The Issue Whether Beker Phosphate Corporation should be granted a hermit to construct an industrial waste water facility pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. By application, dated April 8, 1975, Beker Phosphate Corporation (hereinafter Beker) , sought a permit to construct an industrial waste water facility in Manatee County, Florida, from the Department of Pollution Control (now and hereinafter DER) . The application was received on April 11 and, after advising Beker that the application was incomplete a meeting was held on May 9th between DER and Beker representatives with the result that Beker filed a new application dated June 11, that was received by the DER in July. Further meetings were held in the fall of 1975 and additional in formation was received as to the application. On December 16, 1975, DER secretary. Jay W. Landers, Jr., issued a Notice Of Intent To Grant A Permit With Conditions. The conditions were unspecified in the letter of intent (Exhibit 1.) Subsequently, on December 23 and December 24, 1975, Sarasota County (hereinafter Sarasota) and the Town of Longboat Key (hereinafter Longboat Key), respectively, filed petitions with the DER alleging that their substantial interests would be adversely affected by approval of the permit application and setting forth in their petitions certain disputed questions of fact for determination. After a prehearing conference, Amended Petitions were filed by those parties to clarify and expand on such questions of fact and to resolve procedural matters. Additionally, during this period, George Browning, III, of Sarasota, Florida was granted status as an intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Beker proposes to construct a phosphate rock mine and beneficiation plant on a tract of approximately 11,000 acres in a predominately agricultural and ranching area of Manatee County about 10 miles from Myakka City, Florida. The mining will be performed by two dredges. One will mine overburden and return it to the mined-out area and the other will mine phosphate rock matrix which will be pumped to the beneficiation plant. The plant will consist essentially of two circuits. The first is a washer where the matrix pumped from the dredging operation is partially cleaned of clay and fine sand, and the coarser phosphate particles "pebbles" are separated as a product. The "fines" from the washing operation consist of small phosphate rock particles, sand, and clay. This mixture will be treated in the second section of the plant by "flotation" methods to recover the small phosphate rock particles as a product. During initial operation, the sand and clay will be stored in a temporary waste material storage area, but as the mining proceeds and the dredge pits open up, the sand and clay material will be pumped back to the dredge pits so that sand, and overburden will be mixed and redeposited to reclaim the land. Approximately 8 million gallons of fresh water per day will be drawn from the Floridian aquifer to be used in the flotation circuits. From the plant the water flows in two types of streams--one containing sand suspended in water and one containing clay suspended in water. Both streams flow into a settling pond surrounded by an earthen dam where sand and clay solids settle to the bottom. The clarified water is then decanted through six spillway structures into a hydraulic recirculation ditch outside the dam and flows back to the plant for re-use. The ponds and canals that make up the hydraulic circuit are planned to have sufficient capacity to contain rainwater falling on the site and pond system during the wet season when there are heavy rainfalls (approximately from May to September). Excess water will be decanted from the hydraulic recirculation ditch through a structure into a pipe and then discharged into Wingate Creek. The settling pond will occupy approximately 225 acres and its capacity will be about 8,458 acre- feet. The pond itself can be used to act as a reservoir and water can be built up in the pond during periods of high rainfall. It will not be necessary to release the water at any particular time. It can be released at will when the effluent contains a minimum of pollutant materials (Exhibit 1). Matrix is an unconsolidated mixture of phosphate pebbles and boulders of partly phosphatized limestone, quartz and clay. The washing operation removes unwanted oversized material and fine clays. The purpose of the flotation plant is to recover fine phosphate rock that might otherwise be lost. In the flotation process, flotation reagents, including sulfuric acid, number 2 fuel oil, tall oil, sodium hydroxide, and amines are used for treatment. The wastes are then moved to the settling pond where over a period of time the "slimes", (sands and clays) will settle to the bottom forming an impervious layer which will seal the pond. The settling process removes more than 90 percent of the contaminants from the influent. The coarser clay particles settle first and many of the fine particles settle in a process called "flocculation" by which electrical forces bring the particles together. However, some of the particles will not flocculate and remain suspended in the water. These extremely small particles constitute the total suspended solids that remain in the effluent when it is discharged from the settling area. They probably will not settle out entirely during their course from Wingate Creek into the Myaaka River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. However, even if it were assumed that such materials would settle somewhere between the point of discharge and Charlotte Harbor, over the entire 20 year proposed life of the mine they would form a deposit much less than 1/10th of an inch. Although it is technically possible to treat water to the degree that it would result in distilled water, realistic concepts of treatment establish that an additional settling or "polishing" pond for the proposed facility might not improve the quality of the wastewater finally discharged in state waters to any appreciable degree. Alternative proposals for the reduction of pollutants by additional processing, such as the intentional growth of water hyacinths in settling areas or use of chemical coagulants would result in creating other waste materials and thus be counterproductive (Testimony of Bromwell; Exhibit 1). The applicant's discharge of wastewater to Wingate Creek will average approximately 3.19 million gallons per day. However, since discharge will be effected primarily during periods of excessive rainfall, actual discharges can reach a maximum of about ten million gallons per day during this period. The effluent contained in such discharge will meet the test of at least 90 percent removal of organic and inorganic wastes specified by Rule 17-3.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, when measured by the influent into the settling pond and the effluent leaving that area. This treatment, however, will not produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by the "highest quality municipal waste treatment." The highest degree of treatment that has been reached by municipalities is "advanced waste treatment" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The water quality characteristics of the effluent will meet the standards of Rule 17-3.05 as to concentrations of those pollutants reasonably anticipated to be fond in the wastewater based on samples taken where the waters are discharged into Wingate Creek (Testimony of Gilgallon, Davis, Edwards, Heinzman, Bromwell, Bartow, Wellford, Exhibit 1). In preparing the application, no consideration was given to the need of meeting treatment standards for highest quality municipal waste treatment or advanced waste treatment. Neither did the recommending official of the DER, Mr. Edwards, then Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region, consider this standard because he had been advised by the DER legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) did not apply to Wingate Creek since it was not a tributary to one of the bodies of water listed in subparagraph (c) of the rule 17-3.04(2). This determination was based upon Resolution No. 74-83, September 17, 1974, of the Florida Pollution Control Board that was issued after legal challenges had been made to an interpretation by the Department of Pollution Control legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) required advanced wastewater treatment for industrial waste discharges. The Board, in its resolution, determined that since evidence had not been taken concerning treatment standards for industrial waste discharges at the time of adoption of the effluent standards for sanitary waste contained in Rule 17-3.04(2), the advanced wastewater treatment standards in the aforesaid rule would not be enforced against industrial dischargers pending full hearings on a new Rule to clearly express the Board's intent in this regard (Testimony of Gilgallon, Edwards; Exhibit 1). Special conditions that the Southwest Region, Department of Environmental Regulation, recommends should be attached to any issuance of a construction permit, other than standard conditions and those relating to other types of permits, are as follow: Approval by DER prior to the construction of any above grade phosphatic clay storage facility other than the initial settling pond. Removal efficiencies for oil and grease shall be a minimum of 90 percent and shall not exceed 14 milligrams per liter measured in the discharge effluent. Discharge effluent to Wingate Creek shall meet the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3.05(2) at the point of discharge prior to mixing with the receiving stream. Further treatment of the discharge will be required in the event compliance with proviso (c) above cannot be achieved or significant degradation of the receiving stream occurs as determined by the DER. In addition to required routine monitoring, a detailed analysis of the untreated and treated wastewater to be conducted once on representative samples during (1) month of July and (2) month of February. Such analyses shall, as a minimum, include all the parameters listed in 17-3:05(2). Applicants shall conduct an investigation into total retention possibilities of the effluent including, but not limited to, the following areas: recharge wells retention and storage of excess water during the "wet" season with subsequent reuse during the "dry" season for process and/or irrigation purposes. A report of these investigations shall be submitted prior to submission of operation permit application The location of monitoring wells shall be down gradient from the settling pond. Detailed proposal, subject to the DER approval, regarding exact location and number of wells to adequately ascertain the impact of seepage to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to commencement of operation. Bond to be posted for damages that may result from a clay settling area dam failure. Oral and written communications from the public were received at the hearing and included the following: Announcement by the County Attorney, Manatee County, that the county did not plan to appeal the DER Notice of Intent to Grant the permit (Statement of E.N. Fay, Jr.). The Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, fears that the construction of the phosphate mine up-stream from the Myaaka diver State Park poses a serious potential threat to its aquatic habitat due to the possibility of a dam failure. It also fears that pollutants from the project will tend to settle as the river waters flow through the two lakes in the park. It therefore, opposes the construction until assurance can be given that proper safeguards have been taken to prevent such problems (Testimony of Alverez). The Longboat Key Garden Club believes that the project would involve too much water consumption and also that phosphate mining should be halted until further government studies are made to assure that the safety and health of the populace and the environment will not be endangered through polluted runoff and phosphate spills (Testimony of Monroe). The Save Our Bays Association in Manatee County has collected petitions from citizens in Manatee County requesting a referendum on a ballot this November for or against phosphate mining. The Association believes that such a vote should be taken before final decision is made on the subject. Its spokesman fears that if the quality and quantity of the drinking water is disrupted, it will interfere with continued tourist trade (Testimony of Howard Greer). The Palma Sola Parks Association opposes the Beker Application until there is greater assurance of environmentally safe mining (Testimony of Blankenship) A former physical and health education director is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient data collected on the effect of radioactive materials in runoff and waste. She believes there should be more research in these areas and asked that the public be protected from such hazards (Testimony of Mary Kay Greer). The Manasota-88 project for environmental qualities of 1968 and 1988 believes that issuance of the permit should be withheld until health implications can be determined concerning potential hazards to the Myakka and Manatee Rivers' watersheds (Exhibit 7). A former member of the Manatee County Planning Commission that approved the Beker application prior to action by the County Commission of Manatee County is in favor of the proposed project because Beker's plan to impound water will augment the water facilities of the county (Testimony of Reasoner). The City of Bradenton believes that since it is being required to meet advanced water treatment standards of discharge for sanitary sewage, Beker Phosphate Corporation should be required to meet similar standards (Testimony of Mayor A.K. Leach). A member of the Myakka City Civic Association who is an adjacent land owner to Beker Phosphate Corporation feels that the project is necessary in order to produce jobs for individuals in that area of the county (Testimony of Mizell). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that proposed construction of two dams by the applicant will destroy approximately (4) acres of mangrove areas, three acres of pasture land and about 185 acres of bottom land or hardwood habitat. It recommends an alternative method of backup levies constructed around the primary settling bases on the applicant's land to contain any spills and prevent destruction of the streams and associated wetlands (Testimony of Johnston) The Conservation Council of Manatee County believes that Beker's unique mining and reclamation plan will help the farming industry and also create necessary water reserviors and recreation areas, and therefore endorses its proposal to mine in Manatee County (Testimony of Kent, Exhibit 14). Petitions were submitted at the hearing from approximately 3,000 individuals living in Manatee and Sarasota Counties opposing the issuance of the permit because they believe that phosphate mining is dangerous to the quality and supply of the water and endangers the health of the people (Composite Exhibit 9, Testimony of Humphrey).
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nemi, Inc., should pay a $500.00 administrative fine for maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution (Count I); whether it should pay an administrative fine of $9,500.00 for failing to submit a completed Site Assessment Report (SAR) within 270 days of discovery of the discharge of chemical solvents (Count II); whether it should pay investigative costs and expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 incurred by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department) (Count III); and whether it should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on January 23, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is a for-profit corporation registered to do business in the State. Respondent's president and registered agent is Neil Schuberg, who represented the corporation at hearing. Respondent is the owner of a 1.1-acre parcel of real property located at 6801 Northwest 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The property is situated in what is known as the Gateway Industrial Center just south of the City of Pompano Beach and midway between the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95. The parcel is rectangular shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide by 180 feet long. The property is further identified by the Broward County Property Appraiser as Parcel Identification Number 494209050040. A one-story warehouse and parking lot are located on the property, which is currently leased by Respondent to a testing laboratory. The evidence shows that for at least since 1981 David R. Ligh owned the property until his death. After he died, his widow, Elsie M. Ligh, sold the property in 1994 to Clayton John Pierce subject to a mortgage in the amount of $167,640.00. Mr. Pierce began operating a business on the premises known as Combined Roof Services, Inc. In 1995, Mr. Pierce decided to sell the property. A potential buyer, S & S Propeller Company, retained the services of Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an environmental site assessment for the purpose of "determining the suitability of property for ownership by [S & S Propeller Company]." When it first inspected the site in July 1995, Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., discovered three thirty-five gallon drums and a twenty-gallon black plastic tub, all labeled "hazardous waste" and reflecting that they had contained tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene) waste. This is a chemical solvent that is typically used by dry cleaning establishments. The labels carried the name and "EPA ID number" of Family Dry Cleaners located at 6804 Stirling Road, Davie, Florida, an address which appears to be around ten to twelve miles south of the subject property. The three drums were lying on their sides on the northern end of an asphalt parking area beneath overgrown Brazilian pepper trees and were empty; the empty twenty-gallon tub was located inside the building on the property. Soil borings on the property performed by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene at 10,613 parts per billion, which exceed allowable standards. Tetrachloroethene and its breakdown products are a solid waste, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) dated August 13, 1995, was prepared by the consulting firm and sets forth in detail the results of its inspection. See Department Exhibit 2. The sale was never consummated. Later that year, Mr. Pierce engaged the same consulting firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property. That assessment revealed concentrations in groundwater ranging from 8,840 parts per billion to 173,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethene, which exceed the State Clean Soil Criteria and State Maximum Contaminant Levels. The report, issued on October 13, 1995, was received in evidence as Department Exhibit 3. On October 30, 1995, a Mr. Pivnick, an attorney with the firm of Dombroff & Gilmore, P.A., which represented Mr. Pierce, notified the Department by letter that the empty drums and tub had been discovered on the property. The letter also attached a copy of the Phase I ESA. Mr. Pivnick was instructed by the Department to contact the local police department to report the incident as well as the state warning system for reporting discharges to the environment. Also, the Department contacted other local agencies and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In October 1995, Mr. Pierce vacated the premises and ceased operating Combined Roof Services, Inc. In January 1996, he began leasing the property to Sun Valley Industries, also a roofing repair business, until that firm vacated the premises in December 1997. With the use of grant monies, the Department engaged the services of International Technology Corporation to prepare a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) for the property. That report was issued on February 13, 1997. See Department Exhibit The PIR recommended that additional monitoring of the site (through shallow monitoring wells, soil samples, groundwater samples, and groundwater flow direction) be made to quantify the presence of chlorinated solvents. Again with the use of grant monies, in 1997 the Department engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., to prepare a Site Inspection Report (Report) for the subject property. The Report was issued in March 1998. See Department Exhibit 5. Excessive tetrachloroethene, Cis-1, 2- dichloroethene, and trichloroethylene were detected in ground water samples, while tetrachloroethene was detected in all seven soil samples. On April 2, 1998, Ms. Ligh assigned the mortgage on the property to Nemi, Inc., for around $100,000.00. Mr. Schuberg explained that he was able to purchase it at a discount because Mr. Pierce had ceased making payments on the mortgage and had warned Ms. Ligh that if she foreclosed on the mortgage, she would be responsible for cleanup costs on the property exceeding a million dollars. While Mr. Schuberg acknowledged that he was aware of a contamination problem on the property, he says the mortgage was purchased as an investment, and he never thought he would actually acquire the property because he believed Mr. Pierce would continue to make the mortgage payments. After failing to make payments on the mortgage, on September 21, 1999, Mr. Pierce executed a Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in favor of Nemi, Inc. Based on conversations with Mr. Pierce at that time, Mr. Schuberg says he was under the impression that the spill was much smaller than it actually was, and that it would be cleaned up by the Department. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg characterized Mr. Pierce as "a hustler and a liar." After Mr. Pivnick's report of contamination was received, the Department, along with the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection, initiated an investigation (probably in late 1995 or early 1996) in an attempt to verify the source of the contamination. Because Family Dry Cleaners "was on the top of [its] list," the Department first sought to determine whether that firm had actually deposited the drums and tub on the subject property. It learned that in 1994, or a year before the contamination was reported to the Department, Family Dry Cleaners had been evicted by its landlord, Lincoln Park. According to the Department, this "led to a dead- end" as far as Family Dry Cleaners was concerned. However, that business had been replaced by another tenant, Liberty Dry Cleaners. The Department then attempted to ascertain whether Lincoln Park or the new tenant might have been responsible for transporting the drums and tub to the subject property and dumping the waste. However, the Department was unable to confirm that either of the two had done so. Photographs of the drums and tub were made by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., when it conducted an assessment in July 1995. Because the empty drums and tub were later removed from the site by unknown persons, the Department was only able to review the photographs when it conducted its investigation. Photographs of the drums indicated that they were larger than the twenty-gallon drums normally used by a dry cleaning establishment, and the labels on the drums were not perforated or dot matrix, which are more typical of those used by dry cleaners. For this reason, and because the empty tub was found inside the building on the property, the Department attempted to determine if Mr. Pierce had purchased the contaminants for use in his operations; it was not able to confirm this fact. The Department also contacted local law enforcement officials to see whether a criminal investigation could be launched. As noted above, however, the drums and tub had been removed by unknown persons while Mr. Pierce still had possession of the property and there was no forensic evidence for law enforcement officials to examine. The result of the investigation was that the Department was unable to determine who deposited the drums on the site or the exact location where the contents were first dumped. Although Respondent contended that the Department could have easily determined who removed the empty drums and tub from the subject property by examining the manifests of the carriers who engage in that type of business, the Department investigator did not attempt to do this since the yellow pages in the telephone directory reflected at least six pages of transporters in this type of business. Further, there is no evidence that a commercial transporter was even involved. For all of these reasons, the Department looked to the current owner of the property, Respondent, as the entity responsible for site rehabilitation since there were, and still are, contaminants leaching into the groundwater and aquifer system. Specifically, as of 2007, or twelve years after the discharge occurred, the groundwater on Respondent's property was still contaminated with tetrachloroethene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene exceeding the Department's groundwater standards. Also, the same contaminants exceeded the Department's soil cleanup target levels based on ground water criteria. Because rainfall and surface water continue to come into contact with the contaminated soil, and there is no liner or impervious cap in place, the installation is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution. On September 12, 2001, the Department sent a letter by certified mail to Respondent advising that contamination was present on the property, that there were "possible violations of law for which you may be responsible," and that a Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) must be filed within sixty days from the date of the letter. See Department Exhibit 6. Although a meeting of the parties was held on October 4, 2001, a PCA was never filed. 16. On April 27, 2006, March 12, 2007, and July 3, 2007, the Department issued Warning Letters to Respondent advising that an enforcement action would be initiated unless Respondent provided a SAR within a time certain. See Department Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. (The record is silent as to why no formal activity occurred between October 2001 and April 2006.) Exhibit 8 reflects that on November 21, 2006, "analysis results of sampling of one monitoring well were received by the Department." A meeting was later conducted by the parties on January 16, 2007, at which time Respondent agreed to "draft a suitable letter of [its] intentions with regard to conducting the required assessment and send it to the Department on or before January 31, 2007." There is no record of such a letter being sent. In August 2007, Respondent contracted with Florida Environmental Engineering, Inc., to perform a "limited site assessment report." In March 2008, that firm submitted to the Department a Preliminary Site Assessment Report (PSAR) See Department Exhibit 10. For this service, Respondent paid around $16,000.00. On March 21, 2008, the Department advised Respondent by letter that the PSAR was incomplete and that further information should be provided by April 30, 2008. See Department Exhibit 11. An Addendum to the PSAR was provided on May 5, 2008. See Department Exhibit 12. This report cost Respondent an additional $3,000.00. The PSAR indicated that contaminants (dichloroethene and trichloroethylene) in the water and soil on the property exceeded Department groundwater and soil cleanup target standards and levels. The report concluded, however, that "the discharge to the site is from an offsite source" (west of the property) and that "the property owner is no longer a responsible party." On August 27 and then again on October 22, 2008, the Department issued letters to Respondent advising that "there is not enough data to support the assumption that the discharge is offsite and the contamination is from an offsite source located west of the property." The Department reached this conclusion because, among other reasons, "[t]he contamination does not seem to be delineated towards the northern and southern portions of the site," "[t]here are no horizontal delineation wells to [the] north," the "iso contour maps provided appear to show the vertical delineation of the contamination but not horizontal delineation [of the plume]," "additional monitoring points need to be [added]," and "the onsite monitoring well, MW-2, shows a very high concentration of Perchloroethylene (PCE) at 81,000 ug/L [microgram per liter] and other contaminants, while the MW-1 does not exhibit groundwater contamination to that extent." See Department Exhibits 14 and 15. In plainer language, Respondent's report was deficient in that all contamination sources were not identified; it failed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination; and it failed to recommend a remedial action to clean up the contamination. The two letters advised that the site assessment was incomplete and that additional information described in the letters must be submitted by November 14, 2008. To date, Respondent has failed to submit the required information. According to Mr. Schuberg, to perform a study that would supply the additional information requested by the Department would cost him around $100,000.00, an amount he is unwilling to pay. More than 270 days has expired since a discharge was discovered on Respondent's property, and it has failed to submit a complete SAR, as described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-780.600(8). See also Table A, Fla. Admin. Code R. Ch. 62-780, which prescribes the specific time frame (within 270 days after the discharge is discovered) for submitting this report. The Department has incurred expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 while investigating this matter. See Department Exhibit 17. This amount is not disputed. As corrective action, the Department requests that within ninety days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent submit a complete SAR which addresses the deficiencies specified in the Department's August 27, 2008, letter. See Department Exhibit 14. To complete the SAR, additional soil and groundwater samples need to be collected to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, all source areas must be identified, and a remedial action must be developed to abate the contamination. Finally, the contaminated soil must be removed from the property so that it will no longer discharge into the groundwater. The Notice of Violation requests that upon approval of the SAR, Respondent "shall commence and complete in a timely fashion all further tasks" required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-780. These corrective actions are reasonable and are hereby approved. In calculating the penalty, Respondent has assessed a $500.00 administrative penalty for Respondent maintaining a stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution without a permit. This is based upon a violation of Section 403.121(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to not comply with a regulatory statute's requirement. Under Section 403.121(6), Florida Statutes, the Department has also assessed a $500.00 per day penalty against Respondent for failing to file a SAR for nineteen days, for a total of $9,500.00. When added to the $500.00 previously assessed, the total administrative penalty is $10,000.00, which is the maximum allowed in this type of proceeding. See § 403.121(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Throughout this process, Mr. Schuberg has contended that the responsibility for cleanup lies with the person or entity actually responsible for placing the drums and tub on the property in 1995. He says that the evidence clearly shows that Family Dry Cleaners is the responsible party. However, the Department and local authorities were never able to confirm who actually dumped the waste on the subject property. Although Mr. Schuberg says it will take "[i]n the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to clean up the site, the evidence shows that when he purchased the mortgage in 1998 and assumed ownership in 1999, he knew the property was contaminated. Mr. Schuberg further stated that because his consultant could never get "answers" from the Department, the consultant was instructed to stop work. However, Mr. Schuberg never contacted the Department to get clarification about what was required. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg also offered a lay opinion that his consultant's report filed in March 2008 proves that in 1995 the contents of the drums and tub were dumped on an offsite asphalt road adjacent to the property, surface water runoff then carried the chemical solvents onto his property, and the empty drums and tub were left in the parking lot. The Department's expert did not agree with this supposition, and there is no expert testimony to confirm the accuracy of this theory. Respondent has also contended that the property should be cleaned up with state funds. As pointed out by a Department witness, however, one problem is that the property does not meet the definition of a dry cleaner and thus cannot qualify for funds under that program. Then, too, a state-funded cleanup is a last resort which is used only after the Department has exhausted all enforcement remedies. Also, in this era of tight budgets, the Department has a finite amount of funds to use for this purpose, and is limited to cleaning up only a few sites per year. Finally, the responsible party must first acknowledge by affidavit that it lacks the necessary resources to clean up the property before the Department "may" seek cleanup funds. Respondent has not yet filed such an affidavit or admitted liability. In terms of mitigating evidence, Mr. Schuberg conceded that he has not done "a whole lot" to address the contamination problem since acquiring the property in 1999. In 2008, he did expend around $20,000.00 in having a PSAR and Addendum prepared for the Department. In all other respects, he steadfastly refuses to spend any more money on assessments or take responsibility for the cleanup since he believes that Family Dry Cleaners is the entity responsible for site rehabilitation.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a solid waste management facility without a permit and disposing of solid waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background DDD is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its president and sole director is William H. Stanton, Jr. The corporation is engaged in the business of "mobil recycling activities" (reduction recycling services for customers). Mr. Stanton owns a two-acre tract of property located in Section 26, Township 28S, Range 24B, on the northwest corner of Mustang Road and Longhorn Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and was formerly used in some form of phosphate mining operations. The Department is the agency charged with the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Based upon a complaint made by a Polk County Health Department employee, on October 8, 2001, a Department enforcement coordinator, Steven G. Morgan, inspected Mr. Stanton's property and observed that Respondents had filled and compacted an approximate 150 foot by 300 foot area of the site with 3 to 5 feet of "wallboard type material," which consisted of "both ground up and large pieces of wallboard." In the middle of the filled area was an additional pile of the same material around 20 to 25 feet high. Petitioner's Exhibits A, D, and E are photographs which provide an accurate representation of the site on the date of the inspection. Based on a visual inspection, but without having the benefit of his own laboratory analysis,2 Mr. Morgan concluded that the material was a solid waste made up of discarded industrial products. Under Department rules, the deposit of solid waste on such a site requires a waste facility management permit from the Department. A check of Department records indicated that Respondents do not hold a permit to operate a solid waste management facility. (DDD does hold a valid air pollution permit for grinding concrete.) During his inspection, Mr. Morgan also observed that the land adjacent to the filled area was wet, had a lower elevation than the compacted area, and contained small pockets of standing water. This was confirmed by photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits D and E. A DDD employee who was present on the site during the inspection indicated that approximately 900 truck loads of the material had been transported to the site from Plant City after Mr. Stanton had "lost" a lease on the property on which the material had previously been placed. This was confirmed by Mr. Stanton who arrived at the site shortly after the inspection began, and who indicated that he intended to use the compacted wallboard as a sub-base (or foundation) for a wallboard recycling facility. A second site inspection by Mr. Morgan conducted on February 5, 2002, confirmed that the conditions (regarding the piles of fill material but not the standing water) at the site were unchanged from those found on October 8, 2001. On that visit, Mr. Morgan observed the site from his automobile but did not walk the property. Two other site visits were made, one on June 19, 2002, by other Department personnel. Except for a photograph (Petitioner's Exhibit C) dated June 19, 2002, which indicates the piles of material were still intact and had not been removed, the results of those inspections are not of record. Shortly after the initial inspection, the Department's Tampa District Office issued a warning letter to Mr. Stanton describing Mr. Morgan's observations and outlining the potential violations. The letter also invited Mr. Stanton to resolve the matter informally and to present a corrective action plan to mitigate the site. When the matter could not be resolved informally, the Department issued its Notice on October 10, 2002, alleging that Respondents had operated a solid waste facility without a permit and had deposited solid waste in an area prone to flooding. Even though the matter was not informally resolved, Mr. Stanton has cooperated with the Department in good faith throughout the regulatory process. The Material on the Site Invoices received in evidence reflect that the source of the deposited material was James Hardie Building Products in Plant City, Florida, and that the material was described on the invoices as "Dry Waste Material," Wet Waste Material," and "Foreign Material." James Hardie Building Products manufactures HardieBoard, which is a one-half to one-inch thick concrete formulated product used in the construction of homes and other buildings, and HardiePipe, which is used in road and bridge construction, culverts, storm sewers, and concrete pipes. The material being deposited was material used in the manufacture of HardieBoard. Mr. Stanton's long-range plans are to grind up, or recycle, the material (after all necessary permits, if any, are obtained) and then sell it to other persons, including cement manufacturing plants in the area, who will then use it for a variety of purposes, including subbase and base material, cement and concrete re-additive, and cement production. HardieBoard (as well as HardiePipe) is a variable mixture of Portland cement, water, fine silica sand, less than 10 percent cellulose (a non-toxic organic material commonly added to such products as ice cream, shampoo, baby diapers, and rayon clothing), and less than 10 percent of inert materials. The cellulose fibers are added to the concrete to avoid cracking and shrinkage and to reduce the weight of the product. Unlike concrete used for driveways and the like, HardiBoard does not have any large aggregate. Disposal of Solid Waste and Clean Debris Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(1)(a) prohibits the storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste except at a permitted solid waste management facility. In addition, no solid waste may be stored or disposed of "[i]n an area subject to frequent and periodic flooding unless flood protection measures are in place[,]" or "[i]n any natural or artificial body of water including ground water." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(d) and (e). These requirements form the basis for the charges in the Notice. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113) defines solid waste in relevant part as "discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations." Section 403.707(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, however, that a permit is not required for "[t]he use of clean debris as fill material in any area." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.220(2)(f). "Clean debris" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(15) as: any solid waste which is virtually inert, which is not a pollution threat to ground water or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. The term includes brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete including embedded pipe or steel. The term "virtually inert" is not defined by statute or rule. However, the parties agree that in order for a material to be "virtually inert," it must have no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater. In addition, if a deposited material releases contaminants into the groundwater thereby posing a threat to human health, it is considered a "threat to [groundwater]" within the meaning of the rule. The rule also provides that the material must not be a fire hazard. Finally, if a material decomposes over time after being used as fill, and releases contaminants into the groundwater, it is not "likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use." Therefore, if a material has no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater, is not a threat to groundwater, is not a fire hazard, and is not likely to decompose over time, it constitutes clean debris and is exempt from the waste management facility permitting requirements. As noted above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.200(15) identifies four materials that are considered to be clean debris: brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete. If a waste product is classified as uncontaminated concrete, it constitutes clean debris and may be used as fill without a permit from the Department. Further, clean debris may be deposited in an area subject to frequent or periodic flooding so long as flood protection measures are taken, or in a natural or artificial body of water so long as other appropriate permits (such as an Environmental Resource Permit) are obtained. Here, the central issue is whether the material deposited on Mr. Stanton's property is solid waste or clean debris. This issue turns on whether the material is virtually inert, is not a pollution threat to groundwater or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. Assuming these criteria are satisfied, the material is exempt from Department permitting requirements for solid wastes. On this issue, the Department contends that the material is not virtually inert and is unlikely to retain its physical and chemical structure. Conversely, Respondents assert that the material is clean debris and falls within the category of uncontaminated concrete. Is the Deposited Material Clean Debris? In determining whether a material is virtually inert, or is a pollution threat to ground or surface waters, two extraction procedures have been sanctioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the measurement of the amount of contaminants that will leak from a material: the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Under both procedures, the material being tested is ground up into small sand-size particles, mixed with an extraction fluid, and tumbled for 18 hours in a rotary agitator while the liquid solution extracts various metals that are found in the solids. The extracted liquid solution is then filtered and analyzed to determine the concentration of metals actually leached from the solids. Under state water drinking standards found in Table 1 of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, the maximum contaminant levels for chromium and barium (stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L)) are 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. In reaching its conclusion that the fill material is a solid waste, the Department relied principally on certain tests of the material run by various laboratories between 1998 and 2000, which showed that the amount of chromium and barium leaking out of the product exceeded the State drinking water standards. See Petitioner's Exhibits K, L, M, and O. However, in every one of those tests, the laboratories used the TCLP, rather than the SPLC, which produced a worst case scenario. For the reasons stated below, the TCLP is not the appropriate procedure to be used for this purpose. The TCLP is the more aggressive of the two procedures, uses a much harsher solution than the SPLC, and generally leaches higher concentrations of metals. However, its principal purpose is to determine whether a material should be classified as a hazardous waste based on its leaching properties or characteristics. Using it to predict whether a material will leach into ground water is inappropriate because it will "leach things out in the laboratory that will never leach in the field." This is because it does not mimic conditions in the field and is "just not supposed to be used for this purpose." Therefore, TCLP leachate values should not be applied to drinking water standards. Conversely, the SPLC uses a less harsh solution during the preparation process, evaluates the potential for leaching metals into ground and surface waters, and is designed to provide a more realistic assessment of metal mobility under actual field conditions. In other words, the SPLC simulates what would happen if the sample were exposed to groundwater and rain to determine if under those conditions metals might leach into the water system below. Therefore, the SPLC is the more appropriate procedure to use here to determine whether the HardieBoard material will leach certain metals into the groundwater at levels that exceed State drinking water standards. Even various Department guidance documents provide that the SPLC (rather than the TCLP) should be used to determine if a material will leach metals into the ground water. See Respondents' Exhibits M, N, and O. Respondents' witness Foster collected three samples of HardieBoard deposited by Respondents at another site and submitted them to PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, for a clinical analysis using the SPLC test. Those results, which have been accepted as being reliable,3 indicate that none of the leachate concentrations for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver exceed (or even approach) the drinking water standards. Therefore, the material is virtually inert, and the groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by use of this material as fill. The parties agree that the material is not a fire hazard. Prior to depositing the material, Mr. Stanton used a commercial waste reduction machine (a Smorcazy Bandit Beast 3680 Horizontal Trough Grinder) to grind or pulverize some of the material into fine particles. As noted earlier, a small amount of cellulose fibers are added to the product during the manufacturing process. The Department contends that after the grinding process occurs, these fibers will separate from the remaining fine particles and dissolve into the ground water. Because of this separation, the Department asserts that the material does not retain its physical or chemical structure after being deposited onto the property. Although cellulose fibers are added to the product during its preparation to strengthen the material (and have been added by cement manufacturers since the 1920s), they are distributed throughout the matrix in the material. This means that the fibers become "part and parcel of the mixture" and will not deteriorate, fall out, or leach out of the material even after routine grinding processes, such as that done by Respondents. As such, the cellulose is not biodegradable, and there is no concern that the cellulose will dissolve into the groundwater. Indeed, HardiePipe, which is used in the construction of culverts, storm sewers, and drainage pipes and has essentially the same constituents as HardieBoard, was approved by the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001 for use on State road and bridge projects. Therefore, it is found that the fill material will retain its physical and chemical structure after being deposited onto the ground. Expert testimony by Dr. McClellan established that the material meets the general definition of concrete, and because it is uncontaminated, it should properly be classified as uncontaminated concrete. As such, the material is clean debris and is not subject to the Department's solid waste management permitting requirements. Finally, the Department points out that the compressive strength (measured in pounds per square inch (PSI)) is much greater for concrete used in driveways than for HardiBoard (2500 PSI versus 20 to 30 PSI), and therefore Hardiboard is not a true concrete product. While the PSI values are indeed substantially different, the load bearing ratio or compressive strength of the material does not determine whether a material falls within the generic category of concrete. Water Issues As noted above, if a material is classified as clean debris, it may be deposited into an area prone to flooding or in a natural or artificial body of water, including groundwater (subject, of course, to other unrelated requirements or safeguards). There is no evidence that the filling occurred in a "natural or artificial water body," or directly into the groundwater. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that in October 2001, the ground next to the filled area had small pockets of standing water measuring no more than a few inches deep. However, when the inspection was made, and the photographs taken, Polk County was experiencing rather heavy rainfall, presumably due to the El Nino phenomenon. Whether these conditions (pockets of standing water) exist on the property only during the rainy season is not of record. Further, prior to the filling, Mr. Stanton contacted both the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the United States Geodetic Survey and he asserted, without contradiction, that neither agency indicated that his property was prone to flooding. In any event, even assuming that the area is subject to "frequent and periodic flooding," the permit requirements or other necessary safeguards, if any, associated with filling clean debris in such an area are not the subject of this proceeding. Investigative Costs A Department representative spent 66 hours investigating this matter for the Department. At a then-hourly rate of $18.54, this totals $1,223.64 in investigative costs. The reasonableness of this amount was not disputed by Respondents.
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 WACOC has given reasonable assurance that the landfill it proposes to build would comply with applicable requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1987), and rules promulgated thereunder?
Findings Of Fact A mile east of the intersection of U.S. Highway 90 and State Road 393, south of Dorcas in eastern Okaloosa County, WACOC has assembled some 1,760 acres on U.S. Highway 90 --- only 160 acres shy of three square miles. WACOC proposes to use as much of the land as possible for the disposal of solid waste, and "would like to use the proposed landfill as a regional landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p.8. (T.68) The company does not own all the land outright but, with the conveyance of a parcel on the morning the final hearing began (T.77), WACOC had obtained (an encumbered) fee interest in the 55 acres on which it proposes to put Phase I, "a hole-in-the-ground landfill which can come into contact with the groundwater table," (T.737) and the subject of the pending application. WACOC has a "whole lot of option money out there," (T.86) although none of WACOC's stockholders has previous experience in the landfill business. Private Enterprise Chris Cadenhead owns stock individually and "is 100 percent owner of SRD, Incorporated" (T.93), itself an owner of WACOC stock. Serving with Chris Cadenhead and Larry Anchors on WACOC's board of directors, at the time of the hearing, was James Ward, formerly a legislator and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. (T.48) Like Mr. Anchors, Mr. Ward originally owned 24% of WACOC's stock. The only shareholder who testified at the hearing was Arthur Frederick Schneider. Before he succeeded Mr. Cadenhead as president of WACOC, Mr. Schneider had had a distinguished career as a naval officer, and later tried his hand at farming, but this venture ended in bankruptcy. "SRD has been funding this thing." (T.86) Where SRD, Inc. obtained more than three-quarters of a million dollars is not clear from the record. As far as the evidence showed, Chris Cadenhead's father, Rhett, had no interest in WACOC, although he did appear on behalf of the company at a county commission meeting in June of 1987. Larry Anchors, a WACOC shareholder and formerly an Okaloosa County Commissioner, contributed $35,000 a few days after the Okaloosa County Commission awarded the waste disposal contract. (T.87) Nothing has been paid the company under the agreement WACOC entered into with Okaloosa County on June 18, 1987, Citizens' Exhibit No. 1, which was reduced to writing on or before July 10, 1987. WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1. Under the contract, WACOC undertakes to move solid waste from transfer points in the southern part of the county and deposit them in the landfill it proposes for a per ton "tip fee of $17.70 (Present value as of 6/16/87)," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 13 (emphasis in original), which is to be "adjusted automatically upward or downward to reflect the change in Consumer Price Index." Id. The County guarantees WACOC 275 tons per day and pledges to "exercise its best efforts to insure that all the Solid Waste generated within the County will be delivered to one of the designated transfer stations or the landfill," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 8, for the next thirty years. At present, the County generates "including the municipality . . . about 525-550 tons a day." (T. 61) The County agrees to cooperate "to obtain financing of the real property and equipment necessary [for WACOC] to perform . . . by a proposed bond issue." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 14. To this end, the county commission adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of industrial revenue bonds in accordance with Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000. Alternatively, and perhaps more in keeping with current tax law, "it's going to one of the larger financial institutions like Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith or someone like that and actually a bond issue through them, non-industrial," (T.74) or so WACOC intends. Phase I Designed to receive Okaloosa County's solid waste for five years, Phase I is to occupy a site on the eastern slope of a small hill between the east and west branches of Mare Creek, which converge in Fawn Lake, north of the property on which WACOC has options. Water flows out of Fawn Lake into a no longer bifurcated Mare Creek (which was dammed to create the lake), and ultimately into the Shoal River, more than 3,000 feet from the site. By rule, DER has designated Shoal River outstanding Florida waters. Fawn Lake and Mare Creek are Class III surface waters. The Phase I site is "zoned for agricultural uses, which was determined by the Okaloosa County attorney to be appropriate for a landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p. 7, No. 5. "The county attorney's determination has not been ratified by the County Commissioners." Id. Site Geology "Subsurface conditions have obviously a tremendous effect on the design of the landfill." (T.592) "[A] site's geological and hydrological characteristics are relevant to its potential for contamination." Prehearing Stipulation, p.7, No.4. Throughout the 1760-acre site, beneath a thin topsoil and root mat layer, the site soils consist of clean loose sands to an average depth of about 8 feet below ground surface. . . . From a depth of about 8 feet to 18 feet, a layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand (with some coarse sand and fine gravel) covers most of the proposed landfill site. . . . Beneath the clayey sand unit are loose and dense . . . sands . . . . WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B. The clayey sand unit occurring underneath the loose, Pliocene sands on the surface is part of the Citronelle formation, which "characteristically changes abruptly over very short distances." (TB. 29) The Citronelle consists "principally of quartz sand, with numerous beds, stringers and lenses of clay and gravel." CCE's Exhibit No. 21, p. 33. "The soils on the site standing alo[ne] would not be sufficient for a liner." I.T. 559 WACOC's expert reported an "average vertical hydraulic conductivity for [the upper Citronelle of] . . . 6.2 x 10-7 cm/sec (1.7 x 10-3 feet/day)." Laboratory tests on soil samples, taken more than eight and less than 18 feet below the surface of the site proposed for Phase I, demonstrated the variability of the sands making up the upper portion of the Citronelle formation on site. The percent finer than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve (silt and clay size fraction) . . . ranges between 17.5% to 41.7% . . . . "Vertical hydraulic conductivities for . . . [deeper] sands [on which waste disposal cell liners are to be laid] range from approximately 2.7 x 10-5 cm/sec to 5.8 x 10-4 cm/sec (0.08 to 1.62 feet/day)." Id. The variability of fines contents among samples reflects variability in hydraulic conductivity in the upper Citronelle, as well. This variability explains why an average permeability or vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle is of limited use in predicting how quickly rainwater will move through it, if these sands are used to cap the landfill after its completion, as proposed. Samples taken from eleven borings made throughout the entire 1,760-acre site were the basis for the applicant's average vertical hydraulic conductivity number. Only one of the borings was done on the Phase I site itself. If a ten-foot thick, continuous layer of clayey sands with a vertical conductivity of 6.2 x 10-7 centimeters per second occurred eight feet beneath the surface, the overlying Pliocene sands would hold a water table year round, given the high rainfall in the area. In fact, the applicants' consultants reported a water table on the Phase I site 21 to 30 feet down, beneath or within, but not above, the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle, in February of 1988. (T.595) The higher water tables observed in October of 1988 were also below the loose surficial sands. This demonstrates a vertical hydraulic conductivity for the upper Citronelle beneath the site proposed for Phase I well above the reported average. A borrow pit, off site but nearby, illustrates the fallacy of relying on average conductivity values to predict the movement of water. At the upper end of the excavation, a seep emerges from the sand to form a stream that flows 40 or 50 feet across red clayey materials resembling those on site, then sinks, disappearing into the earth. Even the value assigned to a particular split spoon sample may be a misleading average. B.T.126-7. Preliminary Plans Drawn In Phase I, WACOC proposes to excavate three different areas or cells for solid waste disposal "to approximately 20 feet below natural grade." (T.116) Accepting information they were furnished, the design engineers made the important (T.172) but erroneous assumption that the water table on site fluctuates only within a range "from five to fifteen feet" (T.132) below that. The plan is to fill each cell with solid waste and covering layers of various soils to a height 90 feet above existing grade. Trees growing within the 300- foot green belt planned for the perimeter of the 1,760-acre site would shield the landfill from the view of motorists on U.S. Highway 90. Separated from each other by berms, cells 1 (520' x 520') and 2 (520' x 650') would abut each other south of cell 3 (480' x 1170'), with another set of berms circumscribing all three cells. The bottom of each cell is to have a gradual V-shape, sloping "approximately one percent in the longitudinal direction and two percent in the traverse direction[s]," (T.116) toward the centerline. The plans call for compaction of the soils, once excavation has been accomplished, and for "root pickers" to remove rocks, roots and any other sharp objects. The plans do not contemplate the use of sieves. WACOC proposes to line these pits by covering the naturally occurring, compacted soils with a 1.5 millimeter (60 mil) layer of high density polyethylene, a plastic which has been manufactured for use in land fill liners at least since 1982. (T.401) The purpose of lining landfills is to contain contaminated water that would otherwise escape into the environment. Rain percolating through solid waste, together with moisture already in the solid waste at the time it is deposited in the landfill, leaches chemicals from the waste, producing a toxic solution called leachate. Products of industry make their way into household garbage and the municipal waste stream. About two percent of waste that reaches municipal sanitary landfills consists of materials which, if generated industrially in quantity could not lawfully be disposed of, except as hazardous waste. Scientists have "found municipal waste landfill leachates that were as toxic as those from Love Canal." (IT.696) Gundle Liner WACOC has decided to obtain a liner which meets minimum requirements of the National Sanitation Foundation Standard Number 54, Flexible Membrane Liners, November, 1983, from Gundle Lining Systems, Inc. (Gundle). "All Gundle materials are available in 22 1/2' widths with no factory seams " WACOC's Exhibit No. 7. Gundle's own employees would unroll the plastic, position it using "tack welding" to form a continuous sheet, join the strips with extrusion welds, inspect the seams visually, perform destructive "shear and peel tests . . . by random selection no less than the [to be] agreed [but unspecified at hearing] frequency . . . . [and conduct v]acuum testing [which] follows no specific standard." WACOC's Exhibit No. 7, Enclosure 6. (T.403, 411- 2) As a condition of the permit (No. 26), DER would require that an independent third party, a registered professional engineer, participate in quality assurance. High density polyethylene's "chemical resistance and durability. . . . enable[ Gundle] . . . to offer a 20-year warranty . . . for both the product and installation." (T.404) Gundle's liability under the warranty depends on how many years remain under warranty and "shall in no event exceed the amount of the sale price." (IT.434) The warranty excludes "any liability for consequential damages arising from the loss of . . . product owing to the failure of the material or installation," id.; CCE's Exhibit No. 3, and any liability whatsoever in the event of acts of God, including floods, and "excessive pressure or stress from any source." CCE's Exhibit No. 3; (IT.432). While the material may well outlast the warranty, perhaps by decades, in "geological time," it will inevitably fail. In the short term, too, the integrity of liners like that proposed is highly problematic. Past problems have included "mechanical damage . . . of one form or another such as with the bulldozer, or if somebody drops something." (IT.429) Here, before the first lift of solid waste (which would not include construction or demolition debris) is placed, four feet of sand (stockpiled during excavation) would be piled on top of the disposal cell liner. A bulldozer's gash might not go unnoticed, but small holes along seams can be missed, despite rigorous quality control measures. At the Ocean County landfill in New Jersey, "there was more liquid . . . than would have been true from the calculated moisture vapor transmission data," (IT.427) but Gundle's chemist testified this might have been "condensation on the soils on the back side of the liner." Id. Leachate Collection Embedded within the sand layer, in the crotch of the V, six-inch, perforated, schedule 80 PVC pipe, wrapped in filter cloth, is designed to collect leachate. The top of the pipe is to be eight inches above the liner, according to the leachate underdrain detail on sheet 15 of WACOC's Exhibit No. One pipe running the length of cell 3 and another running through cells 1 and 2 would move leachate to the leachate trunk line, another (intact) PVC pipe which would, in turn, empty into a paved flume in the leachate collection pond. The pond has been sized to contain the amount of leachate WACOC's consultants originally predicted a 25 year return 24-hour storm would generate, together with the rainfall such an event would deposit in the leachate collection pond, and still leave a foot of freeboard. "You have room below that major storm elevation that holds 60 to 70,000 cubic feet of leachate." I.T. 127. Except for the flume, the leachate pond is to be lined, like the disposal cells, with high density polyethylene. In the leachate collection pond, only 18 inches of sand would overlie the synthetic liner. From time to time, leachate would be pumped from the pond into tank trucks for removal to the Garnier wastewater treatment plant, which has a capacity of 6,500,000 gallons per day. Garnier is specifically permitted to receive only domestic wastewater, but the permit does not forbid industrial wastewater, and the plant now accepts leachate from the Wright landfill. DER has not classified landfill leachate either as domestic or as industrial wastewater. Before accepting it for treatment, the plant might require pretreatment of the leachate, whether on account of its anticipated acidity or for other reasons. If leachate causes sludge from Garnier to exceed standards for heavy metals, the sludge can be deposited in a Class 1 landfill like the one proposed here. WACOC has not yet entered into a contract with Garnier's operator for treatment of leachate. Not until leachate is removed from the leachate collection pond are pumps to be employed. Leachate would have to accumulate on the waste disposal cell liners and enter a pipe, in order to leave the cells. The design specifies perforations along the whole length of leachate collection pipe, around the bottom of the pipe. If the pipes clogged west of the cell walls, leachate could flow through sand and reenter the pipe further downslope. Outside the waste disposal cells, manholes have been planned, to afford access for cleaning the pipes out. The applicant did not demonstrate with calculations that gravity would induce flow through the pipes at a rate sufficient to remove leachate deeper than 12 inches. In the leachate collection pond, which is to be roughly 200 by 500 feet, leachate might attain a depth of several feet, before being pumped into a tank truck. The pond sides are to be lined with high density polyethylene to a height nine feet above the pond bottom. As far as the evidence showed, the depth of leachate in the pond would never fall below 18 inches anywhere on the pond bottom, once leachate began filling the leachate collection pond. Only if leachate were extracted from the sand covering the liner could the leachate head in the pond fall below one foot. The plan is for tank truck operators to place their hoses on "a concrete flume on top of that sand." I.T. 127. Stormwater Management Berms encircling the solid waste disposal cells, together with a series of ditches and culverts, are intended to direct stormwater away from the solid waste to a retention pond for temporary storage and treatment, before discharge offsite. To the extent stormwater which would otherwise flow into solid waste disposal cells can be diverted elsewhere, the volume of leachate can be diminished. The berms also serve to prevent rain falling on solid waste from reaching the stormwater retention pond, or polluting stormwater that does. Lined with relatively impermeable soils, the stormwater retention pond, "a football field wide and two and a half football fields long," (T.201) is designed to be big enough to hold the runoff from a 100 year return storm, leaving two feet of freeboard. In practice, some stormwater would percolate into the ground through unlined ditch bottoms, never reaching the pond. Stormwater that did reach the pond would either evaporate or drain through sidedrains, which are to consist of perforated six-inch PVC pipe, encased in gravel and covered with permeable sand excavated on site. Lining most of the pond's perimeter, this sand would filter water seeping through it from the pond into the side drains. After collecting in an outfall pipe, water draining from the pond would travel 300 or 400 feet, before discharging above grade, near the east branch of Mare Creek. If, as would be likely, sea gull droppings regularly end up in the stormwater retention pond, phosphorous and nitrogen levels in the east branch of Mare Creek and downstream would increase in time. Other Measures Decomposing solid waste produces methane gas. When cell I is completed, vents are to be installed to direct methane gas into the atmosphere above the center of the cell. I.T.140; WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, p.23 and No.9, p.15. "[T]he wind will disperse any gas within the site." I.T.191,221. If sufficient quantities were generated, a gas collection system would be installed. I.T.140. 31 Spotters will try to divert hazardous or infectious waste, and should succeed in the event a hauler tries to dispose of an accurately labelled 55- gallon drum of a hazardous liquid or red-bagged waste from a hospital, but small quantities of gasoline, paint, paint thinners, cleaning fluids and other hazardous materials cannot practically be diverted. At the end of every working day, solid waste is to be covered with a six inch layer of soils from the site. Fences are planned downwind from the working face to collect windblown debris. Closure A landfill is a long-term proposition. Pollutants still leak from Roman landfills dating to 400 A.D. Contemporary landfills and their regulators recognize the importance of capping landfills to minimize infiltration by rainwater (and so production of leachate.) Even though the plans may be revised later, DER requires applicants for landfill construction permits to make plans for closure, before a construction permit is issued. Landfill operators must also make annual contributions to a trust fund to be used to close the landfill and to bear post-closure expenses, which include trucking leachate and monitoring groundwater. WACOC has already established the trust fund and deposited $100. As a condition of operating the landfill over the five years it proposes, WACOC must deposit one fifth of estimated closure and post-closure costs in the trust fund 60 days before beginning to fill, and another fifth annually (30 days after the anniversary date of the initial payment). The cost estimates are subject to revision annually. (I.T. 384, 843-4) Before closing a landfill, the operator must obtain a closure permit. The trust fund is not expected to absorb the costs of cleaning up polluted groundwater, if that should prove necessary. Local governments, which operate many landfills themselves, sometimes step in when problems with privately run landfills develop. ...A leak develops or something that would cost millions of dollars to address it and you don't have the insurance, you're out of business instantly. ...[WACOC's ability] to address a catastrophic situation that could develop with this is limited to how much capital they have. * * * ...[I]f you don't have some insurance, even if its $500,000 deductible,...if the problem occurs, you're gone. And if you don't have the capital to handle it, it will fall back in the taxpayer's lap which is typically what happens... . (II.T. 70-71) As WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12 concedes, WACOC's "liabilities are considerably in excess of its assets." Landfill operators are under no obligation to contract for environmental liability insurance, which is not readily available, in any event. WACOC proposes to cap Phase I with clayey sands excavated on site. The clay required to cap Phase I amounts to "ten acres of the surface by four feet deep, or one acre 41 feet deep." (II.T. 36) WACOC proposes to spread this quantity over all three cells, covering them with an 18-inch clayey sand blanket. On top of that, WACOC would place 18 inches of surficial sand and, finally, six inches of topsoil. The sands are readily available on site, but there is no topsoil to speak of. The clayey sand WACOC proposes to use as a foundation for the cap is too permeable to constitute an effective barrier. (B.T. 149,158), but WACOC could mix it with clay from off site or some other agent to render it less conductive of rainwater. The present plans do not call for mixing, however. High Density Polyethylene WACOC is proposing the synthetic liner underneath waste disposal cells and the leachate collection pond not as one component of a composite liner, (T.158) but as "the state of the art," (T.153) in and of itself. But "flaws in liners are a common occurrence." (IT. 698) After a liner has been laid down and covered with sand, "inadvertent cuts and nicks of unexplained origin" (IT.699) can and do occur. However conscientious, laborers hired as "root pickers" may miss an occasional rock. The plans only call for removal of objects larger than a quarter inch. High density polyethylene is a plastic. If laid over stone or other protuberances, "the plastic will flow away from that pressure point and eventually you will have a hole in the plastic." Id. An investigator examining 60 mil high density polyethylene used as landfill liner "found six pin-holes per acre, mostly associated with the seams, [an] average of 9.4 cuts [per acre] of unexplained origin, [and] 110 [perforations attributable to] rock protu[bera]nces per acre." (IT.705) In an EPA sponsored study, a liner manufacturer installed and third parties "did a careful job of inspecting," id., twelve "rather small" (IT.706) waste disposal cells. Eight of the twelve leaked. Even if holes did not let leachate escape, several carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic organic constituents of municipal waste leachate dissolve in liners like the one WACOC proposes, "diffuse through and are released on the other side." (IT.699) High density polyethylene is practically impervious to water: water vapor can move through it only at a rate of 1 x 10- 13 centimeters per second. But certain hydrophobic substances, including chlorinated hydrocarbons such as trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride, move readily through high density polyethylene, itself a "very hydrophobic material." (T.807) William T. Cooper, a chemistry professor who participated in developing DER's drinking water standards, appearing in this case as a witness for the objectors, testified: [O]ne of the major problems in doing this work [concerning organic pollutants in groundwater] is establishing . . . standards. In other words, we had to pollute water in a well defined way so that our machines would tell us there was a certain amount of pollution in the water. . . . . . . [W]e started using [p]olyethylene tubes into which we would put several different organic molecules for the very reason that these molecules diffuse so readily through the [p]olyethylene tubes that we could control the rate in which we were contaminating water for laboratory purposes. (IT.806) In order to calibrate their instruments, the scientists who developed drinking water standards for Florida relied on polyethylene containers' ability to transmit organic pollutants in solution inside a container to the water outside at a steady, predictable rate. Chemists think of polyethylene "as a condensed liquid . . . . [because] it has the ability to absorb molecules." (T.807) Water and polyethylene do not mix, however, just as oil and water do not; they are said to be immiscible and to form separate phases. When a third substance is dissolved in either of two immiscibles occurring together, the additive's molecules move between the two phases until equilibrium is reached. The concentration in one phase will differ from the concentration in the other, and both concentrations will depend on the amount of the additive introduced (until saturation), but the ratio of the two concentrations (the "distribution ratio" or "partition coefficient") will always be the same, at equilibrium. A chemist in Gundle's employ testified that any "organic solvents in the leachate . . . would tend to float on the aqueous phase." (T.406) But some hydrophobic organics, including trichloroethylene, are denser than water and would not float. (IT.831) Mr. Cadwallader, Gundle's chemist, conceded that organic materials are soluble in water "to a point of saturation, which typically is not very high . . . ." (T.425) The leachate's nonaqueous phase would occur to some extent, perhaps entirely, within the polyethylene liner. In this connection, the objectors' chemists' opinion, which Dr. Brown also shared, has been credited. For the same reasons Mr. Cadwallader "agree[d] that a liner would gain weight when it is immersed in a pure organic solution," (T423) the liner would swell, as a variety of organic pollutants diffused into it from the leachate. Such swelling has been reported in low density polyethylene. WACOC's Exhibit No. 18. With groundwater in contact with the outside of the liner, the organic pollutants with which the liner was swollen would diffuse into the groundwater, until groundwater touching the liner acquired organic pollutants in the same concentrations in which they occurred in the aqueous phase of the leachate standing on the liner. It is even possible that concentrations of certain hydrophobic organics would be higher outside the liner than inside. (IT.818) If indeed a nonaqueous phase floated on top of the leachate, it would serve to replenish the aqueous phase, as hydrophobic organics diffused into the liner to replace those diffusing out of the liner into the groundwater or soils on the other side. (IT.831) Site Hydrogeology Groundwater flow "mirrors the topography of the site." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B, p.6. On the Phase I site, it flows to the north and the northeast, toward the east branch of Mare Creek. At monitoring well 1, the flow is "about a 45-degree angle down and to the east northeast." B.T.119. Lining the disposal cells and the leachate collection pond with high density polyethylene would curtail recharge (and evapotranspiration) under the cells and the pond. The plan is to line the stormwater retention pond with the same clayey sands that fail to hold a water table. B.T.175 Percolation from stormwater ditches or, despite its lining, even from the retention pond might cause slight mounding of the groundwater under those structures. But construction of Phase I would not appreciably alter the general direction of the groundwater flow. To the extent mounding occurs beneath the stormwater retention pond, groundwater table elevations under proposed cell 3 would be higher than they otherwise would have been. Elsewhere, the cell liners should have the effect of lowering groundwater elevations below what they would otherwise have been, ignoring infiltration from stormwater ditches. Any changes may be very slight, since groundwater from recharge areas upslope apparently flows under the site. In February of 1988, piezometers were used to measure water table elevations on the Phase I site. Distance between elevations proposed for liners and the February 1988 water table varied, but were no less than nine feet at any point measured. Based on the February 1988 measurements, the design engineers assumed an unsaturated zone 25 to 30 feet thick. But, on October 11, 1988, the second day of hearing, the same piezometers (B.T. 19) disclosed much higher water table elevations. Near the creek, the water table had risen only 4.92 feet higher than it had been in February, but in the wells closest to cell 1, the October water table exceeded the February elevations by 11.33 and 11.41 feet. (B.T. 40) On October 11, 1988, the water table was "above the bottom of the liner of the proposed landfill in cell two, portions of cell two, a lot of it, portions of cell one and a corner of cell three," (B.T. 44) with "about two feet of water above the proposed liner in the corner of cell two." Id. The levels may have been considerably higher in September. Since periodic measurements have not been taken over the requisite year or two, the seasonal high water table on the Phase I site has not been determined. The height of the groundwater table depends on how quickly rainwater percolates down to the water table to replace groundwater lost to evapotranspirtation or subterranean flow offsite. Groundwater under the Phase I site discharges into the east branch of Mare Creek. The timing as well as the amount of rainfall figure in, because once the soils are saturated, rain runs off instead of infiltrating. Still monthly rainfall is a good indicator of how much water has percolated down to recharge an aquifer. No records of rainfall on the site itself exist, but statistics from sites not far away show that extraordinarily high rainfall in September of 1988 contributed to the groundwater elevations measured on October 11, 1988. At one or more wells on site, the water table dropped another foot between October 18 and October 26, 1988. CCE's Exhibit No. 36. Rainfall data suggest that in most years, "the actual peak high for a water table probably would be towards the end of August." (B.T. 95) At present, the surficial aquifer beneath the proposed landfill site contains potable water. People living in the area draw water from the surficial aquifer for drinking water purposes, in one case from a well only some 30 feet deep. The nearest well to Phase I is 3,000 feet away, on the other side of the east branch of Mare Creek. The surficial aquifer goes all the way down to the Alum Bluff group, 75 feet below ground. Saltwater intrusion threatens in southern Okaloosa County. By 1995, if its growth continues at the present rate, the City of Destin will require another, supplementary water supply. Plans to tap the Floridan in northern Okaloosa County include well fields in the Eglin Air Force Base area and north of Freeport. But the Floridan "won't supply all the future projected needs." (II.T. 16) Desalinization is expensive. Eventually Okaloosa County is "going to have to look further toward the use of surficial water," (II.T. 13) as a public water supply. Leachate Characteristics Leachate from municipal landfills has high biological oxygen demand, high salt content, and significant concentrations of metals and organics. (I.T. 699) Cleaning solvents, oil-based paint, furniture polish, spot removers, xylene, toluene and benzene are among common constituents of municipal waste. Lisa Stewart, who picks up garbage in northern Okaloosa County four days a week, has noticed "containers containing a substance" (II.T.137) bearing such labels as naphtha, methylene chloride, toluol, burnt motor oil, insecticides, fungicides, trichloroethane, oxalic acid, xylol, petroleum distillates, polyglycol ether, plasticizers, sulfuric acid, methanol, ethanol and sodium hydroxide. Scientists have found every chemical DER lists on its "primary or secondary water quality standard numeric list" (I.T. 697) in municipal leachate, as well as "about 20 chemicals that are known to [b]e carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic which are not on that list." Id. At least some of this latter group can be anticipated at the proposed landfill, if it is built. The organic materials degrade only slowly; they have half-lives ranging from 20 to 50 years. (I.T. 698) Biochemical oxygen demand accounts for most of the stench to be expected from leachate standing in the leachate collection pond. The "combination . . . of hazardous waste from small quantity generators and from households we would expect to be somewhere in the range of five to 10,000 tons per year." (T.T.148) In order to predict the amount of leachate to expect, experts on both sides resorted to a mathematical model, known acronymically as HELP, for "Hydrological Evaluation Landfill Program." (T.689) These experts made assumptions about annual rainfall, the permeability of the cap materials which, after their initial excavation and stockpiling are destined to do double duty as a final cover for the landfill, and other factors, in order to calculate the amount of leachate likely to accumulate above the liner. WACOC's consultants calculated a head of 2.4 inches, assuming annual rainfall of 68 inches, and an unrealistically low permeability for the clayey sands under the Phase I site which are to be used for capping the Phase I cells as they attain their design heights of 90 feet above grade. Using WACOC's average vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands of 6.2 X 10-7, without changing any other assumptions WACOC made in running the HELP model, yields a leachate head of 8.5 inches. Even if it were appropriate to use an average, this figure is low, because the permeability of materials recompacted in a laboratory is ordinarily ten times less than when the same material is compacted in the field. Here compaction "in the field" would occur on top of a mound of garbage. "[T]he system will be spongy." (I.T. 752) The HELP model makes no allowance for cracks in the cap, which are bound to occur, if WACOC closes the landfill as it proposes. As garbage degrades, it settles and sinks. This would cause shear planes or faults in the clayey sand cap, which cannot readily be detected, buried beneath sand, topsoil and vegetation. Estimating conservatively, "we could be dealing with twice as much water as we're calculating from the HELP model due simply to cracks in the facility." (I.T. 692) During those periods when the groundwater table is above the bottom of the disposal cell liners, groundwater infiltration through such imperfections as exist in submerged portions of the liners will increase leachate volume. Ignoring groundwater intrusion, cell 1 alone should produce 5,000 gallons a day of leachate the first year after closure. (I.T. 510-1). The applicant's own revised HELP model calculations put the leachate head at more than eight inches in a year in which rainfall on the site exceeded the annual average at Crestview by only eight percent (68 inches vs. 63 inches). A foot or more of head annually can be expected, taking into account cracks in the clay cap. Water Quality Monitoring WACOC's groundwater monitoring plan calls for a single well south and upgradient of the Phase I site to monitor "background" groundwater conditions, and a series of monitoring wells east and north of the site designed to detect any groundwater contamination the landfill may cause. WACOC's Exhibit No. 9, Sheet 11. Four of these downgradient wells would be placed by the eastern perimeter of the zone of discharge to measure compliance with DER's numeric water quality standards at that edge of the zone. Four other wells are planned within the zone of discharge. In addition, surface waters are to be monitored at seven points, five on the east branch of Mare Creek and two on the west branch, but none further south than the berm separating cell three from cells one and two. WACOC's own employees would take samples, arrange for their analysis and report the results to DER. Among the specified parameters are iron and chloride. As far as the record reveals, testing for sodium in addition would not make for earlier or more reliable leak detection. CCE's Exhibit No. 20. The suggestion that groundwater be tested for calcium assumed montmorillonite in the clayey sands, which the evidence did not show to be present. I.T. 988. According to a DER chemist, however, groundwater samples near landfills should be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 601/602. Since VOCs always appear to be present in landfill leachate and they can be detected in the subparts per billion (ppb) range, the test is a particularly sensitive indicator for the presence of organics in landfill leachate. (CCE's Exhibit No. 20, p.2.) Also among the specified parameters is fecal coliform, which makes any other routine testing for bacteria superfluous. Given the economic consequences for WACOC if a leak is discovered, it might be well to require WACOC to contract with an independent third party to monitor, in the event the landfill is built. Since groundwater flow on site has a vertical as well as a horizontal component, monitoring requires appropriate placement not only of wells, but also of screens. One approach is to cluster wells so that a succession of screens covers the entire thickness of the aquifer. Monitoring well screens should not exceed 15 feet in length, in order to avoid dilution that might render contaminants indetectable. CCE's Exhibit No. 2. But a hydrogeologist with sufficient information could place screens within transmissive zones through which groundwater flowing underneath the disposal cells or the leachate pond is likely to move. B.T. 136 With respect at least to leachate constituents that do not diffuse through liners, monitoring groundwater to detect pollution is more difficult if a landfill is lined than if it is not, because contaminant plumes are larger if they emanate from larger sources. CCE's Exhibit No. 19. Unless monitoring wells were sunk at ten-foot intervals east and north of where leachate is to collect, it would be easy to miss the plume from a small leak, which might be destined to become a large leak. But even the objectors' experts do not "consider that very practical financially." (B.T. 135) Groundwater Pollution Both through imperfections in the synthetic liner and, as regards hydrophobic organic pollutants with low molecular weights, by diffusion directly through even flawless portions of the liner, pollutants in the leachate will escape into the environment, if WACOC builds the landfill it has proposed for Phase I. As far as can be told from the evidence, the groundwater table would never reach the bottom of the leachate collection pond, so that adsorption and diffusion in soils underneath the pond would attenuate the effect of any leakage there, before it could enter the groundwater. But the soils on site have very low adsorption capacity and very low biological activity. I.T.719 Leachate leaving unlined, northwest Florida landfills five feet above the water table have caused serious pollution problems. The evidence showed that the groundwater table would rise above portions of the lined bottoms of all three waste disposal cells, on which leachate will also be standing. This may occur infrequently, would not necessarily happen every year, and would last for only a few weeks and days at a time, but it was the condition that obtained at the time of the hearing, two months later than seasonal high groundwater should normally occur. When it does happen, "it's entirely possible the leachate will be the same concentration as the groundwater in contact with the bottom of the liner." I.T. 701. In any case, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic agents (I.T. 697), including up to 20 for which DER has not established numeric limits, would occur in the leachate, and some would enter the groundwater, violating the DER "free from" requirement. I.T. 777. Precise concentrations have not been forecast but, at least at times, over the course of the landfill's existence, the leachate would contain certain mutagenic substances for which no safe lower limit has been established. Nor did the evidence give reasonable assurance that violations of DER's numeric standards pertaining to the trichloroethylenes, the tetrachloroethylenes and vinyl chloride would be unlikely outside the zone of discharge. I.T. 771,781-2. It depends in part on the volume or rate at which leachate or these constituents leak. B.T. 94. The evidence showed they will leak at some rate, even where there are no flaws in the liner. In a test involving higher concentrations of trichlorethylene and other organics than are anticipated here, experimenters observed a "flow rate . . . on the order of 125 gallons per acre per day from concentrated organics." I.T. 702. In 27 acres of plastic, flaws are to be expected. Good intentions notwithstanding, the evidence showed holes in the synthetic liner should be anticipated, and taken into account in designing a landfill. The rate at which leachate will leak through these imperfections depends on their number, shape and size; and, as to each, the depth of the leachate above it and the permeability of the medium below it. A circular hole with a diameter of one- sixteenth of an inch will discharge liquid, standing on top of it a foot deep, at the rate of 70 gallons a day, into air, gravel or porous sand. The rate for a similar hole with a diameter of one-eighth of an inch is 192 gallons per day. In the event of a leak above or near an area like the one into which the seep sank in the borrow pit, the soil would not slow the rate of leakage. (I.T. 718) Otherwise, for a given leachate head, the conductivity of the soil (if unsaturated) would determine the leakage rate. "[T]here will be less depth higher up the liner." I.T.760. But where the liner is lowest and the leachate deepest, the liner will lie over the loose sands that occur beneath the clayey sands. Rating tests demonstrated considerable variability in the hydraulic conductivity of all of the sands tested. Piezometer readings on October 18 and 26, 1988, showed how they transmit water as a unit. In eight days the water table (which is only at atmospheric pressure) fell a foot. The clayey sands would not prevent leachate's leaving the waste disposal cells and entering the groundwater, although in some places (where the leachate has less depth), they would slow the rate of leakage. "We could get tens of thousands of gallons [annually] leaking out of a 27-acre site which this is through holes." (I.T. 707) With groundwater in contact with portions of the liners, the leakage rate there would depend on the relative elevations of the groundwater table and the leachate standing on the liners. If the groundwater table were higher, upward pressure might push groundwater into the disposal cells, disminishing or even preventing leachate leakage until the water table fell below the height of the surface of the leachate. But, when that happened, direct discharge of undiluted leachate can be expected, directly to the groundwater, as long as groundwater abutted a flaw in the liner. DER's rules do not apply the numeric standards underneath or within 100 feet of waste disposal cells, which the rules denominate a "zone of discharge." Whether numeric standards are violated at the edge of the zone of discharge depends not only on the leakage rate, but also on where the leak occurs, on the velocity of the groundwater, and on pollutant concentrations in the leachate. Calculations taking all these factors into account have not been done for WACOC's Phase I. But credible expert testimony predicted such violations would eventually occur outside the zone of discharge. I.T.771. Synthetic liners like the one WACOC proposes are usually placed on top of three feet of highly impermeable, mineralogically suitable clay. "A clay liner...will retain organics to a greater extent than a synthetic liner." I.T. 823. Using it as proposed here, where it would come into direct contact with groundwater, does not give reasonable assurance that groundwater pollution will not occur.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER deny WACOC's application for a permit to construct a class I landfill in Okaloosa County. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 23, 24, 25, 32 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 50, 52, 54, 56 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 except for the sentence "DER has no rule prohibiting contact of the liner with ground water," 63, 65, 66 except for the second clause which is rejected, 67, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 and 85 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the intent to issue is dated April 1, 1988. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, financial feasibility was not demonstrated but is not material under the rules. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4, 5 and 6, closure cost estimates assume the suitability of the clayey sands on site as a cap, which the weight of the evidence did not establish to be the case. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, the use of a high density polyethylene membrane, without more, to keep hydrophobic organic materials out of abutting groundwater is not proven technology, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the rules do not require environmental liability insurance. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 10, 19, 20, 26, 35, 37, 44, 55, 61, 71, 74, 75, 77, 82, 86 and 87 are rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13, the fact that a synthetic liner separates solid waste from the groundwater does not make it permissible to deposit solid waste in groundwater. While the October readings did not prove that groundwater would rise above the sand in which the leachate will collect to touch the solid waste itself, September's rainfall, the rate at which the water table dropped between October 18 and 26, 1988, and the probability of defects in the liner showed that this was a realistic possibility. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 16, two percent of the materials disposed of in municipal sanitary landfills are hazardous in a chemical, if not legal, sense. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the "state of the art" use of high density polyethylene liners is as one component of a composite liner, or even as part of a double liner system, at a hydrogeologically suitable location. This material works well for some purposes and not at all for others. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 28, there was no showing that any other Florida landfill has been placed so as to come into contact with the groundwater table, or that a synthetic liner has ever been used for a landfill without clay; synthetically lined landfills have only recently been installed in Florida, and detection of leaks from lined landfills is difficult. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 29, since uncontaminated water is not a pollutant, it is not a permeant of concern. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 30, the evidence showed that under ideal, test conditions, 8 of 12 liners leaked. Under actual field conditions leaks exceeded 100 per acre. The weight of the evidence makes it unreasonable to conclude that 27 acres of plastic can be laid down in Okaloosa County without any flaws. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the rate of 192 gallons per day assumed gravel or porous sand which offers essentially the same resistance as air; there is no sandy clay anywhere on site, as far as the evidence showed; more than 18 feet below the surface, where most of the liner is to be laid, there are not even clayey sands, according to WACOC's own expert; the sands that do occur there include loose sands with a permeability greater than 4.9 X 10-4; and include numerous gravel beds; the .00022 gallons per day calculation assumes a hole a quarter as large (half the radius of Dr. Brown's) and ignores horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The fact that the water table dropped a foot in about a week demonstrates that the soils cannot be counted on to contain the leachate underneath flaws in the liner. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 33 and 34, Haxo's results were consistent with their conclusions but explicitly not the only basis for them. Gundle's chemist conceded that hydrophobic organic materials diffuse through high density polyethylene. His opinion that an accumulation in the soils on the other side would equalize concentrations and stop further diffusion did not take into account groundwater abutting the liner, and flushing the soils. The liner absorbs materials; but adsorption does not take place there. Transportation and dispersion need not be known as to "free froms." On page I.T. 777, Dr. Brown testified that diffusion would cause violations of DER's regulations, and this testimony has been credited. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 36, the swelling of the liner with organic materials is evidence of the diffusion which would result in organic materials' entering the groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 39 and 41, one inch of leachate in all three cells amounts to 2.25 acre feet, which is more than a "little." Calculations have not been done. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 40 and 42, no allowance was made for cracks in the cap material (which cannot be seen under the vegetation, topsoil and drainage sand layer.) With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 43, a much greater leachate head than within the waste disposal cells may occur depending on where the marker is placed, but hydrophobic organics diffusing through the liner and absorbing in the soils would not be flushed out by groundwater. Except for the last sentence, this proposed finding of fact reflects the weight of the evidence. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 47, some water will evaporate. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 51, monitoring wells 8 and 9 are both more than 100 feet from waste disposal areas. The evidence did not show that the monitoring wells "can be expected to detect any contamination." With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 53, DER's experience also suggested testing for volatile organic chemicals. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the rate of decline also suggests that the water table was as higher elevations than those measured. An applicant must give reasonable assurance that pollution in violation of DER rules will not occur under foreseeable, recurring conditions, including during those times the liner is submerged. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 65, the proposed finding is adopted, as regards physical tears. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 68, the proposed finding is adopted, except for leakage through the liner, sometimes directly to groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 76, clayey sands were not reported below 18 feet. The difficulty with the groundwater monitoring plan is not the soil characterization, but the number of wells. Because synthetic liners leak, clay mineralogy is important to know. No clay is proposed here, however. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 84, effective odor control would also entail emptying the leachate pond regularly. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45 50, 58, 61, 64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 75, the first sentence of No. 76, Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, and the first sentence of 113 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the current tonnage figures appear in the application but their accuracy has not been established by competent evidence. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12, projected profits depend on various problematic assumptions. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the initial payment was $100. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 18, the cost estimate's reasonableness depends largely on what it would cost to obtain suitable material for a cap, which is not clear. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 20, Scott had independent knowledge of the availability and cost of clay. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the proposed finding accurately reflects the evidence, with the qualification that the layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand also contains some coarse sand and fine gravel. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 22, the water table will be below the liner most, but not all, of the time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 28, see the discussion of DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 29, 59, 63 and 78 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 30, hazardous materials will end up in the landfill. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 39, the liner's permeability depends on the permeant. Although it is almost impervious to water, hydrophobic organics move readily through. Clay is a much better liner for those materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the Gundle liner by itself is not the state of the art in Florida or anywhere else for municipal sanitary landfills. Proposed conclusions of law are addressed elsewhere. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 41, in the puncture test, the liner withstood a probe exerting 270 ponds of pressure. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 44, there are no clayey sands at the depth proposed for the deeper portions of the waste disposal cell liners, as WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21 and 27, taken together reflect. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 46, as the manufacturer's representative said, "these liners are a part of the quote unquote state of the art requirement for lined hazardous waste facilities." I.T. 404 (emphasis supplied). The other part is three feet of clay, not sand, underneath. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 47, it depends on the hazardous waste facility. A DER chemist, Mr. Watts, recommended monitoring groundwater near a municipal landfill for volatile organic chemicals. While most municipal garbage is not toxic, leachate from municipal waste is toxic. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 48, the testimony was that the groundwater pollution at Wright landfill was "most likely" from unlined cells. No lined landfill in DER's Northwest District has been built below the groundwater table as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 49, While municipal leachate constituents should not corrode the liner, many can diffuse through it. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 50, some two percent of the waste stream will still be hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 51, some organic materials will sink, rather than float. The sand within which the leachate will accumulate will not extract or absorb organic constituents of the leachate, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 52, removal is first to the leachate collection pond, also lined with high density polytheylene. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 53, it is wholly improbable that 27 acres of plastic will be installed "without physical flaws." Leakage could exceed 10,000 gallons a year. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 54, not all organic materials diffuse though high density polyethylene. Dr. Haxo's views on WACOC's proposal are not a matter of record. The 448-page EPA Study discusses containment techniques. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 55, the Haxo studies are pertinent although they do not purport to replicate a landfill precisely. In some studies he used concentrations of a single organic that were comparable to the concentrations of organics as a whole in municipal leachate. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 56, direct discharge of leachate into the groundwater, even in small quantities could violate the "free from" standards as could diffusion into the groundwater of carcinogenic, teratogenic or mutagenic, hydrophobic organic materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 57, CCE's experts' views about synthetic liners coincided in important respects with those of Gundle's chemist. There is no clayey layer where much of the waste disposal cells' liners are supposed to go. Given the certainty of leakage directly to the groundwater, it is the applicant's burden to do quantative analysis. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 60, there are no data for the site itself. The available data are incomplete. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 62, the February water level is likely to be more common than the October water level. The weight of the evidence did not establish that "under normal conditions the water level should fluctuate no more than five feet." With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the proposed finding reflects the evidence except for the final sentence. *** With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 67, 68 and 69, it is inappropriate to schedule pumpout times at this stage. But it is appropriate to consider above average annual rainfall. Annual leachate production differs from the amount of head at any one time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 73, the design engineer suggested Roto-Rooter. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 74, intersection should not occur. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 77, municipal landfills are not viewed as hazardous waste generators under federal law. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 82, the second sentence was not proven. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 84, there may be some infiltration. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 89, it would be very expensive to place enough monitoring wells to assure detection of any leaks. Placement of screens should be less of a problem than sinking enough wells. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 91, the Watts memo's suggestion of testing for volatile organic chemicals should give additional assurance. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 95, two percent of the waste stream can be anticipated to consist of hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109, the proposed clayey sand materials used in the thickness proposed would not create the barrier claimed. Modifications not proposed in the application are possible. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 110, 111 and 112, WACOC has not given reasonable assurance that pollution of the groundwater in violation of DER water quality standards would not occur; or that no more than a foot of leachate would stand on the liner. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert H. Huelsman Anna M. Huelsman 608 Ironwood Drive Fort Walton, FL 32548 Debra Swim, Esquire 1323 Diamond Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire Post Office Box 887 Mary Esther, Florida 32569 William L. Hyde, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, Laface & Richard Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Chris McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On November 1, 1985, Broward County filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a solid waste construction permit, and on August 23, 1985, an application for a dredge and fill permit. The permits would have allowed Broward County to construct a Class I landfill in southwestern Broward County, Florida. On April 19, 1986, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested solid waste permit, and on November 13, 1986, gave notice of its intent to issue the dredge and fill permit. Petitioners filed a timely request for formal hearing on each permit, and their petitions were consolidated for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the solid waste permit and the dredge and fill permit sought by Broward County be ISSUED. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1987.
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Vigna and his corporation, AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., should be disciplined for the improper disposal of hazardous waste.
Findings Of Fact Lyn-Rand, Inc., was a corporation in the metal fabrication and painting business in Dade County, Florida, during April and May of 1989. The industrial processes used by Lyn-Rand required the use of solvents, cutting oils, and other chemicals. Lyn-Rand employed Courtney Warrenfeltz as its quality control director. Mr. Warrenfeltz had met Dr. Anthony Vigna, who held himself out as a transporter of hazardous waste. Dr. Vigna offered to dispose of 55-gallon drums of waste which had accumulated at the Lyn-Rand facility. Dr. Vigna took samples of the waste, offered to use his federal EPA identification number in connection with the disposal, and do all the paper work involved with the disposal. Mr. Warrenfeltz believed, based upon his conversations with Dr. Vigna, that Dr. Vigna was knowledgable about hazardous waste disposal. Mr. Warrenfeltz made arrangements for Dr. Vigna to pick up nine drums of cutting oils and cleaning solvents on Saturday, April 29, 1989. Dr. Vigna was paid $500 per drum. Those drums had been marked with "x's" on the tops and sides. An employee of Lyn- Rand, Carlos Alayon, had been left instructions to expect Dr. Vigna, and had been given a check to give Dr. Vigna when the drums were picked up. While Dr. Vigna was at the Lyn-Rand site to pick the drums up, he asked Alayon for some black paint which Dr. Vigna used to paint over the labels on the drums. Alayon then helped Dr. Vigna load the drums into a rental truck. Dr. Vigna gave Mr. Alayon no paperwork, such as a manifest, receipt, or shipping papers. Mr. Warrenfeltz never received any paperwork from Mr. Alayon or from Dr. Vigna. The drums Dr. Vigna took from Lyn-Rand were discovered later, Saturday, April 29, 1989, at the business premises of Compliance Technology, Inc., a corporation located in Broward County, which is licensed to act as a broker for hazardous waste. Compliance Technology, Inc., does not, however, act as a transporter of hazardous waste. The employee of Compliance Technology who found the drums near the back loading dock, Mike Webb, was concerned, because their labels had been obliterated with black paint and the only marks on the drums were the "x's." The obliteration of the labels was a cause for concern and the bungs appeared to be leaking around the tops of two of the drums. The drums had been abandoned near a storm drain. The drums were not fenced or secured; if someone had driven into them due to their placement on the ground near the loading dock, the drums could have ruptured and the contents flowed into the storm drain and eventually into the Biscayne Aquifer. Mr. Webb notified the founder of Compliance Technology, Dr. Solon Cole, of the discovery of the drums, and the matter was reported on or about May 1, 1989, to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board and the City of Hollywood Police Department. Compliance Technology moved the drums away from the storm drain, barricaded them, and replaced bungs in two of the drums. On or about May 5, 1989, Dr. Cole notified Jeff Tobergte, of the Department of Environmental Regulation office in West Palm Beach, about the drums. Mr. Tobergte went to Compliance Technology the next day, and photographed the drums and sampled their contents. He found that the drums contained various solvents, including methylene chloride, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene and phenol. The samples had a pH of less than 2 and a flash point of less than 60 degrees centigrade, and therefore were hazardous wastes. Dr. Cole and Mr. Tobergte were able to determine that one of the drums had a label which stated "Spray Iron Phosphatizer and Cleaner" "SC-283" from Novamax Tech in Atlanta, Georgia. After contacting Novamax Tech, Mr. Tobergte learned that SC-283 is an unusual product with only four buyers in Florida, three of them in Dade County, including Lyn-Rand. Mr. Tobergte then drove to all three locations in Dade County which were customers of Novamax Tech, and determined that the most likely source of the drums at Compliance Technology was Lyn-Rand. Mr. Tobergte visited Lyn-Rand on May 8, 1989, and verified that the drums he had photographed were drums which originated at Lyn-Rand. The verification was made by comparing the photographs of the drums left at Compliance Technology with drums at Lyn-Rand which still had labels. Mr. Warrenfeltz recognized the markings on the photos of the drums left at Compliance Technology. The pine needles found on the drums were also significant, since drums were stored in a manner at Lyn-Rand which lead to pine needles falling upon them. Mr. Warrenfeltz told Mr. Tobergte that Lyn-Rand had recently shipped nine drums and recognized the drums from the photographs as those delivered to Dr. Vigna. Lyn-Rand removed the drums from Compliance Technology's property and arranged for their proper disposal. Neither Dr. Anthony Vigna nor AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., has any EPA identification number. After the discovery of the abandoned drums, Mr. Vigna mailed a letter to Compliance Technology on May 10, 1989. The letter was backdated to April 28, 1989, and states in part that it was sent to Dr. Solon Cole, the President of Compliance Technology, "to make you aware of a delivery of nine drums that my driver will be leaving off at your plant." The letter was an after-the-fact attempt by Dr. Vigna to cover himself, which is foiled by the postmark date the letter bears. The content of the letter itself, however, leaves the impression that Dr. Cole and Compliance Technology had no prior awareness of the delivery, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Cole, that he had not agreed to any delivery of hazardous waste by Dr. Vigna, because Compliance Technology is not a hazardous waste storage facility, or a transporter of hazardous waste. It had acted as a broker for entities needing to dispose of hazardous waste. Dr. Vigna had visited Compliance Technology, and should have known that it did not store hazardous waste. This after-the-fact letter is also inadequate to constitute a shipping manifest for the hazardous waste delivered by Dr. Vigna, for there is no designation of the source of the material, or explanation of the contents of the drums. It does not approximate the kinds of documents used by legitimate hazardous waste transporters. Perhaps most significantly, Dr. Vigna and his company never contacted Dr. Cole after the drums were dropped at the Compliance Technology site to make arrangements to pay Compliance Technology for handling the drums, as the letter of May 10, 1989, suggests. Dr. Vigna maintains that his delivery of the drums to Compliance Technology was the result of a misunderstanding he had with Dr. Solon Cole. Dr. Vigna maintained that he and Dr. Cole had discussions concerning possible business ventures and he told Dr. Cole that he would be delivering nine drums of cutting oils and cleaning solvents to Compliance Technology, Inc. This testimony is rejected as much less credible than that of Dr. Cole, and because of the rather significant problems with the letter Dr. Vigna mailed on May 10, 1989, which was designed to cover himself, not to notify Compliance Technology of a delivery before the delivery was to be made. There is some slight corroboration of Dr. Vigna's version of the facts which arises from the decision of Compliance Technology not to press criminal charges against Dr. Vigna. The lawyer for Compliance Technology, Arthur Luongo, wrote to the Assistant State Attorney on June 7, 1989, and said: I have a great concern that Compliance Technology may be liable for a malicious prosecution action should they [the employees of Compliance Technology] testify in a criminal proceeding against Mr. Vigna. I see the case as one of simple civil negligence arising out of an honest, though admittedly stupid, mistake. It is the intention of Compliance Technology to become a public corporation within a year, and being the defendant in such a suit could seriously effect the value of their stock. They do, however, intend to recover civil restitution for their time, efforts and energy in locating Mr. Vigna. At best, this letter demonstrates that Compliance Technology had its own reasons for not wanting to press any criminal proceedings, but does not show that Dr. Vigna's actions were proper. Dr. Vigna's position would have been much more persuasive if the letter sent to Compliance Technology had actually been sent near the time it was dated (April 28), or if he had made contact with Dr. Cole to discuss pricing for what Dr. Vigna contends would have been Compliance Technology's efforts in arranging for final disposal of the Lyn-Rand material. It is strange that Dr. Vigna arrived at a price to charge Lyn-Rand without knowing what his price for disposal would be from Compliance Technology. That cost to Dr. Vigna was not relevant if Dr. Vigna intended merely to dump the material. The Department's characterization of the material as abandoned by Dr. Vigna is sustained by the evidence. Dr. Vigna acted as a transporter of hazardous waste. Because the drums were rusted, two bungs had to be replaced, and were leaking, Dr. Vigna is properly regarded as having caused pollution in transporting and leaving them at Compliance Technology. The Department incurred $2,936.58 as costs and expenses in tracing the pollution back to Dr. Vigna and arranging for its proper disposal.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Vigna and AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., be found guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, that a final order be entered directing them to refrain from the transportation of hazardous waste unless they first notify the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, obtain an EPA identification number, demonstrate their financial security, and comply with all standards and procedures required by rules of the Department and applicable federal regulations; it is also RECOMMENDED that they be required, jointly and severally, to reimburse the Department $2,936.58. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of April 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 1st day of April 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in Finding 1. Generally adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 12. Rejected as redundant of Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 16. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected, see Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings 10-15. Rejected, see Finding 11. It is in the nature of a manifest that it needs to be delivered with the material it is designed to accompany. A "manifest" which Dr. Vigna maintained as his own record is no manifest. Rejected because the material was left unsecured near a loading dock. Its location near the storm drain, and the obliteration of the labels lead to the conclusion that the way was it was left did constitute an imminent hazard. Rejected, see Finding 3. Rejected because the leakage from the bungs, while not severe, did present the risk of pollution through contamination of the Biscayne Aquifer if any of the contents of the nine drums had been introduced into the storm drain. Rejected, see Finding 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Steven N. Rosenthal, Esquire Suite 1040 City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Palm Beach, County on which is housed Petitioner's paving and landscapping business and which is zoned for industrial use. Petitioner intends to install a manufactured building for use as an office. To provide sewage treatment for the bathroom of the office, Petitioner had a septic tank designed and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was its variance request. As a result of a complaint, Petitioner was inspected in August, 1988, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Both inspections yielded citiations for soil contamination by oil and other hazardous waste. Petitioner represented that most of the infractions had been rectified by the date of the hearing in this matter and pledged full cooperation with the County and State rules. To oversee the operation of the business and assure that no further problems arose, Petitioner decided to establish its office on site. The closest sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and does not intend to provide service to the parcel in the near future. The adjoining properties are serviced by septic tanks. As such, the proof did not demonstrate that alternative methods of waste disposal were available to the site However, as part of its business operation, Petitioner does minor repair of its equipment on site and may include oil changes and other such services. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater and intends to use the proposed septic tank for office use only, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of its equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Further, the proof failed to demonstrate that the septic tank would be protected from use by those who handled the hazardous waste. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner and the proof failed to demonstrate reasonable alternatives of waste disposal, the potential for an adverse affect of the operation to the groundwater is great. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions or whether the property was platted prior to 1972. 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: Hattie Parker 160 Toneypenna Drive Jupiter, Florida 33468 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
Findings Of Fact Bray is the owner of and lives on property located at 5550 Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida. He operates a solid waste disposal site on this property. By application dated June 6, 1977, and revised June 13, 1977, Bray applied to DER for an Operation Permit for a Solid Waste Resource Recovery and Management Facility pursuant to Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. At that time, Bray held a Temporary Operating Permit which had been issued on February 4, 1976. In Bray's application materials, which included the application dated June 6, 1977 and revised June 13, 1977, and letters from Bray to DER dated June 8, 1977, and June 30, 1977, Bray proposed an alternate procedure pursuant to Rule 17-7.05(3) (q) for operation of his landfill which procedure would permit Bray to cover, spread and compact the fill material in a manner different from that specifically set forth in Rule 17-7.05, Florida Administrative Code. DER did not consider Bray's request for an alternate procedure, but responded by letter stating that Bray must apply for a variance pursuant to Rule 17-1.25, Florida Administrative Code, and recommended denial of Bray's application for a permit for the following reasons: No provisions were made for daily cover. Refuse was not spread in two (2) foot layers. No intermediate cover was applied within one week of cell completion. No cover materials were stockpiled. During the testimony presented, DER acknowledged that the fourth reason given for denial of the permits-no cover materials were stockpiled-is not a requirement of the Rules and is not a valid reason for denial of a Permit Application. This Hearing Examiner agrees and finds that Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code only requires that the site have an adequate quantity of acceptable earth cover available. See Rule 17-7.05(1) (c)3, Florida Administrative Code. Bray presented adequate testimony demonstrating that sufficient acceptable cover material was available at his site. Bray conceded at the hearing that it was still his intention to operate the landfill site without daily cover, intermediate cover and compaction as required by DER. Bray's principal contention is that compaction and daily cover are not necessary for a landfill which accepts only non-putrescible waste. Bray urges that the attenuation of leachate, prevention of fires, prevention of settling and ponding of water which provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vectors and reducing the area of land needed to dispose of solid waste are justifications for the requirements of compaction and daily cover of solid waste which may not be present at non-putrescible landfills. Bray concludes that the absence of these problems at his landfill obviates the necessity for the application of the provisions of the rule requiring daily and intermediate cover and compaction. However, Bray has not met his burden of establishing that non- putrescible waste does not require compaction and daily cover. There are multiple reasons for the requirement of compaction and daily cover of solid waste. When solid-waste is spread to approximately a 2-foot thickness and then compacted to a 1-foot thickness, followed by the daily application of a cover of 6 inches of compacted earth, a layering effect is created which helps attenuate, if not prevent, the formation of leachate from both putrescibles and non-putrescibles which may be contained in the waste. Leachate is a liquid that has percolated through solid waste, usually originating as rain, which contains dissolved or suspended material that may contaminate ground water supply. Leachate occurs in landfills that accept putrescible material as well as landfills that accept only non-putrescibles. Compaction and daily cover consequently slow, if not prevent, the contamination of ground water supplies. The formation of leachate containing various chemicals which would have adverse affects on the human body is expected when water percolates through strictly non-putrescible waste Commonly discarded non-putrescibles such as metals, plastics, ashes, rocks and dirt from an industrial site, miscellaneous organics, heavy metal solutions and sludges, organic solvents and oils, caustic and acid solutions, inorganic chemical solutions and sludges, pesticides and fungicide wastes, paint and ink wastes, asphalt roofing and paving material, explosive waste and radioactive waste are probable sources of leachate contamination. The process of leachate formation from non-putrescibles involve the physical and chemical reaction of compounds in the non-putrescibles with the water percolating through them. The contamination of ground water supplies by leachate from either a putrescible or non-putrescible site constitutes a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public as many of the contaminates are toxic and have adverse affects on the human body. In particular, leachate from non-putrescibles may contain toxic metal solutions, carcinogenic pesticides and other organic compounds as well as toxic inorganic compounds. Another reason for compacting and daily cover is the prevention of fires. Exposed, non-putrescible wastes can ignite and result in serious dump fires. Daily cover, if applied, serves as a fire break and eliminates the fire hazard created by exposed combustible non-putrescible wastes. Furthermore, compaction and daily cover prevent settling and ponding which would contribute to both downward flow' of water through the solid waste and the creation of breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vectors. Compaction and daily cover contribute to the general aesthetics of the site and reduce the area of land needed to dispose of solid waste Bray has attempted to show that his method of operation effectively screens putrescible wastes from the site and otherwise adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare. However, the evidence which belies the assertion, shows that putrescibles have, in fact, been dumped at Bray Landfill. Coliform readings obtained in samples from monitoring wells at the Bray property can reasonably be attributed to putrescible matter on site. Birds have been observed feeding on site and these would not be feeding on non-putrescible wastes. The policing techniques are largely ineffectual. The site contains unopened trash bags with undisclosed contents as well as observed putrescible garbage. Trucks enter the site and dump their loads without inspection. Two major dump fires have occurred at the Bray Landfill during the past four years.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Orchard View Development, Limited (Orchard View) is an Ontario, Canada corporation. Its president is William T. Lamsom. Orchard View is now, and has been since approximately two to six months prior to the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, the owner of a triangular, three-quarter acre parcel of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Parcel or the Parcel) located on the fringe of a Boca Raton, Florida residential neighborhood. There are children in the neighborhood who pass by the Parcel on their way to and from school. City streets border Orchard View's Parcel on all sides. Across one of these streets is a creek. Orchard View owns an additional 78 acres of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Acreage or the Acreage) to the north of its Parcel. Only a street separates the Acreage from the Parcel. Orchard View first acquired the Acreage in approximately 1975 and sold it about 14 or 15 years later. During this 14 or 15-year period, the Acreage was used by others, without Orchard View's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground. Numerous items, including boats, automobiles, tires, baby carriages, mattresses and landscaping material, were left abandoned on the property. Steps taken by Orchard View (which was well aware of the problem) to deter such dumping, including posting "no trespassing" signs on the property and erecting a 10-foot dirt barrier on one side of the property, were ineffective. Orchard View also complained to the police about the problem, but the making of these complaints did not result in an amelioration of the situation. Orchard View reacquired the Acreage at approximately the same time it acquired the Parcel. Since Orchard View's reacquisition of the Acreage, unauthorized persons have driven their all-terrain vehicles on the property without the approval or authorization of Orchard View, notwithstanding the "no trespassing" signs on the property. Although aware of the dumping problems in the area, Orchard View has not, at any time after its acquisition of the Parcel, posted "no trespassing" signs on the Parcel or erected a fence or other barrier around the Parcel, nor has it taken any other measure designed to discourage or prevent dumping on the Parcel. On June 9, 1997, at 11:10 a.m., the Department was notified by Lieutenant John Johnson of the Boca Raton Fire Department that four drums, which were labelled “poison and toxic,” had been discovered on the Parcel. The drums did not belong to Orchard View. They had been dumped on the Parcel by some person or persons not associated with Orchard View without Orchard View's knowledge, approval or authorization. Catherine Porthouse, an Environmental Specialist II with the Department, promptly responded to the scene (where she met Lieutenant Johnson) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Because the drums were labelled “poison and toxic” and their contents were unknown, Lieutenant Johnson would not allow anyone, including Porthouse, to approach the drums without "Level B" protective clothing and equipment. Porthouse therefore initially viewed the drums from a distance using binoculars. She noted that three of the drums were leaking and that there was stained soil in the area of the drums. She also saw other solid waste materials nearby. Porthouse learned that Orchard View was the owner of the property on which the drums were located. At 12:49 p.m. on June 9, 1997, Porthouse telephoned Lamson and advised him that the drums were on the Parcel and that they needed to be removed by an "emergency response contractor." When informed about the presence of the drums on the Parcel, Lamson was not surprised. He realized (as he testified at hearing) that the area was "a good dumping ground." Lamson told Porthouse that he would ask his son, a general contractor who lived and worked near the Parcel, to remove the drums. Porthouse, however, explained to Lamson that the removal of the drums needed to be done by someone qualified, under state and federal law, to handle and transport hazardous substances. Lamson thereupon asked Porthouse to provide him with a list of "emergency response contractors" qualified to remove the drums. Porthouse gave Lamson her office and cellular phone numbers and asked him to call her back within no more than three hours to update her on his efforts to hire an "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums. Following Porthouse's telephone conversation with Lamson, the Department faxed to Lamson the list of qualified contractors Lamson had requested during the telephone conversation. After speaking with Porthouse, Lamson attempted to telephone his son. Lamson's son was not in, so Lamson left a message on his son's answering machine telling his son about his telephone conversation with Porthouse concerning the abandoned drums on the Parcel. In his message, Lamson asked that his son look into the matter. Neither Lamson, nor his son, made any arrangements for a qualified "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums from the Parcel; nor did either of them contact Porthouse and advise her that such arrangements had been made or would soon be made. Accordingly, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 9, 1997, after having waited over three hours for Lamson to provide her with such information, Porthouse hired Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum), a qualified "emergency response contractor" with whom the Department had a contract, to properly dispose of the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as the stained soil, on the Parcel. Magnum personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene shortly thereafter. By approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. that day (June 9, 1997), Magnum personnel had overpacked, removed from the Parcel and taken to an off-site hazardous waste storage facility the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as a fifth drum which contained the stained soil from the site (which Magnum had excavated). Before it had overpacked the drums and removed them from the Parcel, Magnum had examined and sampled the contents of each drum. The samples that Magnum had collected from the drums were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed the following: drum number 11 contained oil, barium, lead and toluene and had a flashpoint of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 2 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 3 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium and lead, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 4 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of over 200 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 5 contained the soil that had been contaminated by spillage from drum numbers 2, 3 and 4 and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Magnum $6,135.00 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed. In requesting Magnum to perform these services and in paying Magnum $6,135.00 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Magnum was not excessive.2 The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $390.13 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the four drums on the Parcel. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have these abandoned drums properly removed from the Parcel and disposed of was $6,525.13. The Department is requesting that Orchard View reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Orchard View, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $6,525.13 in costs it reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1998.
