although not stated in the Notice of Intent to issue the requested permit, DER intends to restrict the life of any permit to the time when the Metropolitan Dade County Resources Recovery Facility commences operation in approximately two years. The applicants and Dade County also have a memorandum of understanding to this effect. (Testimony of Stotts, Checca, Exhibits 1, 2, 35, 36, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Munisport receives solid waste from a variety of firms, institutions, and surrounding municipalities. Its procedures are for vehicles to enter and exit the site from an access road leading to Biscayne Boulevard. A sign is located along the road indicating the operating hours, fee schedule, waste restrictions and other pertinent information. A large portion of the site is virtually inaccessible due to dense mangroves and mosquito control canals and ditches. At the check-in gate, a cursory inspection of vehicle loads is made by Munisport personnel who check the contents for quantity. Each load is directed to a designated place at the site where Munisport employees spread and compact the waste. At this stage, they are instructed to look for any unauthorized materials, such as hazardous and infectious waste. If such wasted is found, the offending party is required to remove it from the site. compactors and bulldozers push the solid waste to the face of the landfill and spread it out to facilitate compaction. During the hours of 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., a watchman is on duty at the site to accommodate customers. If less than four or five truckloads arrive during the night hours, the material is not processed. If a larger quantity is involved, a Munisport employee moves and covers the material prior to the following workday. Due to the high ground water tabled, the area method is used for filling the site. This is a procedure by which refuse cells are constructed in lifts not to exceed ten feet in vertical height. They are composed of cells which constitute a one-day quantity of refuse. Six inches minimum cover of clean fill is applied daily, and a one foot intermediate cover is applied within a year after compaction. The cells are compacted in two-foot layers and, upon completion of a particular area, a minimum of two feet of final cover is applied. A dike constructed of compacted limerock borders the east side of the site and basically constitutes the present mean high water line. It is designed to protect the adjoining 129 acres of mangrove preserve and Biscayne Bay from any adverse water quality which might occur from runoff of degraded waters from the landfill site in the event of contamination. (Testimony of Haddad, Checca, Exhibit 1, 9) The shallow soil underlying the landfill at depths ranging to almost ten feet consists of a combination of organic matter and debris from prior dump use, muck, and sand. Soil borings taken at the site show that limestone or calcareous rock known as Miami oolite is about eight feet below the soil layer. At this depth is found the Biscayne aquifer that carries the unconfined ground water in the area. The aquifer is approximately 160 feet deep under the site and constitutes the major source of water supply in Dade County. The gradient of the water table for the landfill site runs in a southeasterly direction toward Biscayne Bay. Approximately 75% of the surface soil layer consists of organic muck, whereas in approximately 25% of the area, which was previously filled in the southern and westerly portions before commencement of the Munisport operation, the soil is primarily of a sandy type. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Exhibit 1) Leachate is produced in sanitary landfills by precipitation that percolates down through decomposing refuse cells and picks up polluting substances created from the decaying solid waste. It can form a "plume" or "bubble" that takes the course of least resistance in flowing laterally or vertically through a landfill site. The strength and concentration of the leachate is dependent upon various factors including the composition, compaction, and the age of decomposing refuse, and the amount of water being introduced into the area. As it passes slowly through the soil beneath the solid waste material, the unsaturated soils act as filters and permit ion exchange which reduces the quantity of contaminants. Dilution takes place where leachate comes in contact with ground water and leachate movement occurs gradually through the ground water aquifer in its direction of the flow. The presence and movement of leachate normally can be detected by analysis of ground water samples taken at various places throughout the landfill site. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Coker, Exhibit 1) Commencing in 1975, a monitoring program was instituted at the sanitary landfill to determine its effects on the ground water regime. A number of monitoring wells at various depths were constructed at different sites at the landfill, and samples were withdrawn and evaluated periodically to determine the types and degrees of pollution being generated by the landfill. Background samples were also obtained from wells off the site to establish the general character of water quality in the area and to compare these samples with those obtained from the site. Additionally, "grab" samples were taken of water from the bay and nearby canals and wetlands. Locations of the background and sampling wells were established by the applicants in conjunction with the DER and the Environmental Protection Agency. To determine the amount of leachate that probably would be generated at the site, the "water balance method" of computing the estimated time required to produce leachate, as well as the quantity that probably would be generated upon completion of the landfill, was made by representatives of the EPA in 1975 utilizing specific climatological and surface conditions at the site. This study indicated that percolation of surface water would increase during the operation of the landfill and before final soil and vegetative cover were in place, and that leachate would occur in about a year in larger quantities than would be produced by a completed landfill. Tests conducted during the ensuing three-year period of both surface and ground water through the monitoring program have failed to produce evidence that water quality is not within acceptable parameters or that water quality in the area surrounding the landfill site has been degraded. No significant differences in the concentrations of various ground water constituents were found between samples obtained at the disposal site and those collected in the adjacent mangrove forest or background areas. Neither was any evidence of contamination from leachate found in samples of surface water collected in the vicinity of the landfill or in nearby natural areas. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Linett, Perez, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 33) Three basic factors have undoubtedly accomplished reduction in the amount of leachate generated at the landfill. These are (a) attenuation and filtration of pollutants by unsaturated soils between and beneath the refuse cells, (b) biological assimilation by organisms living within the refuse cells and underlying soils, and (c) dilution upon contact with the ground water. A hydrogeologic study shows that the uppermost 14 feet of the aquifer immediately below the landfill represents only 0.2% of the total discharges with a ground water velocity of less than 0.1 foot per day. This part of the aquifer therefore provides considerable detention time for the water that percolates through the landfill. The strata, as well as the overlying organic marine soils, provide the absorption and assimilation that removes pollutants from the water. After water percolates through this layer, it reaches the highly permeable Miami oolite that carries about 43% of the ground water flow. The effects of soil absorption, filtration through the upper 14 feet of the aquifer, and dilution within the aquifer have demonstrably been sufficient to assimilate the water that percolates through the landfill. It is estimated that the time of travel of ground water from the landfill site to the closest discharge point in Biscayne Bay is approximately 68 years. Although the attenuation capability of the organic muck soil underlying the greater part of the landfill is high, the older area of the site in the southwestern portion which had been filled before the Munisport operation commenced, has no muck and consists primarily of sand with a higher rate of permeability. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Teas, Exhibits 1, 33) The fact that the organic muck material under the landfill is not uniform throughout the site, plus the fact that there have been various breaches in the permeable oolite layer below the soil, will, in the opinion of some experts, eventually lead to the generation and movement of a leachate plume into such breaches and ultimately to Biscayne Bay. These breaches consist of the deep lakes at the site, the Arch Creek Canal to the south of the site and a dredged excavation at the exit of that body of water into the bay some 3,600 feet distant from the landfill. Additionally, these experts postulate that the dike located on the eastern border of the site will not prevent leachate from moving into the surrounding mangrove area. It is therefore estimated that in the above ways, large amounts of leachate would enter the bay and adjacent wetlands within a period of five to ten years. (Testimony of Coker, Hudson, Pasley, Browder, Exhibits 12, 14, 29, 30) Although water monitoring at various levels in and at probable discharge points near the site have not found degradation of water quality, the applicants propose to address any future leachate problems in a variety of ways. These include continuous periodic testing of water quality and monitoring wells, excavation of a canal on the upland side of the site to intercept leachate and treatment of any contaminated water therein or by pumping the water to an interior lake for treatment. Based on the particular type of any degradation, chlorination and precipitators would be utilized. Long-range problems will be further reduced by the ultimate construction of the golf courses and placement of final soil and vegetative cover to reduce percolation of surface water. This will be aggravated to an undetermined degree, however, by periodic irrigation of the golf courses. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Kelman, Exhibits 1,33) During the early years of the Munisport operation, a number of violations of the conditions of the temporary operating permit occurred, but for the most part these were caused either through simple negligence of landfill personnel, breakdown of equipment, or introduction of unauthorized materials to the site by Munisport customers. In these situations, Munisport usually took prompt and effective action to prevent recurrence and to remedy the problem. For example, on one occasion in 1977, some 12 drums containing residue of a chemical substance deemed to constitute "hazardous waste" was brought into the site by persons unknown and was found leaking into the ground. A number of violations and warning notices were issued to Munisport by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), primarily in 1976, involving the placement of tree cuttings and wood scraps into excavations containing water at the south end of the site. These occurred, however, during a period when Munisport was engaging in tests to determine the suitability of such operations in conjunction with DER. Additionally, in 1976 and 1977, Munisport was advised of violations in the placement of garbage in exposed water, uncovered garbage, and delivery of garbage after hours. Munisport has had a continuing problem over the years with the unauthorized delivery of hospital wastes from various customers to the landfill in spite of letters written to hospital facilities and delivery firms cautioning them concerning the prohibition against the introduction of such material to the landfill. DERM personnel concede, however, that the operation has been continuously improved and that it is well-conducted in comparison with other landfills in the country. However, they believe that lakes should not exist in landfills and that the North Miami landfill is too close to the wetlands. (Testimony of Morrissey, Karafel, Sobrino, Haddad, Checca, Exhibits 6-11, 17, 18, 20-24, 27, supplemented by testimony of Pafford and Exhibit 16) In a letter of January 17, 1977, DERM expressed concerns about the Munisport operation to DER. One of these concerns was that leachate would migrate to proposed golf course lakes and the resulting pollution would produce poor water quality. Although 1976 testing of then existing lakes at the site reflected unusually high amounts of fecal coliform, subsequent tests in late 1978 showed very little, but tests again in January, 1979, showed that several lakes were again somewhat high in coliform. Coliform is not considered to be a strong parameter in assessing the presence of leachate and amounts vary considerably from day to day in lake areas. Additionally, great numbers of birds are normally present on the landfill site during operations and contribute in raising coliform readings to some extent. Dade County has a current policy that does not permit lakes to be excavated on landfills operated by the county. (Testimony of Checca, Morrissey, Sobrino, Karafel, Kosakowski, Linett, Newman, Kelman, Perez, Exhibits 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 31, 32, 37, 38)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc. to operate the solid waste disposal facility as described and under the conditions stated in the letter of the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated January 27, 1978, wherein it gave notice of its intent to issue the said permit. DONE and ENTERED, this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire 5305 Isabelle Drive Ken VanAssenderp, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida Smith, Young and Blue, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Josepy D. Fleming, Esquire 620 Ingraham Building Marvin Sadur and 25 Southeast Second Avenue Richard J. Potash, Esquires Miami, Florida 33131 2000 L Street NW - Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036 Silvia Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns an undeveloped parcel of land in Palm Beach, County which is zoned industrial and on which he intends to construct a storage building to house and repair farm equipment. To provide sewage treatment at the site, Petitioner had designed an on site sewage disposal system and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was his variance request. The closest public sewage treatment plant to the property is over five miles from the site, and the closest private treatment is approximately three miles from the subject site. Petitioner has no easement to either site if capacity were available and if he chose to connect. However, the proof did not show capacity at either site. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of farm equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Alternative methods of waste disposal are available which would properly dispose of the waste and, yet, protect the groundwater from contamination by hazardous waste. Such systems include certain aerobic treatment units and package plants. The monetary costs of these systems is greater than the septic tank proposal; however, the proof did not demonstrate that the cost was prohibitive or a hardship. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner, the proof failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives of waste disposal and the absence of adverse effect of the operation to the groundwater. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions although a survey of the property dated September 3, 1985, indicates that the subject parcel was not platted. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee B. Sayler, Esquire 50 South U.S. Highway One Suite 303 Jupiter, Florida 33477 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (agency or DEP) should issue renewal permit No. SO36-26769E to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida (WMI) for the operation of an existing Class I landfill, the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill (GCSL) in Lee County, Florida. In the prehearing stipulation, Petitioners specifically dispute whether WMI has provided reasonable assurances: (1) regarding control of off-site odors emanating from the landfill, (2) that it has an approved closure plan, and (3) that leachate from the landfill will not pollute the air and water.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The applicant, WMI, provides waste management services in the state of Florida. These activities include the hauling, transfer, and recycling of solid waste, as well as the construction and operation of landfills. WMI operates GCSL, the facility that is the subject of the permit application, in Lee County, Florida. WCI is a Delaware limited partnership engaged in the business of developing multiple use communities in Southwest Florida. It owns or holds options to purchase lands adjacent to or near GCSL. WCI is also the developer of a planned unit development known as Gateway, which includes residential and commercial properties in close proximity to the landfill. George Sanders owns, personally or as trustee, lands adjacent to or near GCSL. Lee County is a political subdivision of the state with statutory responsibility to plan for and provide efficient, environmentally acceptable solid waste management. Lee County has contracted with WMI to provide solid waste disposal services to citizens of Lee County at GCSL. DEP is the agency of the state with statutory responsibility to regulate and permit landfills such as GCSL. As stipulated, the Petitioners and Intervenor have standing in this proceeding. The Landfill Facility The GCSL is a Class I landfill located at 11990 State Road 82, East, in Lee County, Florida, east of Interstate I-75. The landfill is in a remote, undeveloped area and has been in operation for over 20 years. The Gateway development is south of the landfill. The GCSL includes three parcels of land that have been used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, each about 40 acres, are unlined Class I landfills that have been closed and no longer receive any solid waste. Neither liners nor leachate collection were required when these parcels were constructed and operated. Parcel 3 is a lined Class I landfill that is approximately 80 acres in size. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 are closed and have received final cover. Approximately 30 acres still are used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 3 was constructed in phases. In 1984, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "east hill" and "west hill"--i.e., two separate disposal areas in Parcel 3 where solid waste was placed above grade. In 1989, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "valley fill"--i.e., a disposal area where solid waste was used to fill in the valley between the east hill and the west hill. Parcel 3 now consists of a single mound of solid waste. As each phase of Parcel 3 was developed, liners and leachate collection systems were installed in Parcel 3 before the commencement of solid waste disposal operations. The liners and leachate collection systems met or exceeded all of the applicable regulatory requirements that were in effect at the time when the waste disposal areas were permitted. Parcel 3 is a well-designed, well-constructed, and well-operated landfill. William Krumbholz is in charge of landfill compliance and enforcement at DEP's district in Ft. Myers. He reports that the GCSL has an "exceptional operation record," and the GCSL is the "best operated Class I landfill" in the district. The GCSL currently is subject to a DEP operation permit (DEP file number S036-180572), as modified. On March 21, 1995, WMI filed an application for a renewal of its operation permit. On or about September 25, 1996, DEP issued its notice of intent to issue the permit to WMI. If issued, the permit would allow WMI to operate the GCSL for an additional five years. See Rule 62-701.330(2), Florida Administrative Code. The landfill is not yet at design capacity and is not expected to reach that capacity during the next five years. WMI desires to renew the operation permit for the GCSL because WMI wishes to continue to provide solid waste management services to Lee County, consistent with WMI's contractual agreement to do so. WMI also wishes to continue operating the GCSL in order to construct Parcel 3 to its final design grades for closure. The design grades will maximize the site's ability to shed stormwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Continuing to build Parcel 3 to its design grades is environmentally preferable to closing Parcel 3 at this time in its present configuration. Prior to 1994, the GCSL received approximately 1000 tons of municipal solid waste each day. Approximately 90 per cent of the solid waste was household garbage and about 10 per cent was construction and demolition (C&D) debris. The GCSL did not receive industrial waste. The composition of the waste stream changed in August 1994, when Lee County began to operate a waste-to-energy facility. All of the household garbage generated in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Lee County is taken to the Lee County waste-to-energy facility, where it is burned, and the ash residue is taken to the GCSL. Currently, the GCSL receives only about 450 tons per day of solid waste, which consists of 65-70 per cent ash residue from the waste-to-energy facility, 30-35 per cent C&D debris, and approximately 2-5 per cent municipal solid waste. DEP would allow WMI to accept more solid waste at the GCSL. However, Lee County has the contractual right with WMI to dictate the types of materials deposited in the GCSL, and it is the county's intent to use the waste-to-energy facility, not the GCSL, for the disposal of putrescible wastes. Lee County is contractually obligated to send all of the county's municipal solid waste to the county's waste-to-energy facility, and the county has a financial incentive to do so. Lee County will send municipal solid waste to the GCSL only if an emergency occurs, but even then the county will try to limit the duration and extent of the County's use of the GCSL. Objectionable Odors Objectionable odors at a landfill typically are related to the facility's operating practices (e.g., the size of the working face) and the presence of putrescible, organic materials that degrade and produce gases when they come in contact with water. In this case, the GCSL's operating practices minimize odors. The majority of the waste now received at the GCSL is ash residue, which contains little or no organic material and thus produces little or no odor. In addition, because the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill," any putrescible waste is not likely to degrade and cause odors. There have been no violations of the DEP odor rules at the GCSL since 1991 and only two instances, in 1987 and 1991, when off-site odors were verified by DEP's inspector. WCI filed odor complaints in 1995, but the complaints were investigated by DEP and the county and found to be invalid. Petitioners presented no evidence of present or anticipated future odor problems at the GCSL. To the contrary, the DEP inspectors and other witnesses established that there are no objectionable odors at the property boundary of the GCSL. WMI's Approved Closure Plan WMI has a closure plan for the GCSL that was approved by DEP when DEP issued the existing operation permit. In the current application WMI asked DEP for authorization to close the remaining portions of Parcel 3 in the same manner that WMI used when closing the other areas at the GCSL. If WMI's request is not granted, WMI may be required to close Parcel 3 with a geomembrane cover or "cap," in accordance with DEP's new requirements for final closure plans. Although DEP's landfill engineer recommends approval of WMI's request for authorization to use an alternate cover material, no proposed agency action has been taken on that request, and DEP will provide notice and a new point of entry for affected persons when the agency decides whether to grant WMI's request. It is, therefore, inappropriate to address the merits of WMI's "alternate procedure" request in this hearing. As provided in Rule 62-701.310(3), Florida Administrative Code, the agency's decision is action subject to a separate Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, proceeding. WMI's closure plan for the GCSL has little significance in this proceeding. The closure plan is used to calculate the cost of closure, which in turn is used to determine whether WMI has the financial resources to pay the cost of closing the landfill. As part of its approved closure plan, WMI previously demonstrated that it has the financial ability to pay the cost of closing the landfill. WMI could be required to spend an additional $1,000,000 to close the GCSL if WMI's request for approval of the alternate procedure is denied by DEP, but it is undisputed that WMI has the ability to pay this additional cost for closure. WMI must submit a revised closure plan at the time when WMI is prepared to close Parcel 3. DEP then will determine again whether the closure plan for Parcel 3 is adequate and in compliance with the DEP standards in effect at the time. (See paragraphs 38-42, "Specific Conditions," appended to the Intent to Issue, WMI Exhibit 4) Leachate Generation Rate at the GCSL While evaluating WMI's request for approval of an alternate closure plan, DEP noted that the amount of leachate collected in Parcel 3 (i.e., approximately 900,000 gallons per year) is relatively low when compared to the amount of leachate generated at other landfills. DEP was concerned that the low leachate collection rate may indicate a problem in the leachate collection system, so DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate at the GCSL in more detail. WMI subsequently presented additional information to DEP. Leachate is defined by DEP as the liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste. Rule 62-701.200(50), Florida Administrative Code. Leachate is generated when rainwater falls on the landfill, sinks in, and percolates through the garbage. One of the primary factors reducing leachate at the GCSL is the use of ash as cover material. The ash, which contains lime, undergoes a reaction and "sets up like mortar." It is extremely hard, cannot be penetrated easily, and has a very low permeability. The permeability of the ash is in the same range as the permeability of the barrier layer that is used in a final cover material. The ash "sets up so well" that the surface water runoff is much greater than with a normal cover material. There is an additional, significant reason why Parcel 3 of the GCSL has a low leachate generation rate. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 already have been closed with a final cover which is designed to shed rainwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Since most or all of the remaining 30 acres of Parcel 3 have been covered with ash, virtually all of Parcel 3 is covered with low permeability materials that minimize leachate generation. Leachate in Parcel 3 also is minimized because WMI employs good operational practices to limit its generation. WMI uses a small working face and stormwater berms to reduce the size of the area where rainwater may infiltrate. WMI maintains aggressively graded slopes that quickly direct stormwater away from the working face and off of the landfill. WMI's "close-as- you-go" strategy means that the waste at the GCSL is covered before it becomes saturated with rainwater. Specific conditions in the Intent to Issue require that these practices continue. After DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate in Parcel 3, WMI hired a firm to clean the inside of all of the pipes in the leachate collection system in Parcel A television video camera was used to visually inspect the inside of all of the pipes. This work confirmed that "at least 99.9 per cent" of the leachate collection pipes are clean and functional. WMI promptly repaired the leachate collection pipes in two small areas where there was blockage due to a crushed riser and a valve that was left closed. It is highly unlikely that leachate is mounding up inside the landfill or overtopping the perimeter berm that surrounds Parcel 3. The leachate levels inside Parcel 3 generally are and historically have been less than two feet. The leachate levels at the GCSL do not threaten the liner's integrity. The pipes are working, and no seepage has been observed through the side slopes. WMI verified that the liner and leachate collection systems in Parcel 3 were constructed properly and in accordance with the DEP-approved design. Construction Quality Assurance reports were prepared by professional engineers when the liner systems were installed in Parcel 3. In these reports, the engineers certified that each section of the liner was installed, inspected, and tested appropriately to ensure that there are no holes in the liner. Where necessary due to failed tests, the reports reflect that repairs were made before any waste was deposited. The HELP Model In response to DEP's questions about the leachate generation rate at the GCSL, WMI's staff attempted to calculate the rate by using a computer program referred to as the HELP model. WMI initially ran the model with default input values which produced a predicted rate of 7.5 million gallons per year (MGY). WMI questioned the validity of the model results, but submitted the results to DEP because it was the best data then available. Given the discrepancy between the model results and the actual field data, WMI hired a nationally recognized consulting firm, Post, Buckley, Shuh, and Jernigan (Post Buckley), to perform a more refined analysis using the HELP model. The HELP model is used to calculate water balances at landfills. The model calculates the amount of water that will move across, into, and through landfills under different conditions. The model is a useful tool for comparing the performance of two alternate landfill designs, but it has limited value when used to predict the actual performance of an operating landfill. The model can be run with default values or with site- specific information. However, the model is designed to be conservative and overpredict the actual leachate generated. In its application of the model, Post Buckley adjusted several input parameters to reflect the actual conditions at the GCSL. Most significantly, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameters for the moisture content of the waste in the GCSL and for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Curve Number. These adjustments were "reasonable and well-considered." The HELP model assumes that the solid waste in the landfill is at field capacity--i.e., saturated with rainwater. However, it is well established that the solid waste in landfills is not saturated. At the GCSL, the ash cover material and WMI's "close-as-you-go" practices would reduce the likelihood that the waste would be saturated. Indeed, Post Buckley's on-site inspections revealed that the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill." The users' manual for the HELP model indicates that the Curve Number should be adjusted in certain cases to account for increased stormwater runoff that will occur during short duration, high intensity storms. The default value is used in areas where the rainfall occurs over a 24-hour period. In this case, Post Buckley concluded that the SCS Curve Number should be adjusted because the GCSL receives about 54 inches of rainfall annually during approximately 90 short duration, high intensity storms. Accordingly, Post Buckley adjusted the model's input parameters to increase runoff by 23 per cent of precipitation. Post Buckley's adjustment to the Curve Number and runoff value is consistent with the findings contained in a report by Benson and Pliska, which in the opinion of WMI's expert is the best study performed to-date on the calibration of the HELP model and which is similar or equivalent to the Peyton and Shroeder calibration relied on by Petitioner's expert. Post Buckley ran the HELP model with three different sets of conditions. In one run, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameter for the moisture content of the waste and calculated an leachate generation rate of 100,000 gallons per year. In the second run, Post Buckley adjusted the Curve Number and calculated a rate of 1.3 MGY. In the third run, Post Buckley adjusted both the Curve Number and the moisture content and calculated a rate of zero gallons per year. Given Post Buckley's landfill experience and its knowledge about the operational practices at the GCSL, the ash used as cover material, the climatological conditions in southwest Florida, and the limitations of the HELP model, Post Buckley concluded that 1.3 MGY is a reasonable estimate or approximation of the actual leachate generation rule for Parcel 3 of the GCSL. The leachate generation rate for the GCSL also has been evaluated by other witnesses. Mr. Joe Fluet calculated that approximately 960,000 gallons to 1,030,000 gallons of leachate are generated annually in Parcel 3. Mr. Fluet is a nationally recognized landfill expert who was selected by DEP to serve as the chairman of a technical advisory group that helped DEP develop the current DEP landfill rules. Mr. Fluet's conclusion is consistent with the leachate collection data for the GCSL, the Post Buckley analysis, the measurements of leachate in the sumps at the landfill, and his own personal observations of the landfill and WMI's operational practices. It is unlikely that leachate generation in Parcel 3 is as high as 2.0 MGY. This rate would produce about three feet of leachate on the liner. WMI's field data show that the "head" (depth) of leachate over the liner in Parcel 3 generally is less than two feet. By comparison, Post Buckley's estimated rate of 1.3 MGY would produce about 1.8 to 2.5 feet of leachate over the liner, which is more consistent with WMI's field data. Petitioners also attempted to calculate leachate generation for Parcel 3 by running the HELP model. Using default values, Petitioners calculated a rate of approximately 7 MGY. Petitioners also ran the model after adjusting several input parameters. Among other things, Petitioners decreased the slope from 20 per cent to 4 per cent, and Petitioners increased runoff by 30 per cent, as compared to the default value. With these adjustments, Petitioners calculated a rate of 4.2 MGY. The various experts' calculations with the HELP model produced leachate generation rates of 0 to 7.5 MGY. The magnitude of the range reflects the limitations of the model and underscores the need for sound professional judgment when adjusting the input parameters. In this case, the most persuasive and credible testimony was presented by Mr. Bonaparte, a recognized landfill expert who is assisting EPA with its efforts to calibrate the HELP model, and Mr. Fluet. Consistent with their testimony, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the leachate generation rate for Parcel 3 of the GCSL is most likely to range between 960,000 gallons and 1.3 MGY. The Petitioners' calculated range of 4.2 to 7.0 MGY is not credible. Even the low end of Petitioners' range is more than twice as much (2.0 MGY) estimated by any other witness. In addition, Petitioners' entire range of calculated leachate generation rates is inconsistent with the other evidence of record, as described below. Petitioners' leachate generation calculations were prepared by Marcus Pugh, who has not visited the GCSL nor performed any site specific field work concerning the GCSL. Mr. Pugh had never used the HELP model before to predict the generation rate of an operating landfill, but rather has used it as others commonly do, to size and design facilities. Although Mr. Pugh initially criticized Post Buckley's calculation of the slopes at the GCSL, he subsequently conceded that the HELP model results obtained by Post Buckley are independent of slopes. Missing Leachate? Based on their HELP model calculations that Parcel 3 actually is generating 4.2 to 7.0 MGY of leachate and since WMI is collecting 900,000 gallons per year, Petitioners speculate that there is "unaccounted for" or "missing" leachate (i.e., 3.3 to 6.1 MGY), which must be leaking through the GCSL's liner or seeping out of the sides of the GCSL, or both. Petitioners' allegations, however, are not supported by the evidence of record, which favors a finding that the facility is simply not generating the vast amounts of leachate predicted by Petitioners. The liner and leachate collection systems under Parcel 3 were "state-of-the-art" and in full compliance with all of the applicable DEP rules at the time of their installation. These systems were installed properly, in accordance with standard quality assurance procedures, as certified by a professional engineer. Mr. Bill Krumbholz, the DEP inspector, personally witnessed the installation of portions of the liner. Mr. Fluet also was personally involved with the certification for the landfill. Even the Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he had no concerns about or disagreements with the certifications for Parcel 3. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the liner or leachate collection systems were damaged at the time when they were installed. Petitioners theorize that the liner in the GCSL may have been damaged after it was installed, but Mr. Pugh readily admits that this contention is based on "pure speculation" based on the notion that a minimum wage laborer on heavy equipment might damage the liner. Petitioners presented no direct or credible evidence to support their contention. After the completion of construction and the commencement of operations large scale breaches of a landfill liner are not a common or even occasional occurrence. As part of its standard management practices, WMI places a four-to six-foot thick "fluff" layer of select household garbage over any new landfill liner system. The fluff layer is used to protect the liner and ensure that the liner is not accidentally damaged. This WMI policy was followed when the liners were installed in Parcel 3 of the GCSL. As a result, there is no reason to believe that the liner in Parcel 3 was damaged after installation. There is no circumstantial evidence to support Petitioners' claims. Since 1976, WMI has monitored the water quality at the GCSL in accordance with a DEP-approved ground water monitoring plan, which is designed to detect any significant leakage from the landfill. No groundwater quality violations have been recorded at the GCSL. However, if one were to assume that Petitioners' theory is correct, then one also would have to assume that over the last five years approximately 16.5 to 30.5 million gallons of leachate have leaked through the liner in Parcel 3 and entered the adjacent groundwater, but somehow have evaded detection in the monitoring wells. Respondents' witness Mr. Fluet calculated that a maximum of 56,000 gallons per year of leachate might possibly leak through the liner system in Parcel 3. His calculation conservatively assumed that there may be as many as ten 0.1 cm2 holes in each acre of the liner in Parcel 3. Petitioners have offered no credible theory that would produce a leakage rate of several million gallons per year. To create a leakage rate of even one million gallons per year, there would have to be at least ten and perhaps dozens of large holes in the liner. Each of the holes would need to be 10-feet long and several inches wide. However, large holes or breaches in a liner system normally are identified and repaired during the installation and quality assurance process. There is no evidence of poor quality assurance or poor operational practices at the GCSL to support Petitioners' speculation. WMI witness, Rudolph Bonaparte, has never encountered a situation where there was evidence of the kinds of "major flaws" that would be necessary to generate the leakage rates hypothesized by Petitioners. Mr. Fluet also was unable to identify any plausible scenario that would support Petitioners' theory. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he has never worked on a lined landfill where 4-to 7-MGY of leachate leaked through the liner. Petitioners questioned whether settlement would affect the liner or leachate collection systems in Parcel 3. Since ash is denser than MSW, the disposal of ash in the GCSL may affect the settlement of the subsurface soils to some extent, but there will be no shearing or failure of the liner due to any differential settlement. The amount of differential settlement that may occur would be extremely small. Settlement could create a 1000 gallon "puddle" of leachate in the valley fill portion of Parcel 3, or the slope in some portions of the leachate collection system may flatten, but these are relatively minor impacts. Conversely, increased settlement in the base of Parcel 3 would help improve the overall drainage of the east hill and the west hill areas. Petitioners contend that the "unaccounted for" leachate may be escaping from the GCSL through side slope seepage, but this theory is not supported by any direct or credible evidence. It was undisputed that any significant amount of side slope seepage from a landfill is readily apparent. Leachate seeps typically "look ugly and smell bad." When seeps occur, the soil is discolored, the vegetation is killed, and there is sheering, gullying, rilling, and other signs of erosion. There has been no side slope seepage from Parcel 3, as established by numerous site visits and personal observations of the DEP staff, county representatives, and other witnesses. Petitioners' witnesses have not observed any side slope seepage at the GCSL. Although Petitioners noted that there are discolored areas on Parcel 3, those are the areas where WMI recently excavated into the sides of the GCSL to complete the repairs to the leachate collection system. The leachate would have to mound up inside the landfill before there would be the amount of seepage predicted by Petitioners. This mounding would create tremendous head pressure in the cleanout pipes. However, no such pressure has been found in the cleanout pipes at the GCSL. Petitioners suggest that leachate may be seeping from the toe of Parcel 3 into the drainage ditch that leads to the stormwater retention pond. Again, the evidence does not support this hypothesis. The liner in Parcel 3 goes over the top of a berm which is built completely around the perimeter of Parcel 3. The berm and the liner rise 3 feet above the base of the leachate collection system. Leachate could not seep from the toe of Parcel 3 unless the leachate level rose above the functioning leachate collection pipes, avoided being drained away by the leachate collection system, and then flowed uphill over the berm. Even if the leachate went up and over the berm, the leachate would enter the ditch from the top of the berm, where it would be readily visible to site inspectors as side slope seepage. No such seepage has been observed at the GCSL, even when people were looking for it. Ground Water Monitoring at GCSL There are three aquifers underlying the GCSL: (a) the surficial water table aquifer; (b) a sandstone aquifer; and (c) the Hawthorne formation. Each of the aquifers is separated by a low-permeability, confining layer of varying thickness. The confining layer below the surficial water table aquifer is between 40 and 80 feet in thickness. Based on field data and reports of other scientists, including Petitioner's expert, Thomas Missimer, hydrogeologist Martin Sara derived a vertical flow rate of approximately 0.1 feet per year. At this rate, ground water would take approximately 40 to 50 years to move vertically downward through the confining layer. Petitioners contend that the GCSL is affecting the surficial water table aquifer. The surficial water table aquifer contains fresh water and is used extensively as a source of potable water in Lee County, but not in the area of the GCSL. Ground water samples collected from the surficial water table aquifer on Petitioners' property had average total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of approximately 500 mg/l. Similar TDS values have been reported for the surficial water table aquifer in the area surrounding the GCSL. In general, the regional groundwater flow in the vicinity of the GCSL is to the northwest. There is a northwesterly flow from WCI's property onto the GCSL that is consistent year after year and during all seasons. Extensive historical monitoring data for the site confirm that the ground- water flow under the GCSL also primarily is to the northwest, but with some likely localized flow to the west, at least during special events such as landfill dewatering in 1982. The only significant exception to this trend occurs in the area of the stormwater retention pond, where the groundwater usually flows radially outward in all directions. Groundwater monitoring began at the GCSL in 1976, when the facility opened. The groundwater monitoring system at the GCSL has complied with or exceeded the DEP requirements at all times since 1976. Currently there are seven groundwater monitoring wells, each approximately 30-feet deep, in the surficial water table aquifer at the GCSL. These wells surround the perimeter of the GCSL. At the final hearing, Lee County attempted to address concerns about the groundwater monitoring program for the GCSL by agreeing to pay for the redevelopment and installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells. Lee County and WMI stipulated that two existing groundwater monitoring wells (wells 14-S and 18-S) will be redeveloped and a new ground water monitoring well will be installed in the surficial aquifer between existing wells 20-S and 21-S. The two redeveloped wells and the new well will be sampled on a semiannual basis for chloride and the field parameters of pH, specific conductivity, field turbidity, and temperature for the life of the permit. The monitoring may be discontinued if the GCSL closes. The monitoring well network at the GCSL is adequate to monitor the type of area-wide plume that might originate from the GCSL. The evidence demonstrates that any holes in the liner in Parcel 3 are likely to be small and spread widely across the entire site. Although the plume from a single hole may be narrow and elongated, the plume from the entire landfill would be approximately 2400-feet wide. Under most if not all plausible scenarios, leachate leaking out of the liner beneath Parcel 3 will move with the regional groundwater flow toward the monitoring wells located along the western and northern perimeters of Parcel 3. Potential leakage from Parcel 3 will be pushed toward these monitoring wells by the regional groundwater flow and the radial flow from the retention pond. DEP has concluded and the evidence confirms that WMI's groundwater monitoring plan, as modified by Lee County's stipulation, is protective of the environment and satisfies all applicable DEP requirements. Under the facts of this case, it is not necessary to add any additional monitoring wells or otherwise modify the groundwater monitoring plan, except as stipulated by Lee County. It was undisputed that the leachate generated at the GCSL is and always has been "very weak" in comparison to the leachate from other landfills. The leachate contains relatively few contaminants and has low contaminant concentrations. The GCSL's leachate has few volatile or hazardous constituents. It also was undisputed that there have been no violations of DEP groundwater standards detected in any of the groundwater monitoring wells at the GCSL. There have been one- time exceedances or anomalies, but such events do not constitute a violation of the DEP standards. Chloride In the Ground Water Chloride is present in the GCSL's leachate. Over the last ten years, the average chloride concentration in the leachate has been 1021 parts per million (ppm), and the highest concentration has been 2070 ppm. The Department has no primary (i.e., health-based) groundwater quality standard for chloride. The only groundwater quality standard for chloride is a secondary standard of 250 ppm. Secondary standards are intended to address concerns about odor, taste, and aesthetics. If chloride concentrations become too high in drinking water, people simply stop drinking the water before there are any health implications, because the water is too salty. WMI evaluated Petitioners' claim that chloride leaking from Parcel 3 may affect the water quality on Petitioners' property. First, WMI performed a mass balance calculation and concluded that the maximum rate of leakage from Parcel 3 would increase the chloride concentrations beneath the landfill by only 7 to 14 ppm. WMI then used a dispersion model and determined that the maximum leakage rate would increase the chloride concentrations in the groundwater only 3.5 ppm at a distance of 100 feet from the landfill. This increase in chloride could not be distinguished from the existing background concentrations in the groundwater. WMI also analyzed the groundwater data to determine whether the GCSL is causing an increase in the chloride concentration measured in monitoring well 21-S. WMI plotted the data on trilinear diagrams, consistent with techniques that have been commonly used by hydrogeologists for many years. The trilinear diagrams clearly show that the increased levels of chloride in monitoring well 21-S are not caused by the leachate from the GCSL. The trilinear diagrams do not identify the source of the chloride found in monitoring well 21-S. However, it appears that the chloride originated from a source of "brackish" water. There are several potential sources of the chloride in well 21-S. In the past, there was an irrigation well on WCI's property that pumped water with high chloride concentrations and created a large plume of chloride-enriched groundwater on WCI's property. Historic groundwater monitoring data indicate that the chloride plume was approximately 6000-feet wide and flowing towards the GCSL. This large plume may have reached the GCSL and affected the water quality in well 21-S. There also were irrigation wells located on the site of the GCSL that may have contributed to the chloride concentrations in well 21-S. Historic water quality data indicate that these irrigation wells produced elevated chloride concentrations in the groundwater at the GCSL. Petitioners' Stormwater Data On May 12, 1997, Petitioners collected samples of the water in the stormwater retention pond at the GCSL. Petitioners also collected a sample of the water in a concrete culvert that carries stormwater runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. The samples were collected during a severe rainstorm when it was "raining cats and dogs." Based on these samples, Petitioners speculate that the "unaccounted for" leachate is entering the stormwater retention pond via a perimeter drainage ditch and the concrete culvert. This speculation is not supported by the evidence. Leachate generated in the GCSL has an ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the range of 700 to 800 ppm. The stormwater collected from the culvert pipe had an ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 1.7 ppm. The disparity between these two values belies the possibility that the stormwater in the ditch contains leachate from the GCSL. Although Petitioners contend that ammonia-nitrogen in the leachate could be oxidized while flowing in the ditch, it would be virtually impossible for the oxidation of stormwater in the ditch to reduce ammonia-nitrogen levels from 700 or 800 to 1.7 ppm. WMI's extensive experience with leachate has demonstrated that it is "very difficult" to treat and reduce the ammonia-nitrogen levels in the leachate through volatization and aeration. The water collected by Petitioners in the culvert had a chloride concentration of 2900 ppm, which significantly exceeds the highest chloride level ever found in the GCSL's leachate (2070 ppm). The pH in Petitioners' sample (8.87) also was notably higher than the pH found in the landfill's leachate (e.g., 7.20 in WCI Exhibit 14). The disparity between the values found in Petitioners' sample and the values found in the landfill's leachate suggests that the Petitioners' sample is not representative of leachate from Parcel 3. Stormwater flowing over the ash residue on the top of Parcel 3 is the most probable source of the elevated chloride and high pH found in Petitioners' sample. The ash at the GCSL has elevated chloride concentrations. It also has high pH, due to the addition of lime at the waste-to-energy facility. Both WMI's witness, Mr. DeBattista, and Petitioner's witness, Dr. Missimer, saw stormwater washing over the ash and entering the stormwater conveyance system that led to the culvert where Petitioners' sample was collected while Petitioners were at the GCSL collecting samples. Petitioners noted that the water in the stormwater ditch was discolored. However, Petitioners' photograph of the site (WCI Ex. 10) reveals that the water in the ditch is the same color as the mulch (compost) that is stockpiled on Parcel 3 and used for intermediate cover. During Petitioners' site visit, stormwater was flowing over the mulch on Parcel 3 before entering the stormwater ditch. Dr. Missimer conceded that the color of the water in the ditch could be caused in part by the mulch and stormwater runoff. Dr. Missimer raised a number of other issues about the GCSL. He claimed that the sediments in the stormwater retention pond have elevated metals concentrations, but he does not contend that the metals concentrations in the sediments violate any applicable DEP standard. He also does not contend that the metals are leaving the site. Dr. Missimer noted that there was "foam" in a stormwater ditch. However, Petitioners presented no competent evidence about the source of the foam or its chemical composition. Finally, Dr. Missimer heard gas escaping from a cleanout pipe at a different location on the landfill, but there were no odors associated with it. There is no evidence to demonstrate that gas in the riser pipes is a cause for concern. In response to Petitioners' chloride data, WMI is taking steps to manage its stormwater better. WMI has placed intermediate cover over 10 acres of exposed ash, thus reducing the potential for the rainwater to come in contact with the ash and convey chloride into the stormwater management system. WMI also is determining whether it should remove a culvert that served as a conduit for the runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. It was undisputed that the GCSL is an "existing installation," as that term is defined by DEP. Parcels 1 and 2 of the GCSL were unlined and were reasonably expected to release contaminants into the ground water on or before July 1, 1982. The GCSL has operated consistently with the applicable DEP statutes and rules relating to groundwater discharges in effect during the time of its operation. Since the GCSL is an existing installation, WMI is entitled to a zone of discharge that extends to WMI's property boundary. The groundwater within the zone of discharge is not required to meet the DEP water quality standards. Modifications to Conditions of Draft Permit and Summary of Findings In addition to the modification to the ground water monitoring plan described in paragraph 59 above, WMI has requested and DEP has agreed to make minor changes to the language in Specific Conditions 10, 19, 32, 38, and 45(e) of the draft permit. These changes relate respectively to gas monitoring, daily cover, acceptance of C & D debris, data to support the alternate procedure request for final cover, and the zone of discharge. These modifications are reasonable, supported by the evidence, and consistent with DEP rules. Moreover, WMI has provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all applicable DEP rules for continued operation of the GCSL. As amply demonstrated in this proceeding, highly competent professionals can disagree. Petitioners' witness Dr. Missimer, has had years of experience in studying the hydrogeology of Lee County and the area of the landfill and Gateway. His data collected during the development of Regional Impact Studies for Gateway have been relied on by DEP and others. His conclusions, however, regarding enormous amounts of leachate escaping the landfill are simply not supported by the results of years of monitoring the landfill's operations. With continued monitoring, the applicant should be permitted to continue to operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order approving Waste Management, Inc., of Florida's application for a permit renewal to continue to operate the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill, subject to the parties' stipulation regarding additional groundwater monitoring wells and subject to the revisions to the draft permit that are described herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire Michael P. Petrovich, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese Garner Haverfield Dalton Harrison & Jensen Post Office Box 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 David S. Dee, Esquire John T. LaVia, III, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David M. Owen, Esquire Lee County Assistant Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER's) inclusion in Rule 17701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, of the sentence, "The bottom of the liner shall be constructed above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level" (the challenged sentence), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and whether the economic impact statement accompanying this rule is inadequate.
Findings Of Fact All parties stipulated and agreed to Finding of Fact No. 1 in their Prehearing Stipulation and it is adopted herein. WMIF and DER stipulated and agreed to other operative facts in their Prehearing Stipulation and those stipulated facts are adopted herein. All stipulations were included in the Prehearing Stipulation of the parties. BFI is engaged in Florida and elsewhere in the business of solid waste collection and disposal. BFI owns and operates solid waste management facilities throughout the state. BFI has obtained, and will seek to renew, permits authorizing the construction and operation of these facilities. BFI also is in the process of seeking permits that would authorize construction of new solid waste management and disposal facilities in Florida. The proposed rule, if adopted, will apply to BFI and its applications for these various permits. Accordingly, BFI will be substantially affected by the adoption of the proposed rule. WMIF is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of solid waste collection, disposal, treatment, and management in the state of Florida. The proposed rule will have a substantial effect on owners and operators of solid waste management facilities, like WMIF. WMIF currently owns and operates several solid waste management facilities in this state and plans to construct and operate new facilities in the future. WMIF has investigated the possibility and feasibility of designing a landfill in Florida which calls for placement of a bottom liner below the groundwater level. WMIF would propose to utilize this option in designing some of its future facilities in Florida, if this option is available. The challenged portion of the rule would prohibit use of this option. DER's proposed revision of Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, substantially affects the interests of WMIF. DER followed the procedures in Chapter 17-102, Florida Administrative Code, in adopting its revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code. In late 1989, DER developed draft revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, primarily addressing liner requirements for landfills subject to the rule. On January 31, 1990, DER held a public workshop on its draft revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code. At that workshop DER distributed to the public its workshop draft of its proposed revisions (hereinafter "the January draft"). On page 34 of the January draft, DER proposed new rule provisions at Rule 17-701.050(4)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, (subsequently renumbered), including the following language: The bottom of the composite or double liner shall be above the most recent ten-year historic seasonal high ground water level, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the landfill design will provide equivalent protection for the environment from the infiltration of leachate even when the bottom of the liner is in contact with groundwater. On February 6, 1990, WMIF submitted written comments to DER on the proposed rule revisions. In its written comments, WMIF suggested that the language of the January draft quoted above be stricken because "there are circumstances where the desirable landfill design could result in the base of the bottom liner being installed below an existing water table." On March 9, 1990, DER published a Notice of Rulemaking (hereinafter "hearing draft") presenting its proposed revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 16, No. 10, in preparation for an adoption hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC). The hearing draft contained numerous revisions from the January draft. The above-quoted language from the January draft was deleted in the hearing draft. In response to DER's publication of the hearing draft, WMIF filed the instant rule challenge contesting, among other things, Rule 17-701.050, Florida Administrative Code, and the adequacy of the Economic Impact Statement. The ERC held a public meeting on April 12, 1990, at which time it considered the rule revisions recommended by DER. At that meeting, DER distributed to those in attendance a Notice of Change which set forth changes DER then recommended to its published hearing draft. During the course of the ERC meeting, the challenged rule provision was drafted by DER in response to a request by ERC members, and the provision subsequently was adopted by the ERC. The amendment to Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, which was adopted by the ERC is as follows: The bottom of the liner shall be constructed above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level. The challenged sentence was not included in the published hearing draft of the rule or in DER's April 12, 1990, Notice of Change. During the course of the ERC meeting on April 12, 1990, the ERC adopted Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, including the challenged sentence. Subsequent to the ERC hearing on April 12, 1990, DER prepared a second Notice of Change, incorporating the challenged sentence. Landfills are large, concentrated piles of chemical-containing materials of widely varied description. When precipitation occurs, moisture percolates down through the waste, dissolving chemicals in the waste and forming leachate. The goal of DER's landfill liner design criteria is to contain that leachate, to prevent it from contacting groundwater, and, while it is contained, to remove it and treat it. Leachate is contained by a properly designed and constructed liner and it is removed by a leachate collection and removal system. Landfill liners are imperfect and therefore they leak. Engineering principles are employed to design liner systems to compensate for the fact that liners leak. A properly engineered system will maximize groundwater protection. There are at least four factors which affect leakage through liner systems: hydraulic head, interface conditions, residence time, and gradient direction. With regard to hydraulic head, the operative principle is that the greater the pressure (the greater the hydraulic head on the liner), the greater the leakage rate through the liner. With regard to interface conditions, the operative principle is that the lower the permeability of the material underlying the liner, the less leakage will occur through the liner. With regard to residence time, the operative principle is that the faster the flow rate through the leachate collection system, the shorter will be the period of time that the leachate is in contact with the liner and therefore the lesser will be the amount of leakage through the liner system. With regard to the concept of gradient direction, there are two types of gradient: outward g and inward gradient. In utilizing an outward gradient design concept, the landfill liner system is constructed above the groundwater table. If a leak develops through the liner system in such a landfill, the greatest driving force, or gradient, acting on the leachate is gravity: Whatever leachate comes out of the bottom of the liner will fall by gravity into the subsurface and the groundwater. In utilizing an inward gradient design concept, the liner system is placed below the groundwater surface after the design engineer determines, though calculations, how deep to put the landfill in relation to the groundwater level. The groundwater then actually creates a positive pressure on the outside of the liner system. Because that positive pressure is greater than the pull of gravity out of the liner, the pressure exerted by the groundwater allows some of that groundwater to move through any hole in the liner into the liner system where it can be collected and removed by the leachate collection and removal system. In the event of a leak through a liner system at a landfill which utilizes the inward gradient design, instead of the leachate escaping the landfill, groundwater flows into the liner system because the pressure of the water flowing into the landfill is greater than the pressure of fluid leaving the landfill. This results in there being present more liquid in the liner system than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, the liner system must be designed to collect and treat that increased volume of leachate. The inward gradient concept may be used to prevent groundwater pollution because, with ground water flowing into the liner system, leachate does not escape from the landfill and never gets into groundwater. Initially, in order to construct an inward gradient design landfill, it is necessary to artificially and temporarily depress the groundwater level at the landfill site, using a dewatering system. Several technologies are available for constructing an effective dewatering system. At an inward gradient landfill, it is necessary to continue to dewater to depress the groundwater level until enough waste has been placed in the landfill to counteract the force of the groundwater pushing up on the landfill liner system. When enough waste has been placed in the landfill, dewatering will no longer be necessary and the goundwater level will be restored, creating a true inward gradient. In an inward gradient landfill, the waste in the landfill does not come in contact with groundwater; rather, groundwater enters into the liner system where it is contained, collected and removed. The waste in the landfill does not escape from the liner nor does the leachate collected in the liner system escape into the environment. In an inward gradient landfill, the leachate in the liner system is more concentrated in terms of its chemical constituents than the groundwater below the liner system. This creates a concentration gradient, a ground force which tends to push the leachate from inside the liner system out through the liner and into the lower concentration side, the groundwater. However, in a properly designed inward gradient landfill, the design takes that concentration gradient factor into account and employs the upward gradient of the groundwater to counteract the concentration gradient in the leachate, since the upward gradient of the groundwater will be greater the deeper the landfill liner system is placed below the groundwater level. Inward gradient landfills have been designed, constructed, and operated in many places in the United States and in Canada. In several states, inward gradient landfills are required as the preferred design of first choice. Expert witnesses for both WMIF and DER agreed that the inward gradient design concept is a well established technology and is not new or innovative technology. Slurry walls are a containment design concept used in some landfill construction which employs the inward gradient design concept. A slurry wall consists of a trench-cut into the ground down to the depth at which is encountered a continuous layer of low permeability material underlying the site. This trench is backfilled with a low permeability mixture of materials. The trench is constructed on all four sides of the landfill to create a low permeability barrier around all sides and connected to the bottom of the landfill. The groundwater is pumped out of the area enclosed by the slurry walls so that the surface of the groundwater is artificially depressed within them. In a landfill design employing the slurry wall concept, the groundwater level is lower inside the slurry wall than it is outside, thereby creating an inward gradient and causing leakage of groundwater into the landfill instead of leakage of leachate from the landfill into the environment. The slurry wall system is an effective design, which is in use in the state of Florida. Not all sites are appropriate locations for an inward gradient design landfill. Hydrogeologic and soil conditions vary greatly around and across the state of Florida. In many areas, soils are sandy and provide little attenuation of contaminants. Also, in many areas, groundwater levels are close to land surface. In determining whether an inward gradient design is appropriate at a given site, an would consider the type of subgrade soils, the terrain, the degree of fluctuation in groundwater levels over time, the type of groundwater involved, and the financial capability of the landfill owner/operator to build and operate the inward gradient design landfill. The use of the inward gradient design concept in landfill construction would be inappropriate in southern portions of Florida, particularly in the Biscayne aquifer area. However, in many other areas of Florida it would be appropriate to consider utilizing the inward gradient design concept. One of the primary purposes of Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, is the protection of groundwater by establishing design criteria for landfills, which criteria are protective of that resource. Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, both as proposed and as adopted by the ERC, provides design criteria which must be met in the case of each proposed new landfill; however, there is no single standard, uniform design mandated by DER's rules. A variety of designs could be used to satisfy the design criteria of Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code. The challenged sentence was added to Chapter 17- 701, Florida Administrative Code, because some members of the ERC expressed their opinion during the rule adoption hearing, based on their "gut" reaction, that there should be some language in the rule which prohibited the construction of landfills within groundwater. Those ERC members asked DER staff to propose language for insertion into the rule that would prohibit such construction. In response to that request Department staff proposed the challenged sentence for inclusion in the rule. The language which the Department had proposed in the January draft of the rule contained qualifiers which would have enabled a permittee to establish that its design of a landfill was capable of groundwater protection to an equivalent degree in relation to other criteria in the rule. However, the Department did not include that qualifying language in the sentence that it proposed to the ERC for inclusion in the rule because the ERC did not want any exceptions to the prohibition. The sentence added to Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, and which is ohallenged in this proceeding, forecloses at least one possible landfill design concept. The challenged sentence precludes the use of the inward gradient design concept which, at least at some bites and as agreed upon by both WMIF and DER experts, is the landfill design that would result in maximum groundwater protection. In the proper hydrogeologic setting, it can be demonstrated that an inward gradient design landfill provides not only equal but greater protection for the' environment than an outward gradient design landfill built above the groundwater level. There are no engineering papers, reports, studies, or data which would support a prohibition of the use of the inward gradient design concept at a landfill from an engineering standpoint. Instead, there is a large volume of technical information which would support the use of the inward gradient design from an engineering standpoint. The challenged sentence is not indicative of good environmental engineering and will not serve to meet DER's goals or the goals of the State in maximizing groundwater protection. DER has not conducted, prepared, or obtained any studies, data, reports, or other research in order to assess the validity or justification of the challenged sentence, and its employees conceded that there is no technical justification behind the challenged sentence. Both of the Department's employees testified that in their opinion, it was possible for a landfill Lo be designed with the bottom of the liner below the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level and for groundwater to be qualify protected from infiltration of leachate into the groundwater at that site, because of the operation of the inward gradient design principle, and that they were not aware of and did not consider any studies or scientific data that would contradict that opinion. The Department has never made a determination that the inward gradient design concept is not viable or that a landfill designed in that manner would be incapable of protecting groundwater to an equivalent extent in regard to other criteria in Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code. In fact, both of the Department's representatives testified that they believed that the inward gradient concept is viable and that prohibiting use of this design option is illogical. Moreover, at the ERC meeting, Department representatives attempted to convince members of the ERC that the inward gradient design concept was viable' and that perhaps a greater degree of flexibility in the rule would be appropriate. The Department had no data and no studies on which to base a determination as to the specific high groundwater level which should be incorporated into the prohibition requested by the ERC. The selection of "the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level" as referenced in the challenged sentence was based on a spur of the moment decision or a "gut" feeling. The 10- year standard was selected arbitrarily because it wasn't too short or too long. At any given site, it will be very difficult to determine the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level. DER does not maintain data on the 10-year seasonal groundwater level at locations around the state, and insufficient information is available from other sources to accurately determine the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level at most locations around the state. At best, broad approximations of the seasonal high groundwater level at a particular site can e extrapolated from data available in the region in which the site lies. DER's representative acknowledges that the best approximation extrapolated from the scanty data could be considerably off from actual groundwater level. If the challenged sentence is deleted, Chapter 17- 701, Florida Administrative Code, still would require that a new landfill and its liner system be designed to maximize the integrity of the liner system and minimize the potential for infiltration of leachate into groundwater. Nothing in the rules adopted by the ERC would prevent the groundwater level from rising above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level and coming into contact with a liner system constructed above that level since id-he challenged sentence does not specify a distance that the bottom of the liner would have to be constructed above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level. Because at specific locations and times and under some conditions the actual groundwater level will exceed the 10- year seasonal high groundwater level, it is likely that the bottom of the liner will come in contact with groundwater on some occasions since the inclusion of the challenged sentence allows landfill liners to be designed and constructed in a zone which will be intermittently wetted. When that happens, the groundwater will put pressure on the liner system. Since the liner system would not be designed to contend with the force exerted by the groundwater, as is the case in an inward gradient design, over time, that stress on the liner would tend to weaken the liner. Despite the challenged sentence in Rule 17- 701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, the Department theoretically could consider approving the use of the inward gradient design concept for a landfill at a particular site under the alternate design procedures set forth in Rule 17-701.078, Florida Administrative Code. However, approval of an inward gradient design for a particular landfill using the alternate design procedure in the rule, would required the Department to approve a design specifically prohibited by the rule. As a practical matter, in reviewing an inward gradient design at a specific site, the Department will be faced with a proposal that flies directly in the face of its rule. Even if approved, that alternate design would be very difficult to defend in an administrative proceeding challenging the issuance of the permit and the approval of that alternate design. In order to obtain approval of an alternate design, an owner/operator of a landfill would have to demonstrate that it would suffer a hardship if the alternative design was not approved. Primarily, the type of hardship which would have to be demonstrated is an economic hardship. In many cases it would be difficult for the owner/operator to demonstrate an economic hardship if it is prohibited from using the inward gradient design concept. Both of the Department's employees testified that in their opinion, the very fact that the ERC expressed an intent to prohibit construction of landfills below groundwater level, and included the challenged sentence in the rule to accomplish that intent, would make it very difficult for a permittee to obtain approval of an inward gradient design concept as an alternate procedure under the rule. In fact, given that every landfill permit proposed for issuance by the Department in recent memory has been challenged in administrative proceedings, and that each of those proceedings has been a fairly arduous process for both the Department and the permittee, it would be especially difficult to defend a permit approving an alternate design which was specifically prohibited in the rule. Both of the Department's witnesses agreed that if the challenged sentence was not in the rule, both the permittee and the Department would have an easier time approving an inward gradient design at a particular landfill. Prior to the ERC meeting on April 12, 1990, DER prepared an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) regarding its proposed revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code. The EIS did not provide a cost/benefit analysis of the challenged sentence, as required by Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, because that provision was drafted after the EIS was prepared. It is uncontroverted that a permittee would incur an economic impact because of the challenged sentence in the rule, prohibiting the use of the inward gradient design concept, because that would result in a diminution of landfill capacity available at a given site.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the sentence, "The bottom of the liner shall be constructed above the 10- year seasonal high groundwater level contained within proposed DER Rule 17- 701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ORDER IN CASE NOS. 90-2146RX AND 90-2148RX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in these cases. Some proposed findings of fact are rejected for more than one reason and accordingly are listed under multiple reasons for rejection. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Waste Management, Inc. of Florida 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-56(1-56). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(2); 3(1); 5(5); 6(7); and 7(10). Proposed findings of fact 1, 4, 9-15, 17-24, and 26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 8 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 27 is irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 17 and 25 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William D. Preston Thomas M. DeRose Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr. Attorney at Law Holland & Knight Barnett Bank Building Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Chris McGuire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should issue a permit to Broward County authorizing construction of the proposed Cell 14 extension of the Broward County landfill located in the Town of Davie, Florida. Broward County and the Department of Environmental Regulation contend that Broward County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will meet the requirements of the Department's rules and regulations and not cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards. The Town of Davie contends that the proposed facility will not meet the Department's requirements and will result in pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Findings Of Fact Broward County presently operates a landfill known as the Davie Landfill on a tract of land comprising 200 acres within the Town of Davie, Broward County, Florida. The existing sanitary landfill includes 13 cells which cover approximately 20 acres on the northeastern portion of the site. The landfill had an original design elevation of50 feet. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in a separate permitting proceeding, has authorized an increase to the height of the existing landfill to 90 feet. The permit authorizing increasing the height of the existing landfill has been challenged by the Town of Davie and is the subject of a separate proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The site which includes the landfill also has a sludge lagoon and trash landfill located in close proximity to the sanitary landfill. The sludge lagoon was used until sometime in 1981 for disposal of septic tank clean-out, sludges, grease trap waste, and wastewater treatments. The trash landfill was designed primarily for disposal of yard trash. The existing landfill has vertical side slopes of 3.5 to l. In other words, the height of the landfill increases along sides by i foot for every 3.5 feet traveled horizontally. Through this application, Broward County is seeking approval to expand its sanitary landfill by adding a proposed Cell 14. Cell 14 would constitute a Class I landfill since it will receive in excess of 20 tons of solid waste per day. The proposed Cell 14 would be constructed along the existing western face of Cells 1 through 13. It would ultimately be constructed to a height of 90 feet and would be capped with an impervious substance. The western side slope of the proposed cell would also be 3.5 to 1. Cell 14 would cover approximately 11 acres, bringing the total size of the sanitary landfill to just over 30 acres. With Cell 14, the sanitary landfill would continue to operate until approximately 1986. Containing leachate and preventing it from entering surface or ground waters is a most important consideration in determining whether to permit sanitary landfills. Leachate is water that has passed through refuse and been contaminated by the refuse. If significant amounts of leachate from Cell 14 enters into surface and ground waters, violations of the Department's water quality standards would be likely. Several features have been designed into Cell 14 to prevent introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The base of the cell would have a high density polyethylene liner to prevent percolation of Leachate that collects at the bottom of the cell into groundwater. A leachate collection system consisting of pipes and manholes has been devised. As leachate collects at the base of the cell, it will be dumped into tank trucks and carried to nearby wastewater disposal plants where it will be treated. A stormwater collection system has been designed so that initial stormwater runoff will be pumped to the leachate collection system and tested. If significant pollutants are contained in the stormwater runoff, it can continue to be pumped into the leachate collection system and ultimately removed to off-site treatment plants. If there are not significant pollutants in the runoff, runoff will be collected in a swale system and ultimately percolate into groundwater. Water that leaves the site in this manner is not likely to cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards either in surface or ground waters. Numerous technological advances have occurred since Cells 1 through 13 of the Davie Landfill were designed and constructed. These cells have a designed-in leachate collection system. The system presently functions adequately, except that the liners under the earlier cells appear to be breaking down. It is apparent that the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has deteriorated to the extent that all leachate from these cells is not collected in the leachate collection system, but enters the groundwater below the landfill. Leachate from a landfill of this sort and magnitude that enters groundwater is likely to cause pollution in violation of the Department's standards. Leachate is presently entering the groundwater from Cells 1 through 4. The nature of the liner under the remaining original cells is not known. It is thought to be made of asphalt. Many forms of asphalt, obviously including the kind that was used to line Cells 1 through 4, are not capable of containing Leachate for an extended period of time. If the liner breaks down, the leachate collection system under all of the original cells will no longer function, and leachate will enter the groundwater, causing violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. There will not be an impervious liner between the existing cells of the Davie Landfill and the proposed Cell 14. It has been estimated that the cost of such a liner would be prohibitive. There will be limerock placed between the existing cells and the proposed cell; however, limerock is permeable. Some Leachate from Cell 14 will seep into the existing cells. Some of the leachate from the proposed Cell 14 that enters the existing Cells 1 through 4 will find its way into groundwater under the landfill. Leachate that enters the remaining cells will also find its way into groundwater if the liner under these cells breaks down as the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has broken down. If Leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to cause pollution in violation of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. Groundwater in the area of the Davie Landfill flows generally from the northwest to the southeast. Some of the groundwater from the site of the sanitary landfill is likely to find its way into a canal which is located just to the south of the site. this is the C-11 Canal. If leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to ultimately cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards in the C-11 Canal. Except for the fact that the liners under the existing cells of the sanitary landfill are subject to deterioration, the leachate collection system can function appropriately. The leachate collection system for the proposed Cell 14 can also function without allowing introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The leachate collection systems utilize pipes that are presently buried under the existing landfill and will be further buried by the construction of Cell 14. The pipes that are presently being used, and are proposed to be used, are designed to withstand pressure greater than would be imposed on them. Furthermore, they are being placed in such a manner (surrounded by rock and utilizing ball joints) as to reduce the pressure imposed upon them. It is possible that one of the pipes could break and that leachate could thus escape from the Leachate collection system. This possibility is not a likely one, however, given the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation. The fact that the leachate collection system for existing cells of the Davie Landfill would be buried under the proposed Cell 14 does not raise a significant danger that the system will break down. Again, the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation render breakage unlikely. The sludge pit that is located just to the southwest of the sanitary landfill and the trash landfill that is located just to the south of the sanitary landfill offer potentially severe threats to the integrity of ground and surface waters on and off of the site. The sludge pit is a hazardous waste site. The trash landfill is not designed to prevent substances placed on the landfill from percolating into groundwater. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 addition to the sanitary landfill would increase the risk of pollution that the sludge pit and trash landfill present. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 would cause significant additional surface or ground water flows that would increase the risk of material from the sludge pit or the trash landfill from entering surface or ground waters. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that its proposed addition to the Davie Landfill will not result in violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards contained in Chapters 17-3, 17- 4, and 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. While the proposed cell has been designed with appropriate liners and with an appropriate leachate collection system, its location abutting an existing landfill which does not have an adequate liner preventing percolation of leachate into groundwater increases the risk of that occurring. It appears that the only means of preventing or reducing that risk is either to close off the existing cells, or to place a liner between the existing cells and any addition in order to prevent flows of Leachate from new landfill activities into the existing cells.
The Issue The issue for consideration in the proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) permit or is entitled to a variance from the permitting requirements in the below-cited statutory provision and related rules, so as to be authorized to install an OSDS on his property near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property in Dixie County, Florida in the vicinity of the town of Suwannee. The property is more particularly described as Lot 511, Suwannee Shores III. The property is located in Section 19, Township l3 South, Range 12 East, in Dixie County. The lot is approximately 50 feet by 100 feet in size and was purchased in 1985. The Petitioner made application for an OSDS permit on March 8, 1990 for the property. The residence which the proposed system would serve consists of a heated or cooled area of approximately 24 by 34 feet. The Petitioner had an elevation of the property at the proposed installation site performed by a registered land surveyor at the behest of the Department, when he learned from the Department representative that such would be required before a permit could be granted. The Department also required the Petitioner to furnish evidence of whether the property was above or below the ten-year flood elevation. Accordingly, Petitioner's exhibit 1 establishes a benchmark elevation of 4.1 feet above main sea level (MSL) for the property and installation site. The ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 17 feet above MSL. This is established by a report prepared by the Suwannee River Water Management District and admitted into evidence without objection, based upon records maintained by the Water Management District which contain data from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). That data shows that for the river mile of the Suwannee River where the property is located, which is river mile 3, that the ten-year flood elevation is 17 feet above MSL. Thus, the property in question is located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. It is not, however, located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that the property is above the ten-year flood elevation for the Suwannee River. Nor have they established that a sufficient differential exists between the bottom of the proposed location of the drain field trenches and the wet season water table. In fact, Respondent's composite exhibit 1 and the testimony of Mr. Fross establishes that the wet season water table is only approximately 3 inches beneath the surface of the existing grade of the lot. The water table existing at the time of the site evaluation by Mr. Fross was only 36 inches below existing grade which would not allow sufficient differential between the bottom of the drain field trench and the water table, because less than 24 inches would separate the two planes. The results of Mr. Fross's site evaluation do show that the proper "slight limited" soils exist at the site down to a depth of 36 inches, at least where the water table existed at the time of the evaluation. It was also established that the property has a potable water supply from a central water system for the town of Suwannee and, therefore, the various set back distance related to the distance the proposed septic tank and drain field have to be separated from a potable water well or wells would not apply. These last two factors showing compliance with the portions of the rule which dictates the type of soils which must be present for such a system to be installed and the protection for potable water supplies, are insufficient to justify grant of the permit, however. The fact remains that the property is some 12.9 feet beneath the ten-year flood elevation and that it is not possible, starting from the existing grade to install a septic tank and drain field system at sufficient elevation above the water table at the present time, or the wet season water table, so that an appropriate distance for effluent to be treated in appropriate slight limited soil will exist. Finally, the Petitioner did not establish any reasonable alternatives to treatment of the effluent from the residence to be placed on the lot and thus did not establish that a means can be found to prevent the effluent from the OSDS from adversely impacting the public health or the surface or ground waters involved at the disposal site. Thus, it has not been established that any type of OSDS sought to be installed upon the lot in question would be an immaterial deviation from the permitting requirements in the statute and rules cited below. The Petitioner did not formerly apply for a variance from the permitting statute and rules. This is because the Department advised him that availing himself of the informal variance procedure would be futile because the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, entered on January 17, 1990, in the view of the Department, took away the Department's discretion to entertain variance applications and to consider whether to grant them for properties lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. That Executive Order, in effect, directed that all OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation be prohibited, by its adoption, by reference, of the Suwannee River Task Force recommendations. In any event, and somewhat parenthetically, it should be pointed out that although the Petitioner definitely will undergo a hardship if a permit or variance is not granted because of the money expended to purchase the lot, which will be largely unusable without the ability to establish a residence on it by installing an OSDS. It has not been proven by the Petitioner that no reasonable alternatives exist to the installation of a conventional OSDS subterranean- type system on the lot. Thus, one element of the variance criteria cited below has not been met nor has it been established that the installation of an OSDS would not have an adverse impact on public health and would not cause degradation of the ground or surface waters involved. Thus, to the extent the question of the Petitioner's entitlement to a variance can be entertained in this proceeding, the elements required for the grant of a variance have not been established by Petitioner's proof. It particularly has not been established that a grant of an OSDS permit or variance for such a system to be installed in this lot would not be a substantial deviation from the permitting requirements enumerated below. This is particularly true because the property is such a great distance beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In summary, in addition to the findings in the last above paragraph, it has not been established that a sufficient distance between the water table elevations and the bottom of the proposed drain field trench location will exist so as to comply with the permitting requirements in this regard so as to justify the grant of an OSDS permit nor has it been shown that the property is above the ten-year flood elevation for purposes of that permitting requirement and Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the application of Marvin H. Osteen, Jr. for an OSDS permit. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-3115 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Marvin H. Osteen, Jr. Post Office Box 89 Suwannee, FL 32521 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Asst. District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should issue a solid waste construction permit to the David J. Joseph Company (Applicant) to construct lined cells at its existing Class I solid waste landfill in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. It is the position of the applicant and the Department that all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of said permit have been met, while Mr. & Mrs. David Brenner (Petitioners) contend that the application fails to meet the criteria for the issuance of this permit.
Findings Of Fact The applicant filed an application for a solid waste construction permit with the Department on May 2, 1988. This application was given permit number S029-77041. The applicant proposes to expand its existing solid waste Class I sanitary landfill located near Kingsway Road and Interstate 4, east of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, through the construction of a lined addition. This entire site consists of approximately 16 acres, but the lined portion for which this permit is sought comprises about eight acres. This site was purchased by the applicant in 1978, to landfill shredder waste, or "fluff", produced at its Tampa shredder. In fact, the applicant has operated this site as a landfill since 1978, under two previous permits issued by the Department in 1978 and 1983, and approximately nine acres of the site have already been filled. The Department gave notice of its intent to grant this permit on September 23, 1988, subject to specified conditions. The Petitioners, thereafter, timely requested this administrative hearing. The applicant is engaged in the ferrous scrap business at fourteen locations throughout the United States, and provides steel mills with raw material for their use in the production of new steel. It operates a large shredding plant in Tampa, Florida, which consists primarily of an automobile shredder and related equipment. The shredder is a large crushing and grinding piece of equipment which, in approximately 20 seconds, grinds scrap autos into small chunks of scrap the size of a man's fist. A conveyor system separates the scrap produced in the shredding process into three streams. The first stream consists of steel scrap that is sold to a steel mill. Approximately 80% of automobile scrap is steel. The second stream consists of non-ferrous material, primarily aluminum, zinc, copper, brass and other non-steel items found in autos, which are then sold to dealers in that particular type of metal. The third stream is waste material, or "shredder fluff". Approximately 17% of the material in automobile scrap is fluff. Guidelines have been established by the applicant which limit the type of material which will be accepted at the shredder facility as feedstock for the shredder operation. These guidelines prohibit acceptance of lead-acid batteries, gas tanks, tires, catalytic converters, and loose mufflers and tail pipes. Automobiles which are accepted by the applicant at its Tampa plant have already been crushed at separate locations by other companies engaged in the car crushing business prior to their purchase by the applicant. In the crushing process, most automobile fluids are liberated, but oil and other fluids not liberated during the crushing process are then liberated in the shredding process, and are intermingled with all three product streams produced at the shredder mill. Shredder fluff consists largely of automotive components such as upholstery, plastic, glass, rubber, dirt, and other non-magnetic and non-ferrous materials. The applicant's shredder operation in Tampa generates approximately seven to eight tractor trailer loads of fluff per day which are deposited at their current landfill. During 1988, the fluff from approximately 200,000 autos was disposed at this site. The existing landfill is located approximately 550 feet off of the roadway, and is accessible by an entrance road leading to the main gate of the site. The landfill is completely fenced with barbed wire around its perimeter, and there is a locked gate at the access road. There is a full time manager on site. Only shredder fluff produced by the applicant's Tampa shredder is deposited at this site. The applicant delivers its waste to this landfill using its own equipment and personnel. The applicant has taken reasonable steps to insure that only authorized persons enter the landfill site, and that there will be no unauthorized dumping. In order to continue using this landfill site, the applicant proposes to construct a liner system and leachate collection system for the remaining unfilled portion of the landfill, and also to establish a stormwater management system serving the entire site. A geotechnical and foundation investigation has been performed on the site to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of site soils, and the ability of those soils to support the landfill construction. The potential for movement in foundation soils was specifically addressed. It is to be noted that the applicant has been operating a landfill at this site for ten years without any sinkhole or foundation problems. There are no active sinkholes on the site, nor was there competent substantial evidence that any sinkhole had historically existed on this site. While the site geology is complex, the soils and subsurface geology will support the proposed project. Thus, the site is suitable for construction of lined Class I landfill cells. Beneath a surficial sand layer of approximately 30 feet in depth, lies an interbedded layer of sands, clay and heavily weathered limestone lenses approximately 40 feet thick, under which lies the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant will excavate below the level of the existing pit floor to remove any limestone protrusions which could adversely affect liner integrity. A dense clay layer, graded to remove rocks and other protrusions, will be used as a secondary barrier to retard the movement of contaminants into groundwater, and to further minimize the potential impact from limestone pinnacles upon liner integrity. The primary containment system will be a liner system constructed of a thick, high density, 60 millimeter polyethylene membrane, applied to both the bottom and sides of the landfill. Below-grade portions of the landfill will be lined completely. A layer of geotextile material is placed between the synthetic liner and clay layer to act as a cushion against stresses on the liner. The liner will be constructed in 30 foot wide strips with welded seams, every inch of which is vacuum tested. Laboratory testing is also conducted on sample coupons of welded seams to insure that the seams are as strong, or stronger, than the original material, and the areas from which coupons are taken are then extrusion welded and vacuum tested. The liner system is designed to withstand stresses, and any differential settlement, that are reasonably expected to occur at this site. It will minimize the risk of leakage of leachate to the environment, as was recognized by Dr. Richard Strom, an expert in hydrogeology called by Petitioners, who stated this is an improvement in the previous unlined operations at this site, and decreases, although it does not completely eliminate, the possibility of ground water pollution. The applicant's project design includes a leachate collection system which will allow leachate generated in the landfill to flow through a 12 inch thick gravel layer, which will act as a drain in the base of the landfill. Fluids will run to low spots and will then be channeled to sumps, where leachate is collected so that it can be disposed of by pumping away from the liner system and spraying onto the active face of the landfill. Natural evapotransporation will then reduce the volume of the leachate. An approved groundwater monitoring program is currently in place, and is being operated at the applicant's existing landfill. It consists of an upgradient well in the northeast corner of the site, and three down gradient wells, one in the southwest corner, one on the west and one on the south sides of the property. These down gradient wells are adequately placed to intercept groundwater flow from the site since the predominate groundwater flow is from the northeast to southwest. These wells all monitor the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant's groundwater monitoring program is adequate and appropriate to detect any leachate or other contaminates emanating from the landfill which might pollute the groundwater, and provides reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated by the landfill operations. The applicant has proposed a stormwater management system for the entire site which is designed to separate non- contact stormwater from that water which actually falls on, or comes into contact with, the waste material. All rainwater coming in contact with waste will be treated as leachate, and handled through the leachate collection system. The non-contact stormwater will be collected in a series of bermed drainage ditches around the site, and will be drained away to retention ponds for infiltration. During times of normal rainfall, there will be sufficient capacity in retention ponds to store all non- contact stormwater on site until it either evaporates or percolates into the ground. During extreme storm events, excess stormwater can be channeled off site to a nearby sinkhole for discharge. Routine monitoring will be conducted to ensure that water in the system has not been contaminated with leachate. The Department has delegated stormwater plan approval authority to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which reviewed and approved the applicant's stormwater management system through the issuance of a permit in 1988. Noxious odors do not emanate from the existing landfill operations, although there is a slight odor similar to an auto garage service bay close to the disposal materials. This is not a sickening or noxious odor, as acknowledged even by Dr. Strom. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that leachate sprayed on the active face of the landfill, after having been collected through the leachate collection system, will not result in, or cause, noxious odors at the landfill site. The applicant has established that this project to enlarge its existing landfill with a lined addition will not release contaminants into the underlying soils and groundwater.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental regulation enter a Final Order approving the application of the David J. Joseph Company and issuing permit number S029-77041. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-6009) Rulings on the Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected in Findings 1, 9-12. Rejected in Findings 10-14. Rejected in Finding 16. Rejected in Finding 16, but Adopted in part in Finding 13. Rejected in Findings 10-12. Rejected in Finding 15. Rejected in Finding 14. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings 1, 2. 2-3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 7. 11. Adopted in Finding 8. 12-15. Adopted in Findings 9-11. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 13. 19-21. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Findings 9 and 16. Adopted in Finding 17. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Wilcox, Esquire Katherine Harasz, Esquire 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 1650 Tampa, FL 33602 William D. Preston, Esquire Thomas M. DeRose, Esquire 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale Twatchmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in the proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit ("OSDS") authorizing installation of an on-site sewage disposal system for property the Petitioner owns near the Suwannee River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in consideration of the relevant provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and whether the Petitioner should be entitled to pursue a variance from the permitting statute and rules embodied in that chapter of the code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida on the east bank of the Suwannee River, adjoining the river. The property is more particularly described as Lot 9, Block B, Two River Estates. The property was purchased on January 3, 1985 and was platted as a subdivision on January 5, 1959. The lot in question upon which the OSDS would be installed should a permit be granted, is approximately one acre in size. On April 30, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS seeking authorization to install such a conventional septic tank and drain-field system for disposing and treating household sewage effluent on the subject property. The system would be designed to serve a single-family residence, containing approximately two bedrooms, and approximately 1,200 heated and cooled square feet of living space. Upon making application, the Petitioner was informed that he would have to obtain a surveyed elevation of his property, as well as the ten-year flood elevation for his property for the river mile of the Suwannee River at which his property is located. The Petitioner consequently retained Herbert H. Raker, a registered land surveyor, who surveyed the elevation for his property. Mr. Raker established a bench mark elevation of 29.24 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation on that lot has an elevation at the surface grade of 28.5 feet. The subsurface of the lot at the installation site is characterized by appropriate, "slight-limited" soil extending 72 inches below the surface grade of the lot. The wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface grade of the lot. Consequently, there is more than adequate slight-limited soil to handle disposal and treatment of the sewage effluent from a single-family residence, such as is proposed, since the wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface of the property. Thus, a more than adequate treatment space and appropriate soil beneath the bottom surface of any proposed drain field to be installed at the site would exist so as to comply with the pertinent rules cited herein. The problem with a grant of the subject permit consists only of the fact that the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation, that is, it is approximately 1.5 feet beneath that elevation. The Suwannee River Water Management District report submitted to the Respondent agency by the Petitioner in the application process for the OSDS permit (in evidence) reveals that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 30 feet above MSL. The soils prevailing at the proposed installation site, the great depth of the wet season water table, and the fact that the lot is approximately one acre in size and above the minimum size requirements for the installation of an OSDS, all militate in favor of a grant of the permit, except for the basis for its denial initially, that is, that it is simply beneath the ten-year flood elevation for purposes of the prohibition contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. Although located within the ten-year flood elevation, the site is not located within the regulatory flood way so that if a mounded system or other raised OSDS alternative system were proposed and installed, an engineer's certification would not be required regarding the issue of raising the base flood level by the deposition of fill at the installation site for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. There is no central water system available to the property; however, although there was conflicting testimony about the distance the proposed installation site would be from a neighbor's potable water well, the testimony of the Petitioner is accepted as being most certain in establishing that more than the required distance from that potable water well exists between it and the proposed septic tank and drain-field installation site, since the Petitioner established that approximately 110 feet is the actual separation distance. The Petitioner purchased the property to construct a single-family residence for himself and his family. He expended a substantial sum of money for the property and is unable to use it for its intended purpose without the subject permit or at least a variance so as to authorize him to install an OSDS. The Petitioner offered no concrete proposals or plans for an alternative system which might reasonably accomplish treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question without harm to ground or surface waters or the public health. No substantial proof was offered of a system which would either dispose of and treat the effluent at a location above the ten-year flood elevation or, if still below it, would adequately treat and dispose of the effluent sewage to safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved, such that its existence slightly beneath the ten-year flood elevation would only be a "minor deviation" from that portion of the permitting rules. In point of fact, it would seem that a mounded system would be feasible on a lot this size, especially in view of the fact that the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trenches or absorption beds would only have to be raised slightly over 1.5 feet from the surface grade of the subject lot and installation site in order to comply with the ten-year flood elevation parameter, which was the only basis for denial of this permit application. No proof was offered concerning how such a mounded system would be designed, installed and otherwise accomplished, however. Upon denying the initial application for the OSDS permit, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative hearing process rather than make application for a variance and proceed through the internal variance board mechanism operated by the department in order to obtain a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-06.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent advised the Petitioner of this because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River; and as the Respondent interpreted the Governor's Executive Order Number 90-14, which incorporated by reference the "Suwannee River Task Force Report" commissioned by the Governor, the Order absolutely prohibited the granting of any variances authorizing installation of OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River or the granting of any OSDS permits themselves authorizing such installations.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Gary Wilson P.O. Box 2061 Lake City, FL 32055 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue The issues considered at final hearing were those issues set out in Petitioners' Amended Petition For A Formal Hearing. At the conclusion of the final hearing the parties were given an opportunity to file a proposed recommended order and memorandum in support thereof. Such memorandum and proposed recommended order was received by the Hearing Officer from the Department of Environmental Regulation on November 10, 1976, from Leon County on November 12, 1976, and from the Citizens' Committee to Preserve Lake Lafayette on November 15, 1976. Having fully considered the matters presented herein, the Hearing Officer enters the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Leon County, Florida, has applied for a construction permit to construct a sanitary landfill in Sections 4 and 5, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Leon County, Florida. The proposed site consists of 79.9 acres off of U.S. Highway 27 South. The application is in proper form and contains all information required by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The area to be served by the proposed sanitary landfill is Leon County, Florida, with a projected average population of 155,200. The responsible operating authority as set forth in the application is Leon County. The evidence presented did not establish that the proposed sanitary landfill will attract high concentrations of rodents, insects, or birds which would do serious damage to the land and crops surrounding the site or which would adversely affect the health and welfare of the residents near the site. The application proposes a program for the extermination of any rats discovered on site and further proposes that the working faces of the landfill area will be kept as small as possible with all exposed waste materials covered as frequently as practical to minimize the problem of flies and insects during hot, humid periods. Evidence was presented indicating that construction of the proposed sanitary landfill site could adversely affect surrounding property value. However, the evidence was not sufficient to conclusively establish the extent of this affect nor the time at which it would occur or for which it would endure. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill would not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in or within 200 feet of any natural or artificial body of water or on the watershed of any surface water supply. Lake Lafayette is hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is located at least 500 feet from the flood prone area of Lake Lafayette and 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette proper. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in a sink hole or in the immediate area thereof. Solid waste will be disposed of by being placed in a trench and covered over with successive lifts similarly covered. There are no active sink holes on or in the immediate area of, the proposed sanitary landfill site. Three ponds exist in the immediate vicinity of the site, one of which is to be used for surface water runoff. These ponds were probably formed by past sink hole activity but from the site topography and water elevations it appears that the ponds are now stable and are probably not hydraulically connected with the Floridan Aquifer. No limestone or gravel pits exist on site. The entire proposed site is well above the +50' MSL contour line below which are found flood prone areas in the vicinity of the site. The water table of the site is more than 5 feet below normal ground surface. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste in an area immediately adjacent to or within the cone of influence of a public water supply. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste within 200 feet of any habitation or place of business served by a public water supply system or within 1,000 feet of any habitation or place of business served by an individual potable shallow water supply well with the following exceptions. There are three wells located on the property which would be owned by Leon County that may be within 1,000 feet of the disposal site for solid waste. Of these three wells one has been abandoned and will be sealed. A second is located south of the proposed site at an existing house and will be used as a source of non-potable water and for monitoring the potable aquifer. The third well is located on the northwest portion of the county property and will be maintained as a standby source of potable water. There are two other wells located on the property to be owned by Leon County which are more than 1,000 feet from the proposed disposal site for solid waste and could be used to monitor the Floridan Aquifer. There is a well which serves a private residence and farm located plus or minus 1,200 feet west of the proposed site for the disposal of solid waste. No solid waste shall be disposed of in any area open to public view from any major thoroughfare. The proposed site in not on any public highway, road, alley or the right-of-way thereof. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin is approximately six miles long elongated in a west-northwest, east-southeast direction. The width varies between one-quarter to one-half mile. The western end of the basin contains many sink holes which probably have open connections to the underlying bedrock. The eastern end of the basin, near the proposed landfill site, is swampy and contains many cypress trees. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin appears to be an area of recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is not located in the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The engineering firm of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., conducted a subsurface investigation of the hydrologic and soil conditions at the site of the proposed sanitary landfill. As part of their investigation they performed ten soil borings and installed seven deep ground water monitoring wells. The results of the investigation of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., indicates a low probability of sink hole occurrence. In the course of their investigation, Ardaman & Associates, Inc., discovered a depression in the ground water level at Test Hole No. 9. The significance of this ground water low is that it may be a localized area of recharge. However, as shown by the testimony of the engineers who conducted the investigation for Ardaman & Associates, Inc., as well as by the report of their investigation, this depression creates no realistic danger with regard to the introduction of pollutants into the aquifer or ground water supply, so long as no putrescible wastes are placed within a distance of 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The hydro-geologist testifying on behalf of the Petitioners stated that he believed the radius of influence of the depression at Test Hole No. 9 may actually be less than 1,000 feet and that maintaining 1,000 feet distance from Test Hole No. 9 is a conservative distance. As designed, the proposed sanitary landfill will not dispose of any solid waste or other putrescible waste within 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The soils found on the proposed sanitary landfill site are of low permeability and suitable for a sanitary landfill. The low permeability of the soils will limit both the lateral and vertical seepage of leachate. The vertical flow of potential leachate to the Floridan Aquifer has been estimated at a rate of 1.0 to 1.5 feet per year. The lateral flow rate of such leachate through the soils overlying the bedrock in the Lafayette drainage basin has been estimated at the rate of 2 feet per year. As has been noted above, the proposed sanitary landfill site is located approximately 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette, and 500 feet from the +50' MSL contour line which has been used to describe the perimeter of the flood prone area of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. At the estimated flow rate it would therefore take several hundred years for any leachate produced by the sanitary landfill to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The Floridan Aquifer underlies all of Leon County at depths of 100 to 500 feet. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will have test wells constructed throughout the site to provide a means of detecting any lateral migration of contaminants from the landfill operation should such occur. Periodic samples will be taken from these test wells and analyzed. The monitoring wells will be set up in such a manner that regardless of the direction of flow of subsurface water they will pick up and detect any pollutants that may be passing from the landfill. Some of these test wells will be placed in close proximity to the proposed sanitary landfill site to give early warning of the existence of any leachate flow. If there is any problem with the flow of leachate from the proposed site it will be detected easily within the first five years of operation. Since it would take several hundred years to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin at the estimated flow rates this should provide adequate warning and reaction time for the alleviation of any potential pollution problem. A significant flow of leachate is not expected. The existing pond which will receive the surface runoff from the sanitary landfill site is likely of sink hole origin but after a reasonable investigation it appears that the pond is now stable and not hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. It is estimated that the pond can contain at least a 25 year storm rainfall though there might be some flooding from the pond in a 100 year storm rainfall. As designed, no significant amount of leachate, if any, will reach the surface water runoff retention pond. Petitioners' hydro-geologist did not state that the site is unsuitable for a sanitary landfill. Rather he testified that on the information he had reviewed, which information was that available to the Department of Environmental Regulation, it was his opinion that the Department of Environmental Regulation lacks sufficient information to determine if the proposed site is suitable from a water quality standpoint. Based upon all the testimony and evidence it appears as a matter of fact that the information available to the Department of Environmental Regulation is reasonably sufficient to determine the suitability of the proposed site. There has been no showing of a necessity for alining the proposed trenches which will receive the solid waste. The Planning Director for the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, in a letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation stated that the use of the proposed site for landfill purposes is not inconsistent with the land use plan. He further stated his concern for traffic on U.S. Highway 27, the possible adverse aesthetic impact which he felt could be minimized and his concern that Lake Lafayette be protected from landfill leachate through engineering design. In their Amended Petition Petitioners raised the question of the present zoning of the proposed site. No evidence was presented by Petitioners to show that the site is not properly zoned. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented there appears little possibility that the proposed sanitary landfill will pollute or seriously damage Lake Lafayette, the Floridan Aquifer or any other source of public or private water supply. The proposed sanitary landfill as designed is not likely to cause any significant water pollution or to degrade water quality below those standards set by the Department of Environmental Regulation. None of the prohibitions set out in Section 17-7.04, F.A.C, exist so as to require the denial of the application for a construction permit for a sanitary landfill by Respondent, Leon County. The sanitary landfill criteria set out in Section 17-7.05, F.A.C., have been met by Respondent, Leon County.
The Issue Whether the City of Jacksonville has provided reasonable assurances that a proposed modification of its permit to operate the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill by allowing an additional 35 feet of waste to be disposed of in Phase IIIb of the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill will not cause pollution in violation of any of the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated thereunder? Whether the City of Jacksonville proposed modification of its permit to operate the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill by allowing an additional 35 feet of waste to be disposed of in Phase IIIb of the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill should be denied because of alleged violations of the City of Jacksonville's permit or Florida law?
Findings Of Fact Introduction. The City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill. The City of Jacksonville (hereinafter referred to as the "City") operates two solid waste disposal facilities. One, the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill (hereinafter referred to as the "North Landfill"), is located at the intersection of New Berlin Road and Island Drive in the northern part of the City and Duval County, Florida. The North Landfill is operated pursuant to permit #SC16-12205 (hereinafter referred to as the "Permit"), issued by the Department on June 6, 1988. The Permit was issued "for operation of the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill, Phases I, II, and 111a; and of a new disposal area at the North Sanitary Landfill, Phase IIIb." The area in which the North Landfill is located is generally commercial property, with some rural and residential property: The North Landfill is bounded on the north by unimproved land owned by the City. This property stretches to Cedar Point Road. A few parcels within the property owned by the City to the north of the North Landfill are owned by others, including Mr. and Mrs. Leigh. The property to the east of the North Landfill is also unimproved property. It is owned by the St. Johns River Power Park. The St. Johns River Power Park is a power plant facility operated as a joint venture by the City, the Jacksonville Electric Authority and Florida Power and Light. The plant is located on the southern boundary of the North Landfill. The west boundary of the North Landfill is New Berlin Road. The property to the west of New Berlin Road is owned by a number of persons, including M & M Dairy. Phase IIIb of the North Landfill is located in the northeast quadrant of the landfill. The North Landfill primarily serves northern, and a part of western, Duval County. Approximately 3,000 tons of solid waste is disposed of each day in Jacksonville. Approximately 55% of the solid waste is disposed of at the North Landfill. The solid waste disposed of at the North Landfill consists primarily of mixed municipal solid waste and commercial solid waste. The North Landfill is open seven days a weeks from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. All phases of the North Landfill are permitted to a height of 75 feet. The land on which the North Landfill is located is approximately 25 to 30 feet above sea level. Therefore, approximately 45 to 50 feet of solid waste can be disposed of at the North Landfill. All phases of the North Landfill have some remaining capacity for the disposal of additional solid waste. The Petitioners. Ms. Holzendorf's residence is approximately ten miles from the North Landfill. Her office is located approximately seven miles from the North Landfill. She does not own any real property located in the immediate vicinity of the North Landfill. Ms. Holzendorf can smell the odor from the North Landfill at her residence when the wind is blowing from the North Landfill toward her residence. Ms. Holzendorf is a Florida State Representative for District 16. District 16 includes the population of approximately one-third of Duval County, The North Landfill is located within District 16. Ms. Holzendorf has received complaints from some of her constituents about the North Landfill. Ms. Holzendorf drives by the North Landfill approximately twice a week. She has visited the site on several occasions. Robin G. and Geraldine Leigh own real property adjacent to Cedar Point Road. The land is unimproved except for a well. The Leigh's land is located north of the unimproved City property located adjacent to the northern boundary of the North Landfill. The Leighs' land is approximately three-fourths of a mile from the North Landfill. The City's Proposal. On August 3, 1988, the City filed an application with the Department for a modification of its Permit. In its application the City requested a "construction permit modification" of its Permit consisting of "extending the height of Phase IIIb of the North Landfill to a constructed elevation including final cover of no greater than 110 feet, NGVD." The City's requested modification of the Permit will provide the City with an additional six months of solid waste disposal capacity. The Department proposed to grant the City's requested modification. The Department issued a proposed Permit modification (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified Permit"). Structural Design of Phase IIIb. Leachate Control System. Waste dumped at the North Landfill is covered daily. Rain falling on the site is disposed of either as "leachate" or stormwater. Leachate is liquid which passes through, and emerges from, solid waste. Leachate on Phase IIIb of the North Landfill is collected and disposed of by a control system which was designed by George Knecht. Mr. Knecht described the leachate control system as follows: The leachate collection system consists of a two-foot drainage layer placed on top of the plastic liner. In this case the city used a plastic liner rather than a clay liner. It's HDPE, which is high-density polyethylene, and that collects the liquid and lets it flow downhill in this drainage layer to the central point, at which point the city has installed a six-inch perforated pipe which is wrapped in a filter media, which is basically a stone, a rock, which in turn is wrapped in a filter media which is porous cloth, and the purpose is that the liquid coming through the landfill gets into this drainage layer, runs downhill in the drainage layer, goes through the filter cloth, and the filter cloth keeps the sand from penetrating into the granular rock, goes through the rock and into the pipe, and then pipes are laid in a sloping downhill direction so that the fluid, once it gets in there, runs downhill. It's collected in manholes at the end of each one of these pipes. Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 49, lines 4-23. The leachate control system of Phase IIIb was properly installed and designed. Although the Petitioners raised questions concerning the manner in which the leachate control system was installed and designed, they did not offer sufficient evidence to contradict the evidence presented by the City that the system was properly installed and designed. The evidence also failed prove that the addition of 35 feet of solid waste to Phase IIIb will adversely affect the operation of the leachate control system. The addition of 35 feet of solid waste to Phase IIIb will probably ultimately have a beneficial effect on the leachate control system of Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. When Phase IIIb reaches its currently authorized height of 75 feet, the leachate depth on the liner of the control system is expected to be an average of approximately three inches. If an additional 35 feet of waste is added to Phase IIIb, the leachate depth on the liner of the control system is expected to decrease to an average of approximately two inches. The depth of leachate on the liner of the leachate control system of Phase IIIb will not exceed one foot. Specific Condition 3 of the Permit required that the City arrange for Department representatives to inspect the facility in the company of the Permittee, Engineer, and onsite operator after completion of construction activities. Cells I and II of the leachate control system of Phase IIIb were not inspected by the Department. The Department was provided with a certification from a registered professional engineer that the installation was inspected and met state requirements. The Department normally relies upon such certificates. Stormwater Disposal System. Rainwater which does not percolate through the waste, thus becoming leachate, runs off in the form of stormwater. Stormwater will consist primarily of rain which strikes the sides of the pyramid formed by the waste deposited on Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. The existing stormwater disposal system of all phases of the North Landfill consists of a series of ditches which collect stormwater and channel the stormwater to other ditches which surround the perimeter of the North Landfill. Stormwater travels through the ditches to collecting ponds located at the northeast corner of the North Landfill. Water reaching the holding ponds is treated by sunlight, oxidation and sedimentation. Ultimately, water reaching the holding ponds runs into Brown's Creek. The existing stormwater collection system of Phase IIIb is in compliance with the Department's permitting requirements. The proposed increase in height of Phase IIIb should not have any appreciable impact on the quality of stormwater eventually emptied into Brown's Creek. Phase IIIb will be capped with an impermeable cap when it is closed. The City has had a stormwater management system designed to take into account the effect of the cap on stormwater disposal. The stormwater collection system which will be installed when Phase IIIb is closed will consist of ditch blocks which will separate the stormwater collection system of Phase IIIb from the other phases of the North Landfill. Stormwater from Phase IIIb will be directed to a new holding pond. Stormwater will eventually be discharged into Brown's Creek. The stormwater collection system which will be installed when Phase IIIb is closed will meet the requirements of Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and the St. Johns River Water Management District. The system will actually have a positive impact on water quality. Foundation. The earth beneath the leachate control system of Phase IIIb, because of the weight of the solid waste to be deposited above it, is expected to settle approximately twelve inches under 75 feet of solid waste. The addition of 35 feet of solid waste to Phase IIIb is expected to cause the earth beneath the leachate control system to settle an additional six inches for a total of one and one-half feet. The additional 35 feet of solid waste will not adversely affect the structural integrity or functional capacity of the leachate control system of Phase IIIb. The proposed 35 foot addition of solid waste should not affect the ability of the earth beneath Phase IIIb to support the loads and stress it will be subjected to. III Alleged Violations. Water Quality There is a marsh located to the northeast of the North Landfill. The marsh forms the headwaters of Brown's Creek. Brown's Creek flows into the St. Johns River, south of the North Landfill. Alfred Mintz, the former owner of Clapboard Creek Fish Camp, a fish camp located approximately four miles from the North Landfill, testified about a "black gooey substance" which was on the surface of Clapboard Creek and Brown's Creek. Clapboard Creek flows to the northeast and east of the North Landfill. It eventually flows into the St. Johns River. The substance came from the direction of the North Landfill. Mr. Mintz did not know what the substance was and was unable to identify the source of the substance. The evidence failed to prove what the substance was or that the North Landfill was the source of the substance. Anita James, a commercial fisher, testified about a "film" which she saw on Brown's Creek near the St. Johns River. The substance was not identified. Nor was the source of the substance identified. Ms. James' belief that the film came from the North Landfill is not sufficient to support a finding of fact that the film whatever it was, came from the North Landfill. Mr. Mintz and Ms. James also testified about dead and diseased fish, and a dead dolphin and a dead manatee which they had seen in Clapboard Creek, Brown's Creek and other waters in the vicinity. No competent substantial evidence was presented to prove that the deaths or the disease was caused by waste disposed of at the North Landfill. No evidence concerning what killed the fish, dolphin or manatee, or what caused the diseased fish, was presented. Specific Condition 13 of the Permit requires the City to monitor water at three points along the stormwater disposal system of the North Landfill. One of the three monitoring points is approximately one-tenth of a mile east of the North Landfill in Brown's Creek. During approximately ten years of monitoring of water conditions only two parameters, iron and coliform, have been found in excess of state standards. The evidence did not prove what the cause of the excess iron and coliform was. It is possible that the excesses were caused by leachate from Phases I, II and 111a, which do not have lined leachate control systems like Phase IIIb, seeping into the stormwater disposal system. Leachate from Phase IIIb does not aggravate the problem because the leachate control system of Phase IIIb is lined. The City and the Department entered into a Consent Agreement on July 14, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Consent Order). Pursuant to the Consent Order the City is required to update its monitoring of stormwater. Quarterly monitoring of 37 parameters will be required. Specific Condition 19 A 2) of the Modified Permit also specifies that 37 parameters are to be analyzed quarterly. Specific Condition 13 A 2 of the Permit only required analyses of 14 parameters. The requested modification of the Permit should not contribute or extend any adverse affect of the North Landfill on water quality. The Consent Order and Specific Condition 20 C of the Modified Permit require that the City analyze 35 parameters quarterly at four wells located inside the North Landfill. The City has contracted for the preparation of a groundwater monitoring plan consistent with the Consent Order and with the requirements of Rule 17-701.050, Florida Administrative Code. Based upon a review of a well inventory conducted by the City and groundwater studies, wells in the vicinity of the North Landfill, including the well on Mr. & Mrs. Leigh's property and the M & M Dairy, are not at risk of contamination. The requested modification of the Permit should not increase the risk of contamination of wells in the vicinity of the North Landfill. Violation of Height Limits. In 1988 the City filled some portions of Phases I, II and IIIa above their 75 foot limit. The City did not, however, intentionally violate the Permit height limits. The City exceeded the height limit of the Permit only because it believed that solid waste placed on the landfill in excess of 75 feet would eventually settle to less than 75 feet and that this was consistent with the Permits limits. The Department disputed the City's actions in exceeding the 75 foot limit for Phases I, II and IIIa in an administrative action separate from this proceeding. On July 14, 1989, the City and Department settled their dispute and entered into the Consent Order. Pursuant to the Consent Order, the City paid a fine of $1,800.00. The City also built a laser tower for use in measuring the height of the North Landfill and agreed to use it to make more frequent surveys of the landfill. The City was not required to immediately remove the excess height. The City has been allowed to wait until closure. Prior to closure the City can request permission from the Department to leave the excess height. In the modification of the Permit at issue in this proceeding, Specific Condition 3 specifically provides for the manner in which waste may be disposed of in Phase IIIb in an effort to avoid the problems with excessive height experienced with Phases I, II and IIIa. B. Litter. Specific Condition 17 of the Permit provides that [l]itter control devices shall be installed as necessary to prevent litter from leaving the disposal area. Litter outside of the perimeter of the North Landfill along the roads leading to the landfill comes primarily from trucks bringing waste to the North Landfill. A small amount of the litter also comes from the site itself. Although the trucks are not City trucks, the City's litter collection efforts have been extended to cover the main portions of the roads leading to the North Landfill. Litter around and on the North Landfill has been a problem. The City has taken a number of steps to control the amount of litter in and around the landfill: Waste deposited at the North Landfill is covered with six inches of soil. Although the City is not required to do so, six months before the formal hearing of these cases the City began covering the area of the landfill where waste is being deposited (hereinafter referred to as the "working surface") with six inches of dirt. The working surface is also located away from wind. Fences have been installed around the perimeter of the North Landfill. Fences are also placed around the working surface on windy days. Prior to 1989 the City patrolled the immediate vicinity around the North Landfill to collect litter which had not been covered. Collection was performed on a variable time schedule. Only three part-time employees participated in the collection patrols. Beginning in early 1989, the City expanded its litter collection patrols. The roads surrounding the North Landfill (New Berlin Road, Faye Road, Alta Road and Island Drive), are now patrolled daily by five full- time employees. The extent of the patrols prior to 1989 and since early 1989 is depicted on City exhibit 8. The inside of the perimeter of the North Landfill is patrolled for litter collection five days a week and on the weekend, as needed. The stormwater ditches are inspected on a daily basis. At the time of the formal hearing of these cases the stormwater ditches and retention ponds were being excavated. This process had been going on for approximately four to six months. The Modified Permit contains Specific Condition 13, which is essentially the same as Specific Condition 17 of the Permit. Additionally, the Modified Permit contains Specific Condition 8, which provides: The Permittee shall maintain litter controls to prevent litter from entering the collection ditches and from leaving the landfill site. In addition to litter control fences, the Permittee shall provide daily manual collection of litter entering collection ditches and leaving the site. Litter can best be controlled by compacting the waste, picking up litter regularly and using fences. The City has employed these methods of litter control. The City's efforts have been reasonable. The proposed increase in height of Phase IIIb will not adversely affect the amount of litter associated with the North Landfill or the City's litter collection efforts. The City is not required to continue to patrol the roads leading to the North Landfill which it is currently patrolling to pick up litter that is attributable to trucks bringing waste to the North Landfill. Odor. There is no dispute that there is undesirable odor associated with the disposal of solid waste. This is true of the North Landfill. There is undesirable odor associated with the North Landfill most of the time. The nature of the odor associated with landfill's generally, and the North Landfill in particular, was described at the formal hearing as follows: Q The odor that you noticed, is it to some degree all the time? A Some days it won't, but that's very rare. Usually it may be more. Some days it may be in the afternoon, it may not smell in the morning, it may be in the afternoon. Some days it may be in the morning and may not be in the afternoon. Q Could you quantify what percentage of the time? A Probably about 75 percent of the time. Q And you indicate that at times it's much stronger than at other times? A Yes. Q You mentioned odor from the landfill. This was back in time now a good way. When did you start noticing an odor from that landfill? A When did I first start noticing it? Q Yes. A The very day they started dumping. Q And that odor has persisted since then? A Not every -- not every single day, but yes. Q Some days you will have it, some days you won't? A Yes. Q How many years are we talking about since they opened approximately? A Well, we have been out there 17 years. . Q So, over that 14 or 15 years, is it fair to say that basically you have an odor, and some days it will be worse than the average odor, and some days `it will be better than the average odor? A Yes. Transcript, page 511, lines 9-15, page 514, lines 9-13, page 516, line 25, and page 517, lines 1-21. Specific Condition 16 of the Permit provides that 1[o]bjectionable odors originating from the site shall be effectively controlled during all phases of operation. The most effective method of dealing with undesirable odor associated with landfills is to cover the waste daily and minimize the contact of waste with water. The City has been covering the waste disposed of at the North Landfill on a daily basis. The City's efforts have resulted in the North Landfill being as odor free as a "well run" landfill can be. A City ordinance provides for citizen participation in controlling odors in Jacksonville. This ordinance is enforced by the City's Bio- Environmental Services Division. As part of enforcing the odor ordinance the City provides a 24-hour telephone service which citizens can call and complain about odors. Since January, 1988, the City has received 5,500 complaints--an average of 280 complaints a month. Complaints received about odor are investigated by nine inspectors employed by the City. If five or more validated complaints are received about an odor producer during a 90-day period, the City issues a citation. Since January, 1988, the City has received only three complaints about the North Landfill from citizens. No citations have been issued against the North Landfill. Specific Condition 16 of the Permit is included in the Modified Permit as Specific Condition 15. The Modified Permit also includes Specific Condition 6, which provides: The Permittee shall apply no less than 6 inches of compacted initial cover to the top and sides of each cell by the end of each working day, except on the working face which may be left uncovered if additional solid waste will be placed on the working face within 18 hours. An intermediate cover of one (1) foot of compacted earth, in addition to the six (6) inch initial cover, shall be applied within seven (7) days of cell completion if final cover or an additional lift is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion. The Permittee shall ensure that an adequate quantity of acceptable cover material is available for use during each day of operation of the landfill. The modification of the Permit will not increase the odor associated with the North Landfill. It will, however, extend the period of time that odors emanate from the North Landfill. Access to the North Landfill and Dust. Specific Condition 20 of the Permit provides that "[d]ust free, all- weather access roads to the site and active disposal area, or alternative wet weather disposal area shall be maintained." This condition has been complied with by the City. This condition is included as Specific Condition 12 in the Modified Permit. The roads used to access the North Landfill are paved, two-lane roads. The lanes are twelve feet wide. The speed limit on the access roads is 45 m.p.h. Appropriate turn lanes are available. During December, 1988, New Berlin Road and the North Landfill were able to effectively handle 600 trucks per day, an average of 80 to 90 trucks an hour during peak hours. Normally, the North Landfill effectively handles approximately 300 garbage trucks and 100 cover-dirt trucks a day with a peak of approximately 60 trucks per hour. The unpaved right-of-way on the side of the roads leading to the North Landfill is worn and the source of dust. Dust associated with the North Landfill comes from the roads leading to the landfill. The evidence failed to prove that dust comes from within the perimeter of the North Landfill. Tire Storage. Whole tires have been stored and processed at the North Landfill. At the time of the formal hearing there were more than 1,000 tires at the landfill. The evidence failed to prove how long any specific quantity of tires had been stored at the North Landfill. The City has not allowed the disposal of any whole tires at the North Landfill since July 1, 1989. The City has been shredding tires at the North Landfill. At the time of the formal hearing the City had contracted for the shredding of all the tires which had been located at the North Landfill at the time the contract was entered into in early July, 1989. The contract in existence at the time of the formal hearing was scheduled to expire in October, 1989. The City, however, expected to enter into a follow-up contract to continue shredding tires. In February or March, 1989, the previous tire- shredder contractor walked off the job. Mosquitoes at the North Landfill are managed by the City's Bio- Environmental Services Mosquito Control Division. Spraying is only done "as needed", however. F. Hazardous Waste, Oil Recycling and Infectious Waste. The City has not established an independent hazardous waste disposal program, a used oil recycling program or a infectious waste disposal program. The City attempts to prevent disposal of hazardous waste, used oil and infectious waste through educating the public with signs posted at the North Landfill entrance and periodic inspections of waste disposed of at the North Landfill. The evidence failed to prove that hazardous waste, used oil or infectious waste is being disposed of at the North Landfill. The evidence also failed to prove that approval of the Modified Permit will cause the disposal of hazardous waste, used oil or infectious waste on Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. Specific Condition 5 of the Modified Permit prohibits the disposal of hazardous waste and infectious waste at Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. This condition also requires that the City provide a minimum of one spotter for each working fact of Phase IIIb to watch for unauthorized waste.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department approving issuance of the Modified Permit, modified by the inclusion of a Specific Condition requiring that the City continue its litter patrols as represented at the formal hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 3rd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Case Numbers 89-0532, 89-0569 All of the parties except the Petitioners in case number 89-0569, have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ms.'s Holzendorf's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection See 49-52. The Consent Order was entered into on July 14, 1989. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 49. 80. Whether a violation of Chapter 17- 711, Florida Administrative Code, has occurred is a conclusion of law. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that there is not program for the disposal of tires. The last paragraph of this proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. IV See 54-55, 61-63, 73 and 77. IV-Hazardous Waste: 86. See 87-89. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Argument. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. V-Used Oil Recycling Plan: 86. See 87-89. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 86. See 87-89. The last paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant to this proceeding. The Modified Permit only involves a lined portion of the North Landfill. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3. 2 2. 3 15. 4 18-19 and 26. 5 20. 6 22-23. 7 34-36. 8 26-29. 9 32-33. 10 30. 11 41-42. 12 43. 13 37-40. 14 49. 15 61-62 and 64. 16 55. 17 56 and 58. 18 74-78. 19 80 and 82-83. The City's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Contrary to testimony of Ms. Holzendorf. Statement of law. 3-4 Hereby accepted. 5 Statement of law. 6 10. 7-8 13. 9 9. 10 1-2. 11 1-2 and 7. 12 4. 13 5. 14 1. 15 6. 16-19 3. 20 14. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 7. 23 8 and 49. 24 16. 25-26 20. 27-28 Hereby accepted. 29-30 25. 31 Hereby accepted. 32-35 22. 36-43 Hereby accepted 44 35-36. 45 Hereby accepted. 46 35. 47 See 36. 48-49 Hereby accepted. 50 44. 51-52 46. 53-58 Hereby accepted. 59 47. 60 48. 61 46. 62-63 Hereby accepted. 64 27. 65-66 43. 67 31. 68 Hereby accepted. 69 33. 70 Hereby accepted. 71 33. 72 30. 73 32. 74 43. 75 30. 76-77 26. 78 42. 79 Not relevant to this proceeding. 80 45. 81-82 Hereby accepted. 83-84 44. 85-86 49-51. 87 49. 88 52. 89 Hereby accepted. 90 55-56. 91-93 56. 94 50. 95 56. 96 59. 97-100 56. 101 55. 102 Hereby accepted. 103 58. 104-112 These proposed findings of fact correctly quote testimony presented the formal hearing. at 113 61 and 64-65. 115 72. 116 66. 117 Hereby accepted. 118 67. 119 Hereby accepted. 120 69. 121 70. 122-123 70 and hereby accepted. 124 See 65. 125 65. 126-129 See 61-62. 130-131 77. 132 Hereby accepted. 133 75. 134 Not relevant to this proceeding. 135 77. 136 79. 137-139 These proposed findings of fact correctly quote testimony presented at the formal hearing. 140 80. 141 82-84. 142 84. 143 81. 144 85. 145-147 Hereby accepted. 148 Cumulative. 149 37-38. 150-152 38. 153-155 40. 156 39-40. 157-161 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lacy Mahon, Jr., Esquire Mark H. Mahon, Esquire Russell L. Healey, Esquire Lacy Mahon, Jr. & Mark Mahon, P.A. 1120 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robin G. Leigh and Geraldine Leigh 6026 Heckscher Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32226 William H. Congdon Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel D. Richardson, Esquire Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Robin A. Deen, Esquire Department of Environmental Office of General Counsel Regulation Environmental Law Division 2600 Blair Stone Road City of Jacksonville Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Towncentre, Suite 715 421 West Church Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
