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 permit application SWO 13-5152, should be granted under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. This case involves the application of Respondents City of North Miami and Munisport, Inc. to Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for an operating permit under the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, to operate a sanitary landfill located in North Miami, Florida. DER granted provisional approval of the application by the issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue the permit on January 27, 1978. Petitioners filed the instant petition of February 13, 1978, challenging the issuance of the proposed permit. Final hearing herein was originally scheduled for April 7, 1978, but at the instance of the parties was continued and reset to commence on October 18, 1978. During the course of the final hearing, 29 witnesses presented testimony, including six public witnesses. (List of public witnesses - Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3) A total of 35 exhibits were admitted in evidence. Three exhibits (Exhibits 5, 13 and 15) were rejected by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact By application dated November 14, 1977, Respondent City of North Miami, Florida, as owner, and Respondent Munisport, Inc. as the "responsible operating authority" requested Respondent DER to issue a permit to operate a solid waste resource recovery and management facility consisting of 345.90 acres located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. The site, known as the North Miami Recreation Development, had been operating as a sanitary landfill under temporary operating permits (TOP) issued by the DER on May 8, 1975 and September 21, 1976. The 1976 TOP provided for an expiration date of July 1, 1977, and contained various conditions designed to give the permittees a reasonable period of time to conform to the DER regulations relative to sanitary landfills. These included standard requirements such as the rendering of reports on the operation of the facility and prohibiting the deposit of raw and infectious waste, or hazardous waste that had not been rendered safe and sanitary prior to delivery. Additionally, the permit conditions required the facility to be so operated that it would cause minimum adverse effects on the environment, such as objectionable odors, contaminated storm water runoff, or leachates causing degradation of surface of ground waters. Further, the permit provided for a three-month review program after its issuance to consider the feasibility of dumping solid waste in 63 acres of submerged land subject to previous filling with clean fill and/or construction debris, filling of land above mean high water with garbage either above clean fill or above trenches filled with wood and construction debris and covered with clean fill, and a six-week period of weekly water quality monitoring at agreed to sites for analysis by both permittees and the Dade County Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The permit further prohibited the placement of refuse waterward of the mean high water line or in trenches cut below the natural ground water table. (Exhibits 1, 4). By letter of January 27, 1978, DER gave notice to the applicant of its intent to issue the requested operation permit for the solid waste disposal facility and stated therein the following reasons for its determination: The solid waste disposal site is in the public interest. The Department feels that the site will not substantially affect the water quality or interfere with the area's wildlife. The applications and plans for this facility have been evaluated and found to be in conformance with Chapter 403, F.S., Chapter 17-4, FAC, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The letter stated standard conditions to which the permit would be subject, including special conditions that had been noted in the 1976 TOP. It also prescribed specific conditions that no solid wastes could be placed within 30 feet of any existing or future lake area, no dumping below water at any time nor in any dewatered excavations, and that a quarterly water quality monitoring program at monitoring wells No. 4 through 12 be sampled for specified substances. Proposed Condition 16 stated as follows: Solid waste shall be deposited in locations consistent with those approved in the Army Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill permit #75B-0869. No solid waste shall be deposited in the areas commonly known as the wetlands and transitional zones of said wetlands, as shown on the attached map. Subject to the Corps approval of proposed modifications to permit #75B-0869, a revised DER solid waste permit will be issued consistent with the approved modifications. A sketch of the landfill site purporting to designate the landfill deposal area, wetlands and transitional zone, and mean high water line was attached. (Exhibit 3) The Petitioners consist of the Florida Audubon Society, which has some 2,000 members residing in Dade County, Tropical Audubon Society, which is affiliated with Florida Audubon Society; Keystone Point Homeowners Association, Inc., comprised of approximately 425 owners of mostly waterfront or canal homes in North Miami within a mile of the landfill site; Thomas Pafford, North Miami, Florida, who uses the waters of Biscayne Bay and nearby wetlands for recreational purposes; and Maureen B. Harwitz, who resides within a half mile of the landfill site and uses Biscayne Bay and the mangrove preserve adjacent to the landfill site for recreational purposes. Members of the above-named organizational groups use the waters surrounding the landfill site for recreational purposes and are concerned that the waters and fish and animal life therein will be adversely affected if the operation permit is granted. (Testimony of Lee, Brown, Pafford, Lippelman, Harwitz) Munisport has been operating the North Miami landfill under a lease with the City of North Miami since approximately 1974. The ultimate aim is to convert the area into a recreational complex consisting of golf courses, club house, and other sports facilities. The site was used as an unregulated dump for many years prior to initiation of the Munisport operation. The site has been the subject of previously issued state and Corps of Engineer dredge and fill permits which are not the subject of this proceeding. The landfill site occupies an area generally between Northwest 135th Street on the south and Northwest 151st Street on the north. It lies between Biscayne Boulevard on the west, and state mangrove preserves and land of Florida International University on the east. It is less than a mile to Biscayne Bay on the east side of the landfill. The nearest point of entry is in the southeast area where Arch Creek empties into the Bay. At this time, Munisport has filled approximately 210 acres at the site with ten feet or more of fill material. A final cover has been completed over about 70 acres of this land and a golf course is presently being constructed. Pursuant to the dredge and fill permits, five lakes approximately 35 feet deep are nearly completed and some six or seven more are to be dug in the future pursuant to those permits. These lakes are separated from the solid waste by a 30 foot wide dike of clean fill. Although some cover material has been trucked to the site, about 1.6 million cubic yards of fill from the excavated lakes have been or will be utilized in cover operations for the landfill. The solid waste layer averages 15 feet in depth and lies about two feet above the ground water table. About 230 acres lie within the upland fill area above the mean high water line which is not within the area of jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The mean high water line has been established by appropriate procedures under Chapter 177, F.S., and the surveying procedures were approved by the Department of Natural Resources on April 6, 1978. Although not stated in the Notice of Intent to issue the requested permit, DER intends to restrict the life of any permit to the time when the Metropolitan Dade County Resources Recovery Facility commences operation in approximately two years. The applicants and Dade County also have a memorandum of understanding to this effect. (Testimony of Stotts, Checca, Exhibits 1, 2, 35, 36, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Munisport receives solid waste from a variety of firms, institutions, and surrounding municipalities. Its procedures are for vehicles to enter and exit the site from an access road leading to Biscayne Boulevard. A sign is located along the road indicating the operating hours, fee schedule, waste restrictions and other pertinent information. A large portion of the site is virtually inaccessible due to dense mangroves and mosquito control canals and ditches. At the check-in gate, a cursory inspection of vehicle loads is made by Munisport personnel who check the contents for quantity. Each load is directed to a designated place at the site where Munisport employees spread and compact the waste. At this stage, they are instructed to look for any unauthorized materials, such as hazardous and infectious waste. If such wasted is found, the offending party is required to remove it from the site. compactors and bulldozers push the solid waste to the face of the landfill and spread it out to facilitate compaction. During the hours of 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., a watchman is on duty at the site to accommodate customers. If less than four or five truckloads arrive during the night hours, the material is not processed. If a larger quantity is involved, a Munisport employee moves and covers the material prior to the following workday. Due to the high ground water tabled, the area method is used for filling the site. This is a procedure by which refuse cells are constructed in lifts not to exceed ten feet in vertical height. They are composed of cells which constitute a one-day quantity of refuse. Six inches minimum cover of clean fill is applied daily, and a one foot intermediate cover is applied within a year after compaction. The cells are compacted in two-foot layers and, upon completion of a particular area, a minimum of two feet of final cover is applied. A dike constructed of compacted limerock borders the east side of the site and basically constitutes the present mean high water line. It is designed to protect the adjoining 129 acres of mangrove preserve and Biscayne Bay from any adverse water quality which might occur from runoff of degraded waters from the landfill site in the event of contamination. (Testimony of Haddad, Checca, Exhibit 1, 9) The shallow soil underlying the landfill at depths ranging to almost ten feet consists of a combination of organic matter and debris from prior dump use, muck, and sand. Soil borings taken at the site show that limestone or calcareous rock known as Miami oolite is about eight feet below the soil layer. At this depth is found the Biscayne aquifer that carries the unconfined ground water in the area. The aquifer is approximately 160 feet deep under the site and constitutes the major source of water supply in Dade County. The gradient of the water table for the landfill site runs in a southeasterly direction toward Biscayne Bay. Approximately 75% of the surface soil layer consists of organic muck, whereas in approximately 25% of the area, which was previously filled in the southern and westerly portions before commencement of the Munisport operation, the soil is primarily of a sandy type. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Exhibit 1) Leachate is produced in sanitary landfills by precipitation that percolates down through decomposing refuse cells and picks up polluting substances created from the decaying solid waste. It can form a "plume" or "bubble" that takes the course of least resistance in flowing laterally or vertically through a landfill site. The strength and concentration of the leachate is dependent upon various factors including the composition, compaction, and the age of decomposing refuse, and the amount of water being introduced into the area. As it passes slowly through the soil beneath the solid waste material, the unsaturated soils act as filters and permit ion exchange which reduces the quantity of contaminants. Dilution takes place where leachate comes in contact with ground water and leachate movement occurs gradually through the ground water aquifer in its direction of the flow. The presence and movement of leachate normally can be detected by analysis of ground water samples taken at various places throughout the landfill site. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Coker, Exhibit 1) Commencing in 1975, a monitoring program was instituted at the sanitary landfill to determine its effects on the ground water regime. A number of monitoring wells at various depths were constructed at different sites at the landfill, and samples were withdrawn and evaluated periodically to determine the types and degrees of pollution being generated by the landfill. Background samples were also obtained from wells off the site to establish the general character of water quality in the area and to compare these samples with those obtained from the site. Additionally, "grab" samples were taken of water from the bay and nearby canals and wetlands. Locations of the background and sampling wells were established by the applicants in conjunction with the DER and the Environmental Protection Agency. To determine the amount of leachate that probably would be generated at the site, the "water balance method" of computing the estimated time required to produce leachate, as well as the quantity that probably would be generated upon completion of the landfill, was made by representatives of the EPA in 1975 utilizing specific climatological and surface conditions at the site. This study indicated that percolation of surface water would increase during the operation of the landfill and before final soil and vegetative cover were in place, and that leachate would occur in about a year in larger quantities than would be produced by a completed landfill. Tests conducted during the ensuing three-year period of both surface and ground water through the monitoring program have failed to produce evidence that water quality is not within acceptable parameters or that water quality in the area surrounding the landfill site has been degraded. No significant differences in the concentrations of various ground water constituents were found between samples obtained at the disposal site and those collected in the adjacent mangrove forest or background areas. Neither was any evidence of contamination from leachate found in samples of surface water collected in the vicinity of the landfill or in nearby natural areas. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Linett, Perez, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 33) Three basic factors have undoubtedly accomplished reduction in the amount of leachate generated at the landfill. These are (a) attenuation and filtration of pollutants by unsaturated soils between and beneath the refuse cells, (b) biological assimilation by organisms living within the refuse cells and underlying soils, and (c) dilution upon contact with the ground water. A hydrogeologic study shows that the uppermost 14 feet of the aquifer immediately below the landfill represents only 0.2% of the total discharges with a ground water velocity of less than 0.1 foot per day. This part of the aquifer therefore provides considerable detention time for the water that percolates through the landfill. The strata, as well as the overlying organic marine soils, provide the absorption and assimilation that removes pollutants from the water. After water percolates through this layer, it reaches the highly permeable Miami oolite that carries about 43% of the ground water flow. The effects of soil absorption, filtration through the upper 14 feet of the aquifer, and dilution within the aquifer have demonstrably been sufficient to assimilate the water that percolates through the landfill. It is estimated that the time of travel of ground water from the landfill site to the closest discharge point in Biscayne Bay is approximately 68 years. Although the attenuation capability of the organic muck soil underlying the greater part of the landfill is high, the older area of the site in the southwestern portion which had been filled before the Munisport operation commenced, has no muck and consists primarily of sand with a higher rate of permeability. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Teas, Exhibits 1, 33) The fact that the organic muck material under the landfill is not uniform throughout the site, plus the fact that there have been various breaches in the permeable oolite layer below the soil, will, in the opinion of some experts, eventually lead to the generation and movement of a leachate plume into such breaches and ultimately to Biscayne Bay. These breaches consist of the deep lakes at the site, the Arch Creek Canal to the south of the site and a dredged excavation at the exit of that body of water into the bay some 3,600 feet distant from the landfill. Additionally, these experts postulate that the dike located on the eastern border of the site will not prevent leachate from moving into the surrounding mangrove area. It is therefore estimated that in the above ways, large amounts of leachate would enter the bay and adjacent wetlands within a period of five to ten years. (Testimony of Coker, Hudson, Pasley, Browder, Exhibits 12, 14, 29, 30) Although water monitoring at various levels in and at probable discharge points near the site have not found degradation of water quality, the applicants propose to address any future leachate problems in a variety of ways. These include continuous periodic testing of water quality and monitoring wells, excavation of a canal on the upland side of the site to intercept leachate and treatment of any contaminated water therein or by pumping the water to an interior lake for treatment. Based on the particular type of any degradation, chlorination and precipitators would be utilized. Long-range problems will be further reduced by the ultimate construction of the golf courses and placement of final soil and vegetative cover to reduce percolation of surface water. This will be aggravated to an undetermined degree, however, by periodic irrigation of the golf courses. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Kelman, Exhibits 1,33) During the early years of the Munisport operation, a number of violations of the conditions of the temporary operating permit occurred, but for the most part these were caused either through simple negligence of landfill personnel, breakdown of equipment, or introduction of unauthorized materials to the site by Munisport customers. In these situations, Munisport usually took prompt and effective action to prevent recurrence and to remedy the problem. For example, on one occasion in 1977, some 12 drums containing residue of a chemical substance deemed to constitute "hazardous waste" was brought into the site by persons unknown and was found leaking into the ground. A number of violations and warning notices were issued to Munisport by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), primarily in 1976, involving the placement of tree cuttings and wood scraps into excavations containing water at the south end of the site. These occurred, however, during a period when Munisport was engaging in tests to determine the suitability of such operations in conjunction with DER. Additionally, in 1976 and 1977, Munisport was advised of violations in the placement of garbage in exposed water, uncovered garbage, and delivery of garbage after hours. Munisport has had a continuing problem over the years with the unauthorized delivery of hospital wastes from various customers to the landfill in spite of letters written to hospital facilities and delivery firms cautioning them concerning the prohibition against the introduction of such material to the landfill. DERM personnel concede, however, that the operation has been continuously improved and that it is well-conducted in comparison with other landfills in the country. However, they believe that lakes should not exist in landfills and that the North Miami landfill is too close to the wetlands. (Testimony of Morrissey, Karafel, Sobrino, Haddad, Checca, Exhibits 6-11, 17, 18, 20-24, 27, supplemented by testimony of Pafford and Exhibit 16) In a letter of January 17, 1977, DERM expressed concerns about the Munisport operation to DER. One of these concerns was that leachate would migrate to proposed golf course lakes and the resulting pollution would produce poor water quality. Although 1976 testing of then existing lakes at the site reflected unusually high amounts of fecal coliform, subsequent tests in late 1978 showed very little, but tests again in January, 1979, showed that several lakes were again somewhat high in coliform. Coliform is not considered to be a strong parameter in assessing the presence of leachate and amounts vary considerably from day to day in lake areas. Additionally, great numbers of birds are normally present on the landfill site during operations and contribute in raising coliform readings to some extent. Dade County has a current policy that does not permit lakes to be excavated on landfills operated by the county. (Testimony of Checca, Morrissey, Sobrino, Karafel, Kosakowski, Linett, Newman, Kelman, Perez, Exhibits 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 31, 32, 37, 38)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc. to operate the solid waste disposal facility as described and under the conditions stated in the letter of the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated January 27, 1978, wherein it gave notice of its intent to issue the said permit. DONE and ENTERED, this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire 5305 Isabelle Drive Ken VanAssenderp, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida Smith, Young and Blue, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Josepy D. Fleming, Esquire 620 Ingraham Building Marvin Sadur and 25 Southeast Second Avenue Richard J. Potash, Esquires Miami, Florida 33131 2000 L Street NW - Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036 Silvia Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (agency or DEP) should issue renewal permit No. SO36-26769E to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida (WMI) for the operation of an existing Class I landfill, the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill (GCSL) in Lee County, Florida. In the prehearing stipulation, Petitioners specifically dispute whether WMI has provided reasonable assurances: (1) regarding control of off-site odors emanating from the landfill, (2) that it has an approved closure plan, and (3) that leachate from the landfill will not pollute the air and water.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The applicant, WMI, provides waste management services in the state of Florida. These activities include the hauling, transfer, and recycling of solid waste, as well as the construction and operation of landfills. WMI operates GCSL, the facility that is the subject of the permit application, in Lee County, Florida. WCI is a Delaware limited partnership engaged in the business of developing multiple use communities in Southwest Florida. It owns or holds options to purchase lands adjacent to or near GCSL. WCI is also the developer of a planned unit development known as Gateway, which includes residential and commercial properties in close proximity to the landfill. George Sanders owns, personally or as trustee, lands adjacent to or near GCSL. Lee County is a political subdivision of the state with statutory responsibility to plan for and provide efficient, environmentally acceptable solid waste management. Lee County has contracted with WMI to provide solid waste disposal services to citizens of Lee County at GCSL. DEP is the agency of the state with statutory responsibility to regulate and permit landfills such as GCSL. As stipulated, the Petitioners and Intervenor have standing in this proceeding. The Landfill Facility The GCSL is a Class I landfill located at 11990 State Road 82, East, in Lee County, Florida, east of Interstate I-75. The landfill is in a remote, undeveloped area and has been in operation for over 20 years. The Gateway development is south of the landfill. The GCSL includes three parcels of land that have been used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, each about 40 acres, are unlined Class I landfills that have been closed and no longer receive any solid waste. Neither liners nor leachate collection were required when these parcels were constructed and operated. Parcel 3 is a lined Class I landfill that is approximately 80 acres in size. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 are closed and have received final cover. Approximately 30 acres still are used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 3 was constructed in phases. In 1984, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "east hill" and "west hill"--i.e., two separate disposal areas in Parcel 3 where solid waste was placed above grade. In 1989, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "valley fill"--i.e., a disposal area where solid waste was used to fill in the valley between the east hill and the west hill. Parcel 3 now consists of a single mound of solid waste. As each phase of Parcel 3 was developed, liners and leachate collection systems were installed in Parcel 3 before the commencement of solid waste disposal operations. The liners and leachate collection systems met or exceeded all of the applicable regulatory requirements that were in effect at the time when the waste disposal areas were permitted. Parcel 3 is a well-designed, well-constructed, and well-operated landfill. William Krumbholz is in charge of landfill compliance and enforcement at DEP's district in Ft. Myers. He reports that the GCSL has an "exceptional operation record," and the GCSL is the "best operated Class I landfill" in the district. The GCSL currently is subject to a DEP operation permit (DEP file number S036-180572), as modified. On March 21, 1995, WMI filed an application for a renewal of its operation permit. On or about September 25, 1996, DEP issued its notice of intent to issue the permit to WMI. If issued, the permit would allow WMI to operate the GCSL for an additional five years. See Rule 62-701.330(2), Florida Administrative Code. The landfill is not yet at design capacity and is not expected to reach that capacity during the next five years. WMI desires to renew the operation permit for the GCSL because WMI wishes to continue to provide solid waste management services to Lee County, consistent with WMI's contractual agreement to do so. WMI also wishes to continue operating the GCSL in order to construct Parcel 3 to its final design grades for closure. The design grades will maximize the site's ability to shed stormwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Continuing to build Parcel 3 to its design grades is environmentally preferable to closing Parcel 3 at this time in its present configuration. Prior to 1994, the GCSL received approximately 1000 tons of municipal solid waste each day. Approximately 90 per cent of the solid waste was household garbage and about 10 per cent was construction and demolition (C&D) debris. The GCSL did not receive industrial waste. The composition of the waste stream changed in August 1994, when Lee County began to operate a waste-to-energy facility. All of the household garbage generated in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Lee County is taken to the Lee County waste-to-energy facility, where it is burned, and the ash residue is taken to the GCSL. Currently, the GCSL receives only about 450 tons per day of solid waste, which consists of 65-70 per cent ash residue from the waste-to-energy facility, 30-35 per cent C&D debris, and approximately 2-5 per cent municipal solid waste. DEP would allow WMI to accept more solid waste at the GCSL. However, Lee County has the contractual right with WMI to dictate the types of materials deposited in the GCSL, and it is the county's intent to use the waste-to-energy facility, not the GCSL, for the disposal of putrescible wastes. Lee County is contractually obligated to send all of the county's municipal solid waste to the county's waste-to-energy facility, and the county has a financial incentive to do so. Lee County will send municipal solid waste to the GCSL only if an emergency occurs, but even then the county will try to limit the duration and extent of the County's use of the GCSL. Objectionable Odors Objectionable odors at a landfill typically are related to the facility's operating practices (e.g., the size of the working face) and the presence of putrescible, organic materials that degrade and produce gases when they come in contact with water. In this case, the GCSL's operating practices minimize odors. The majority of the waste now received at the GCSL is ash residue, which contains little or no organic material and thus produces little or no odor. In addition, because the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill," any putrescible waste is not likely to degrade and cause odors. There have been no violations of the DEP odor rules at the GCSL since 1991 and only two instances, in 1987 and 1991, when off-site odors were verified by DEP's inspector. WCI filed odor complaints in 1995, but the complaints were investigated by DEP and the county and found to be invalid. Petitioners presented no evidence of present or anticipated future odor problems at the GCSL. To the contrary, the DEP inspectors and other witnesses established that there are no objectionable odors at the property boundary of the GCSL. WMI's Approved Closure Plan WMI has a closure plan for the GCSL that was approved by DEP when DEP issued the existing operation permit. In the current application WMI asked DEP for authorization to close the remaining portions of Parcel 3 in the same manner that WMI used when closing the other areas at the GCSL. If WMI's request is not granted, WMI may be required to close Parcel 3 with a geomembrane cover or "cap," in accordance with DEP's new requirements for final closure plans. Although DEP's landfill engineer recommends approval of WMI's request for authorization to use an alternate cover material, no proposed agency action has been taken on that request, and DEP will provide notice and a new point of entry for affected persons when the agency decides whether to grant WMI's request. It is, therefore, inappropriate to address the merits of WMI's "alternate procedure" request in this hearing. As provided in Rule 62-701.310(3), Florida Administrative Code, the agency's decision is action subject to a separate Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, proceeding. WMI's closure plan for the GCSL has little significance in this proceeding. The closure plan is used to calculate the cost of closure, which in turn is used to determine whether WMI has the financial resources to pay the cost of closing the landfill. As part of its approved closure plan, WMI previously demonstrated that it has the financial ability to pay the cost of closing the landfill. WMI could be required to spend an additional $1,000,000 to close the GCSL if WMI's request for approval of the alternate procedure is denied by DEP, but it is undisputed that WMI has the ability to pay this additional cost for closure. WMI must submit a revised closure plan at the time when WMI is prepared to close Parcel 3. DEP then will determine again whether the closure plan for Parcel 3 is adequate and in compliance with the DEP standards in effect at the time. (See paragraphs 38-42, "Specific Conditions," appended to the Intent to Issue, WMI Exhibit 4) Leachate Generation Rate at the GCSL While evaluating WMI's request for approval of an alternate closure plan, DEP noted that the amount of leachate collected in Parcel 3 (i.e., approximately 900,000 gallons per year) is relatively low when compared to the amount of leachate generated at other landfills. DEP was concerned that the low leachate collection rate may indicate a problem in the leachate collection system, so DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate at the GCSL in more detail. WMI subsequently presented additional information to DEP. Leachate is defined by DEP as the liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste. Rule 62-701.200(50), Florida Administrative Code. Leachate is generated when rainwater falls on the landfill, sinks in, and percolates through the garbage. One of the primary factors reducing leachate at the GCSL is the use of ash as cover material. The ash, which contains lime, undergoes a reaction and "sets up like mortar." It is extremely hard, cannot be penetrated easily, and has a very low permeability. The permeability of the ash is in the same range as the permeability of the barrier layer that is used in a final cover material. The ash "sets up so well" that the surface water runoff is much greater than with a normal cover material. There is an additional, significant reason why Parcel 3 of the GCSL has a low leachate generation rate. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 already have been closed with a final cover which is designed to shed rainwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Since most or all of the remaining 30 acres of Parcel 3 have been covered with ash, virtually all of Parcel 3 is covered with low permeability materials that minimize leachate generation. Leachate in Parcel 3 also is minimized because WMI employs good operational practices to limit its generation. WMI uses a small working face and stormwater berms to reduce the size of the area where rainwater may infiltrate. WMI maintains aggressively graded slopes that quickly direct stormwater away from the working face and off of the landfill. WMI's "close-as- you-go" strategy means that the waste at the GCSL is covered before it becomes saturated with rainwater. Specific conditions in the Intent to Issue require that these practices continue. After DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate in Parcel 3, WMI hired a firm to clean the inside of all of the pipes in the leachate collection system in Parcel A television video camera was used to visually inspect the inside of all of the pipes. This work confirmed that "at least 99.9 per cent" of the leachate collection pipes are clean and functional. WMI promptly repaired the leachate collection pipes in two small areas where there was blockage due to a crushed riser and a valve that was left closed. It is highly unlikely that leachate is mounding up inside the landfill or overtopping the perimeter berm that surrounds Parcel 3. The leachate levels inside Parcel 3 generally are and historically have been less than two feet. The leachate levels at the GCSL do not threaten the liner's integrity. The pipes are working, and no seepage has been observed through the side slopes. WMI verified that the liner and leachate collection systems in Parcel 3 were constructed properly and in accordance with the DEP-approved design. Construction Quality Assurance reports were prepared by professional engineers when the liner systems were installed in Parcel 3. In these reports, the engineers certified that each section of the liner was installed, inspected, and tested appropriately to ensure that there are no holes in the liner. Where necessary due to failed tests, the reports reflect that repairs were made before any waste was deposited. The HELP Model In response to DEP's questions about the leachate generation rate at the GCSL, WMI's staff attempted to calculate the rate by using a computer program referred to as the HELP model. WMI initially ran the model with default input values which produced a predicted rate of 7.5 million gallons per year (MGY). WMI questioned the validity of the model results, but submitted the results to DEP because it was the best data then available. Given the discrepancy between the model results and the actual field data, WMI hired a nationally recognized consulting firm, Post, Buckley, Shuh, and Jernigan (Post Buckley), to perform a more refined analysis using the HELP model. The HELP model is used to calculate water balances at landfills. The model calculates the amount of water that will move across, into, and through landfills under different conditions. The model is a useful tool for comparing the performance of two alternate landfill designs, but it has limited value when used to predict the actual performance of an operating landfill. The model can be run with default values or with site- specific information. However, the model is designed to be conservative and overpredict the actual leachate generated. In its application of the model, Post Buckley adjusted several input parameters to reflect the actual conditions at the GCSL. Most significantly, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameters for the moisture content of the waste in the GCSL and for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Curve Number. These adjustments were "reasonable and well-considered." The HELP model assumes that the solid waste in the landfill is at field capacity--i.e., saturated with rainwater. However, it is well established that the solid waste in landfills is not saturated. At the GCSL, the ash cover material and WMI's "close-as-you-go" practices would reduce the likelihood that the waste would be saturated. Indeed, Post Buckley's on-site inspections revealed that the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill." The users' manual for the HELP model indicates that the Curve Number should be adjusted in certain cases to account for increased stormwater runoff that will occur during short duration, high intensity storms. The default value is used in areas where the rainfall occurs over a 24-hour period. In this case, Post Buckley concluded that the SCS Curve Number should be adjusted because the GCSL receives about 54 inches of rainfall annually during approximately 90 short duration, high intensity storms. Accordingly, Post Buckley adjusted the model's input parameters to increase runoff by 23 per cent of precipitation. Post Buckley's adjustment to the Curve Number and runoff value is consistent with the findings contained in a report by Benson and Pliska, which in the opinion of WMI's expert is the best study performed to-date on the calibration of the HELP model and which is similar or equivalent to the Peyton and Shroeder calibration relied on by Petitioner's expert. Post Buckley ran the HELP model with three different sets of conditions. In one run, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameter for the moisture content of the waste and calculated an leachate generation rate of 100,000 gallons per year. In the second run, Post Buckley adjusted the Curve Number and calculated a rate of 1.3 MGY. In the third run, Post Buckley adjusted both the Curve Number and the moisture content and calculated a rate of zero gallons per year. Given Post Buckley's landfill experience and its knowledge about the operational practices at the GCSL, the ash used as cover material, the climatological conditions in southwest Florida, and the limitations of the HELP model, Post Buckley concluded that 1.3 MGY is a reasonable estimate or approximation of the actual leachate generation rule for Parcel 3 of the GCSL. The leachate generation rate for the GCSL also has been evaluated by other witnesses. Mr. Joe Fluet calculated that approximately 960,000 gallons to 1,030,000 gallons of leachate are generated annually in Parcel 3. Mr. Fluet is a nationally recognized landfill expert who was selected by DEP to serve as the chairman of a technical advisory group that helped DEP develop the current DEP landfill rules. Mr. Fluet's conclusion is consistent with the leachate collection data for the GCSL, the Post Buckley analysis, the measurements of leachate in the sumps at the landfill, and his own personal observations of the landfill and WMI's operational practices. It is unlikely that leachate generation in Parcel 3 is as high as 2.0 MGY. This rate would produce about three feet of leachate on the liner. WMI's field data show that the "head" (depth) of leachate over the liner in Parcel 3 generally is less than two feet. By comparison, Post Buckley's estimated rate of 1.3 MGY would produce about 1.8 to 2.5 feet of leachate over the liner, which is more consistent with WMI's field data. Petitioners also attempted to calculate leachate generation for Parcel 3 by running the HELP model. Using default values, Petitioners calculated a rate of approximately 7 MGY. Petitioners also ran the model after adjusting several input parameters. Among other things, Petitioners decreased the slope from 20 per cent to 4 per cent, and Petitioners increased runoff by 30 per cent, as compared to the default value. With these adjustments, Petitioners calculated a rate of 4.2 MGY. The various experts' calculations with the HELP model produced leachate generation rates of 0 to 7.5 MGY. The magnitude of the range reflects the limitations of the model and underscores the need for sound professional judgment when adjusting the input parameters. In this case, the most persuasive and credible testimony was presented by Mr. Bonaparte, a recognized landfill expert who is assisting EPA with its efforts to calibrate the HELP model, and Mr. Fluet. Consistent with their testimony, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the leachate generation rate for Parcel 3 of the GCSL is most likely to range between 960,000 gallons and 1.3 MGY. The Petitioners' calculated range of 4.2 to 7.0 MGY is not credible. Even the low end of Petitioners' range is more than twice as much (2.0 MGY) estimated by any other witness. In addition, Petitioners' entire range of calculated leachate generation rates is inconsistent with the other evidence of record, as described below. Petitioners' leachate generation calculations were prepared by Marcus Pugh, who has not visited the GCSL nor performed any site specific field work concerning the GCSL. Mr. Pugh had never used the HELP model before to predict the generation rate of an operating landfill, but rather has used it as others commonly do, to size and design facilities. Although Mr. Pugh initially criticized Post Buckley's calculation of the slopes at the GCSL, he subsequently conceded that the HELP model results obtained by Post Buckley are independent of slopes. Missing Leachate? Based on their HELP model calculations that Parcel 3 actually is generating 4.2 to 7.0 MGY of leachate and since WMI is collecting 900,000 gallons per year, Petitioners speculate that there is "unaccounted for" or "missing" leachate (i.e., 3.3 to 6.1 MGY), which must be leaking through the GCSL's liner or seeping out of the sides of the GCSL, or both. Petitioners' allegations, however, are not supported by the evidence of record, which favors a finding that the facility is simply not generating the vast amounts of leachate predicted by Petitioners. The liner and leachate collection systems under Parcel 3 were "state-of-the-art" and in full compliance with all of the applicable DEP rules at the time of their installation. These systems were installed properly, in accordance with standard quality assurance procedures, as certified by a professional engineer. Mr. Bill Krumbholz, the DEP inspector, personally witnessed the installation of portions of the liner. Mr. Fluet also was personally involved with the certification for the landfill. Even the Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he had no concerns about or disagreements with the certifications for Parcel 3. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the liner or leachate collection systems were damaged at the time when they were installed. Petitioners theorize that the liner in the GCSL may have been damaged after it was installed, but Mr. Pugh readily admits that this contention is based on "pure speculation" based on the notion that a minimum wage laborer on heavy equipment might damage the liner. Petitioners presented no direct or credible evidence to support their contention. After the completion of construction and the commencement of operations large scale breaches of a landfill liner are not a common or even occasional occurrence. As part of its standard management practices, WMI places a four-to six-foot thick "fluff" layer of select household garbage over any new landfill liner system. The fluff layer is used to protect the liner and ensure that the liner is not accidentally damaged. This WMI policy was followed when the liners were installed in Parcel 3 of the GCSL. As a result, there is no reason to believe that the liner in Parcel 3 was damaged after installation. There is no circumstantial evidence to support Petitioners' claims. Since 1976, WMI has monitored the water quality at the GCSL in accordance with a DEP-approved ground water monitoring plan, which is designed to detect any significant leakage from the landfill. No groundwater quality violations have been recorded at the GCSL. However, if one were to assume that Petitioners' theory is correct, then one also would have to assume that over the last five years approximately 16.5 to 30.5 million gallons of leachate have leaked through the liner in Parcel 3 and entered the adjacent groundwater, but somehow have evaded detection in the monitoring wells. Respondents' witness Mr. Fluet calculated that a maximum of 56,000 gallons per year of leachate might possibly leak through the liner system in Parcel 3. His calculation conservatively assumed that there may be as many as ten 0.1 cm2 holes in each acre of the liner in Parcel 3. Petitioners have offered no credible theory that would produce a leakage rate of several million gallons per year. To create a leakage rate of even one million gallons per year, there would have to be at least ten and perhaps dozens of large holes in the liner. Each of the holes would need to be 10-feet long and several inches wide. However, large holes or breaches in a liner system normally are identified and repaired during the installation and quality assurance process. There is no evidence of poor quality assurance or poor operational practices at the GCSL to support Petitioners' speculation. WMI witness, Rudolph Bonaparte, has never encountered a situation where there was evidence of the kinds of "major flaws" that would be necessary to generate the leakage rates hypothesized by Petitioners. Mr. Fluet also was unable to identify any plausible scenario that would support Petitioners' theory. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he has never worked on a lined landfill where 4-to 7-MGY of leachate leaked through the liner. Petitioners questioned whether settlement would affect the liner or leachate collection systems in Parcel 3. Since ash is denser than MSW, the disposal of ash in the GCSL may affect the settlement of the subsurface soils to some extent, but there will be no shearing or failure of the liner due to any differential settlement. The amount of differential settlement that may occur would be extremely small. Settlement could create a 1000 gallon "puddle" of leachate in the valley fill portion of Parcel 3, or the slope in some portions of the leachate collection system may flatten, but these are relatively minor impacts. Conversely, increased settlement in the base of Parcel 3 would help improve the overall drainage of the east hill and the west hill areas. Petitioners contend that the "unaccounted for" leachate may be escaping from the GCSL through side slope seepage, but this theory is not supported by any direct or credible evidence. It was undisputed that any significant amount of side slope seepage from a landfill is readily apparent. Leachate seeps typically "look ugly and smell bad." When seeps occur, the soil is discolored, the vegetation is killed, and there is sheering, gullying, rilling, and other signs of erosion. There has been no side slope seepage from Parcel 3, as established by numerous site visits and personal observations of the DEP staff, county representatives, and other witnesses. Petitioners' witnesses have not observed any side slope seepage at the GCSL. Although Petitioners noted that there are discolored areas on Parcel 3, those are the areas where WMI recently excavated into the sides of the GCSL to complete the repairs to the leachate collection system. The leachate would have to mound up inside the landfill before there would be the amount of seepage predicted by Petitioners. This mounding would create tremendous head pressure in the cleanout pipes. However, no such pressure has been found in the cleanout pipes at the GCSL. Petitioners suggest that leachate may be seeping from the toe of Parcel 3 into the drainage ditch that leads to the stormwater retention pond. Again, the evidence does not support this hypothesis. The liner in Parcel 3 goes over the top of a berm which is built completely around the perimeter of Parcel 3. The berm and the liner rise 3 feet above the base of the leachate collection system. Leachate could not seep from the toe of Parcel 3 unless the leachate level rose above the functioning leachate collection pipes, avoided being drained away by the leachate collection system, and then flowed uphill over the berm. Even if the leachate went up and over the berm, the leachate would enter the ditch from the top of the berm, where it would be readily visible to site inspectors as side slope seepage. No such seepage has been observed at the GCSL, even when people were looking for it. Ground Water Monitoring at GCSL There are three aquifers underlying the GCSL: (a) the surficial water table aquifer; (b) a sandstone aquifer; and (c) the Hawthorne formation. Each of the aquifers is separated by a low-permeability, confining layer of varying thickness. The confining layer below the surficial water table aquifer is between 40 and 80 feet in thickness. Based on field data and reports of other scientists, including Petitioner's expert, Thomas Missimer, hydrogeologist Martin Sara derived a vertical flow rate of approximately 0.1 feet per year. At this rate, ground water would take approximately 40 to 50 years to move vertically downward through the confining layer. Petitioners contend that the GCSL is affecting the surficial water table aquifer. The surficial water table aquifer contains fresh water and is used extensively as a source of potable water in Lee County, but not in the area of the GCSL. Ground water samples collected from the surficial water table aquifer on Petitioners' property had average total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of approximately 500 mg/l. Similar TDS values have been reported for the surficial water table aquifer in the area surrounding the GCSL. In general, the regional groundwater flow in the vicinity of the GCSL is to the northwest. There is a northwesterly flow from WCI's property onto the GCSL that is consistent year after year and during all seasons. Extensive historical monitoring data for the site confirm that the ground- water flow under the GCSL also primarily is to the northwest, but with some likely localized flow to the west, at least during special events such as landfill dewatering in 1982. The only significant exception to this trend occurs in the area of the stormwater retention pond, where the groundwater usually flows radially outward in all directions. Groundwater monitoring began at the GCSL in 1976, when the facility opened. The groundwater monitoring system at the GCSL has complied with or exceeded the DEP requirements at all times since 1976. Currently there are seven groundwater monitoring wells, each approximately 30-feet deep, in the surficial water table aquifer at the GCSL. These wells surround the perimeter of the GCSL. At the final hearing, Lee County attempted to address concerns about the groundwater monitoring program for the GCSL by agreeing to pay for the redevelopment and installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells. Lee County and WMI stipulated that two existing groundwater monitoring wells (wells 14-S and 18-S) will be redeveloped and a new ground water monitoring well will be installed in the surficial aquifer between existing wells 20-S and 21-S. The two redeveloped wells and the new well will be sampled on a semiannual basis for chloride and the field parameters of pH, specific conductivity, field turbidity, and temperature for the life of the permit. The monitoring may be discontinued if the GCSL closes. The monitoring well network at the GCSL is adequate to monitor the type of area-wide plume that might originate from the GCSL. The evidence demonstrates that any holes in the liner in Parcel 3 are likely to be small and spread widely across the entire site. Although the plume from a single hole may be narrow and elongated, the plume from the entire landfill would be approximately 2400-feet wide. Under most if not all plausible scenarios, leachate leaking out of the liner beneath Parcel 3 will move with the regional groundwater flow toward the monitoring wells located along the western and northern perimeters of Parcel 3. Potential leakage from Parcel 3 will be pushed toward these monitoring wells by the regional groundwater flow and the radial flow from the retention pond. DEP has concluded and the evidence confirms that WMI's groundwater monitoring plan, as modified by Lee County's stipulation, is protective of the environment and satisfies all applicable DEP requirements. Under the facts of this case, it is not necessary to add any additional monitoring wells or otherwise modify the groundwater monitoring plan, except as stipulated by Lee County. It was undisputed that the leachate generated at the GCSL is and always has been "very weak" in comparison to the leachate from other landfills. The leachate contains relatively few contaminants and has low contaminant concentrations. The GCSL's leachate has few volatile or hazardous constituents. It also was undisputed that there have been no violations of DEP groundwater standards detected in any of the groundwater monitoring wells at the GCSL. There have been one- time exceedances or anomalies, but such events do not constitute a violation of the DEP standards. Chloride In the Ground Water Chloride is present in the GCSL's leachate. Over the last ten years, the average chloride concentration in the leachate has been 1021 parts per million (ppm), and the highest concentration has been 2070 ppm. The Department has no primary (i.e., health-based) groundwater quality standard for chloride. The only groundwater quality standard for chloride is a secondary standard of 250 ppm. Secondary standards are intended to address concerns about odor, taste, and aesthetics. If chloride concentrations become too high in drinking water, people simply stop drinking the water before there are any health implications, because the water is too salty. WMI evaluated Petitioners' claim that chloride leaking from Parcel 3 may affect the water quality on Petitioners' property. First, WMI performed a mass balance calculation and concluded that the maximum rate of leakage from Parcel 3 would increase the chloride concentrations beneath the landfill by only 7 to 14 ppm. WMI then used a dispersion model and determined that the maximum leakage rate would increase the chloride concentrations in the groundwater only 3.5 ppm at a distance of 100 feet from the landfill. This increase in chloride could not be distinguished from the existing background concentrations in the groundwater. WMI also analyzed the groundwater data to determine whether the GCSL is causing an increase in the chloride concentration measured in monitoring well 21-S. WMI plotted the data on trilinear diagrams, consistent with techniques that have been commonly used by hydrogeologists for many years. The trilinear diagrams clearly show that the increased levels of chloride in monitoring well 21-S are not caused by the leachate from the GCSL. The trilinear diagrams do not identify the source of the chloride found in monitoring well 21-S. However, it appears that the chloride originated from a source of "brackish" water. There are several potential sources of the chloride in well 21-S. In the past, there was an irrigation well on WCI's property that pumped water with high chloride concentrations and created a large plume of chloride-enriched groundwater on WCI's property. Historic groundwater monitoring data indicate that the chloride plume was approximately 6000-feet wide and flowing towards the GCSL. This large plume may have reached the GCSL and affected the water quality in well 21-S. There also were irrigation wells located on the site of the GCSL that may have contributed to the chloride concentrations in well 21-S. Historic water quality data indicate that these irrigation wells produced elevated chloride concentrations in the groundwater at the GCSL. Petitioners' Stormwater Data On May 12, 1997, Petitioners collected samples of the water in the stormwater retention pond at the GCSL. Petitioners also collected a sample of the water in a concrete culvert that carries stormwater runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. The samples were collected during a severe rainstorm when it was "raining cats and dogs." Based on these samples, Petitioners speculate that the "unaccounted for" leachate is entering the stormwater retention pond via a perimeter drainage ditch and the concrete culvert. This speculation is not supported by the evidence. Leachate generated in the GCSL has an ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the range of 700 to 800 ppm. The stormwater collected from the culvert pipe had an ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 1.7 ppm. The disparity between these two values belies the possibility that the stormwater in the ditch contains leachate from the GCSL. Although Petitioners contend that ammonia-nitrogen in the leachate could be oxidized while flowing in the ditch, it would be virtually impossible for the oxidation of stormwater in the ditch to reduce ammonia-nitrogen levels from 700 or 800 to 1.7 ppm. WMI's extensive experience with leachate has demonstrated that it is "very difficult" to treat and reduce the ammonia-nitrogen levels in the leachate through volatization and aeration. The water collected by Petitioners in the culvert had a chloride concentration of 2900 ppm, which significantly exceeds the highest chloride level ever found in the GCSL's leachate (2070 ppm). The pH in Petitioners' sample (8.87) also was notably higher than the pH found in the landfill's leachate (e.g., 7.20 in WCI Exhibit 14). The disparity between the values found in Petitioners' sample and the values found in the landfill's leachate suggests that the Petitioners' sample is not representative of leachate from Parcel 3. Stormwater flowing over the ash residue on the top of Parcel 3 is the most probable source of the elevated chloride and high pH found in Petitioners' sample. The ash at the GCSL has elevated chloride concentrations. It also has high pH, due to the addition of lime at the waste-to-energy facility. Both WMI's witness, Mr. DeBattista, and Petitioner's witness, Dr. Missimer, saw stormwater washing over the ash and entering the stormwater conveyance system that led to the culvert where Petitioners' sample was collected while Petitioners were at the GCSL collecting samples. Petitioners noted that the water in the stormwater ditch was discolored. However, Petitioners' photograph of the site (WCI Ex. 10) reveals that the water in the ditch is the same color as the mulch (compost) that is stockpiled on Parcel 3 and used for intermediate cover. During Petitioners' site visit, stormwater was flowing over the mulch on Parcel 3 before entering the stormwater ditch. Dr. Missimer conceded that the color of the water in the ditch could be caused in part by the mulch and stormwater runoff. Dr. Missimer raised a number of other issues about the GCSL. He claimed that the sediments in the stormwater retention pond have elevated metals concentrations, but he does not contend that the metals concentrations in the sediments violate any applicable DEP standard. He also does not contend that the metals are leaving the site. Dr. Missimer noted that there was "foam" in a stormwater ditch. However, Petitioners presented no competent evidence about the source of the foam or its chemical composition. Finally, Dr. Missimer heard gas escaping from a cleanout pipe at a different location on the landfill, but there were no odors associated with it. There is no evidence to demonstrate that gas in the riser pipes is a cause for concern. In response to Petitioners' chloride data, WMI is taking steps to manage its stormwater better. WMI has placed intermediate cover over 10 acres of exposed ash, thus reducing the potential for the rainwater to come in contact with the ash and convey chloride into the stormwater management system. WMI also is determining whether it should remove a culvert that served as a conduit for the runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. It was undisputed that the GCSL is an "existing installation," as that term is defined by DEP. Parcels 1 and 2 of the GCSL were unlined and were reasonably expected to release contaminants into the ground water on or before July 1, 1982. The GCSL has operated consistently with the applicable DEP statutes and rules relating to groundwater discharges in effect during the time of its operation. Since the GCSL is an existing installation, WMI is entitled to a zone of discharge that extends to WMI's property boundary. The groundwater within the zone of discharge is not required to meet the DEP water quality standards. Modifications to Conditions of Draft Permit and Summary of Findings In addition to the modification to the ground water monitoring plan described in paragraph 59 above, WMI has requested and DEP has agreed to make minor changes to the language in Specific Conditions 10, 19, 32, 38, and 45(e) of the draft permit. These changes relate respectively to gas monitoring, daily cover, acceptance of C & D debris, data to support the alternate procedure request for final cover, and the zone of discharge. These modifications are reasonable, supported by the evidence, and consistent with DEP rules. Moreover, WMI has provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all applicable DEP rules for continued operation of the GCSL. As amply demonstrated in this proceeding, highly competent professionals can disagree. Petitioners' witness Dr. Missimer, has had years of experience in studying the hydrogeology of Lee County and the area of the landfill and Gateway. His data collected during the development of Regional Impact Studies for Gateway have been relied on by DEP and others. His conclusions, however, regarding enormous amounts of leachate escaping the landfill are simply not supported by the results of years of monitoring the landfill's operations. With continued monitoring, the applicant should be permitted to continue to operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order approving Waste Management, Inc., of Florida's application for a permit renewal to continue to operate the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill, subject to the parties' stipulation regarding additional groundwater monitoring wells and subject to the revisions to the draft permit that are described herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire Michael P. Petrovich, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese Garner Haverfield Dalton Harrison & Jensen Post Office Box 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 David S. Dee, Esquire John T. LaVia, III, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David M. Owen, Esquire Lee County Assistant Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether 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.
Findings Of Fact Bay County's application to construct a sanitary landfill comprising nearly 80 acres located at the north end of Bay County abutting Washington County near the intersection of S.R. 20 and S.R. 77 was initially submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in November, 1979 (Exhibit 1). The site is surrounded by 400 feet of pine woods which buffer the site from all roads and residences . There are no residences within several hundred yards of the proposed site and the nearest natural body of water is over one-fourth mile from the site. The noise generated by the operation of the landfill will be similar to the noise generated on S.R. 20 and S.R. 77 by passing vehicles. Following conferences between representatives of Bay County and DER and several revisions of the application of May 16, 1980 DER issued its notice of intent to grant the applied-for permit (Exhibit 10) and this proceeding was initiated by Petitioners. The site is located in an area of predominately "Lakeland series" sands which provides little barrier to the percolation of surface or ground waters into the Floridan Aquifer. The site is one of the highest in Bay County and the ground water table is located about 45 feet below the surface in this area. The Floridan aquifer lies some 100 feet below the proposed site and is in direct contract with the ground water table. Accordingly, contamination of the ground water by the proposed landfill would enter into the Floridan Aquifer and degrade the water quality of this aquifer. Additionally escaping leachate could contaminate and degrade the waters of the lakes in the general vicinity of the proposed site. As initially presented the application was denied by DER and recommended for denial by the other state agencies involved, viz. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The reason for disapproval was that, absent some impervious surface between the aquifer and lakes in the vicinity could occur and was likely. Not only is the site located in a recharge area to the Floridan Aquifer but also in a karst area, in which the topography is marked by sinkholes resulting from the collapse of cavernous limestone under the ground. While the possibility exists that a sinkhole could develop under the proposed landfill this is no more likely than that a sinkhole will develop anywhere else in the northern half of Bay County. As finally proposed the site will be developed into cells some 400' x 500' x 28' deep which are expected to be filled in about six months, covered with a a clayey soil and vegetation replanted over the cell. To keep leachate from escaping to the lakes or aquifer the cells will be lined with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liner is 20 mils thick manufactured by B. F. Goodrich. If the liner functions as proposed there will be no escape of leachate and hence no degradation of the waters. Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given that the PVC liner will adequately perform this function and this was the only real issue presented at the hearing. PVC liners for landfills have been in use for only bout 10 years. However, numerous tests have been conducted and, projecting the deterioration of the PVC observed during the test period to the estimated life of the landfill, leads to an expected liner life well beyond the life of leachate production in the landfill. To give PVC the flexibility and elasticity necessary to lay it over uneven surfaces in sheets, plasticizers are added to the PVC during the manufacturing process. These plasticizers will be released from the PVC if exposed to sunlight for an extended period. However, as proposed for use here, even if the liner was exposed to sunlight for the entire six months the cell will be open, or even for one year, no significant loss of plasticizer will result. Once the cell has been closed, no further dynamic stresses will be placed on the liner. Accordingly, even if the liner lost all of its plasticizer and thereby lost its elasticity and flexibility, it would remain impervious and prevent the pasage of leachate through the liner. To protect the liner from solid waste, trash, and equipment used in the cell to compress the solid waste, the liner will be covered with two feet of sand before any solid waste is placed in the cell. Each night the solid waste dumped that day will be covered with six inches of on-site earth material to deter flies, odors, etc. The two feet of sand cover will protect the liner from puncture by solid waste or equipment. The liner will be placed on a tight slope with a sump provided near the low end of each cell from whence leachate will be pumped from the cell and treated, if necessary. Additionally, vents will be installed to exhaust gases from the cell once it is closed. Monitoring wells will be placed around the land fill to detect if leachate is escaping from the site. These wells would allow detection of escaping leachate before it could progress to the natural water bodies in the general vicinity. The three to one slope proposed for the sides of the landfill will result in some movement of free sand resting on the liner along the sides and could bare the liner. To insure there will be a minimum of two feet of soil between the fill material and the liner the cell will not be filled completely to the side of the liner to fill in the space left between the garbage and the side wall each day when the material dumped that day is covered. Hazardous wastes will not be allowed at the site. The site will be enclosed and have an attendant on duty at all times it is opened to receive solid waste. Public access will be restricted and the attendant on duty will monitor the waste dumped in the cell. Household wastes will be accepted and these may include small quantities of paints, insecticides and other material that in large quantities would be considered hazardous. The sand over the liner, the pumping out of the leachate and overall operation of the landfill are adequate to protect against these small amounts of hazardous materials. Bay County proposes to use an existing disposal site to dump tree and hedge trimmings and may provide a place to dump this woody trash at the proposed site other than in the cells. This will increase the capacity of the cells for solid waste and diminish the possibility of damage to the liner by woody products. The only credible evidence submitted regarding the availability of alternate sited for the proposed landfill was that other areas further south were investigated and were unacceptable because the groundwater table was above the bottom of the proposed cells. This would result in dumping solid waster directly into the water table, and is unaceptable. Petitioner's principal contention is that there has been insufficient experience with PVC liners and the tests that have been conducted were not sufficiently rigorous or extensive to provide assurances that leachate would no escape from the site and contaminate the waters of the State. Petitioners also contend that joining of sections of PVC in field, which will be necessary to cover that bottom of the cells (because a liner large enough to cover the bottom of one cell would be too large and heavy to handle), would also create unacceptable risks in the making of these "field seams". Bay County has arranged for the manufacturer of the PVC to provide personnel to supervise the "field seaming" of the sections of the PVC. These seams do not need to be wrinkle-free and no particular problem with respect to joining sections of PVC liner so as to make it watertight was shown. The tests conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency on PVC liners have been ongoing for nearly ten years. None of these tests to date show any reason to question the effectiveness of a PVC liner properly installed to provide an impermeable barrier to leachate in a sanitary landfill. Petitioners also object to the use of cover material proposed by Bay County when a cell is closed. The soil analysis submitted with the application for the cover proposed does not have a high clay content and is more permeable than would be desired. At the hearing, Bay County officials testified they would use a more impermeable soil to cover the cells. Failure to do so would increase the amount of water from rainfall that would penetrate the cell, thereby increasing the quantity of leachate to be pumped from the sump. This would increase the maintenance cost of the landfill to the point it would be uneconomical not to put a water-repellant cover on the cell when it is closed. No evidence was presented that the formation of additional leachate would increase the risk of leachate escaping from the cell.
Conclusions Having considered the Recommended Order, including the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Petitioners' Exceptions, and Respondent's Response to Petitioners' Exceptions, it is, therefore: ORDERED that the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are adopted; his Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order, to the extent that they are consistent with this Final Order, are adopted; and ORDERED that the permit reflected in the Notice of Intent issued by the Department on May 16, 1980, be issued with the following additional conditions: The applicant shall notify the Department at least on week in advance of when the P.V.C. is to be installed and allow for on-site inspection of its installation by Department personnel. No operation permit will be issued unless the applicant has shown reasonable assurances that the P.V.C. has been properly installed and all other applicable rules of the Department and the applicable Florida Statutes have been complied with. Any operation permit issued shall be for only one cell and no permit for subsequent cells shall be approved in accordance with 2. above without a showing of proper operation for the previous cells. The final cover material for each cell shall be clay, substantially clay or other impermeable material. Any DER permits for this site shall only be valid until 24 months from the date of this order. ORDERED that the country shall submit within thirty days a plan with schedule by which this landfill site will be phased out in 24 months, which shall include selection of alternate acceptable sites or the implementation of a resource recovery program in accordance with 17-7, Part II, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of December, 1980. JACOB D. VARN, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1980. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing "Final Order" has been furnished by United States Mail to Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire, Oertel and Laramore, P.A., 646 Lewis State Bank Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, Les W. Burke, Esquire, County Attorney, Bay County, Post Office Box 1818, Panama City, Florida 32401, and K.N. Ayers, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Collins Building, Room 101, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, this 22nd day of December, 1980. DOUGLAS H. MacLAUGHLIN Assistant General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9730
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File following the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by the Petitioner. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DCA10-GM-056 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this 23-4 day of March, 2010. U.S. Mail: The Honorable D.R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Melvin Wolfe, Esq. Town of Medley 7777 N.W. 72nd Avenue Medley, Florida 33166 Jeffrey S. Bass, Esq. Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 S.W. First Street, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Hand Delivery: Richard Shine, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Paula Ford Agency Clerk Douglas M. Halsey, Esq. White & Case, LLP Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131 Barbara J. Riesberg, Esq. 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue presented is whether the application of Respondent Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc., for a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station should be granted.
Findings Of Fact In April 1998 Respondent Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc., filed an application with Respondent Department of Environmental Protection, seeking a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station at the end of Shrimp Road on Stock Island in Monroe County, Florida. The application was accompanied by the required supporting documentation, including a site plan and an engineering report. The site plan submitted with the application depicted access to the transfer station by using Shrimp Road. The access road was also designated as a private road. What the site plan and remainder of the application did not reveal is that Shrimp Road, the private road providing access from the public road system to the proposed solid waste transfer station, is not owned by Robbie's. Rather, the road is owned by the adjoining property owner, Petitioner Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc. Robbie's is the holder of an easement allowing use of Shrimp Road. Robbie's published notice of its application for a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station. As a result of that notice, the adjoining property owner, Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc., filed the petition initiating the instant proceeding, objecting to the issuance of a general permit to Robbie's. On February 2, 1998, prior to Robbie's filing its application for a general permit to construct and operate its solid waste transfer station, Robbie's entered into a Consent Order with the Department which resolved the Department's allegations that Robbie's had been operating a solid waste transfer facility without a permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc.'s, application for a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger M. Bernstein, Vice-President Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc. Post Office Box 144235 Coral Gables, Florida 33144 Tracy J. Adams, Esquire Tracy J. Adams, P.A. 617 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 is eligible for state- administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program pursuant to Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Metropolitan Dade County (Petitioner) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Code, Petitioner regulates, among other things, the use, storage, and disposal of industrial wastes and hazardous substances in Dade County. Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 (Respondent Industrial) is a Florida corporation and the owner of commercial real property located at 2035-2055 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. At this facility site, Respondent Industrial conducts business as a wholesale supplier of drycleaning supplies. The Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapters 20, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, Respondent DEP, among other things, regulates and is charged with the protection of the State's surface waters, groundwater, and other natural resources. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner's Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) issued Respondent Industrial a Notice of Violation and Order of Corrective Action (NOV). The NOV provided that evidence of "industrial waste discharges to the ground and groundwater" and that samples collected from Respondent Industrial's monitoring well revealed levels of tetrachloroethylene, also referred to as perchloroethylene (PERC), in violation of Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Protection Ordinance.2 On or about September 20, 1993, in response to the NOV, Respondent Industrial's environmental consultant, Wingerter Environmental, prepared and submitted to DERM a Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP). On November 30, 1993, the CAP was approved by DERM, and subsequently modified on January 29, 1994. The CAP provided for the installation and sampling of five monitoring wells and four soil borings, and the surveying of relevant groundwater elevations. Analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling identified elevated levels of PERC. Based on the analytical results, in May 1994, DERM and Respondent's new environmental consultant, AB2MT, discussed the need for expanding contamination assessment activities, including the installation and sampling of additional soil borings, shallow wells and a deep well. AB2MT completed the additional installation and sampling. Analytical results from the expanded assessment identified elevated levels of PERC, vinyl chloride and trichlorethylene. In May 1994, House Bill No. 2817, the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Act (Drycleaning Act), passed the Florida Legislature and was submitted to the Governor for signature. The Drycleaning Act became law, Chapter 94-355, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1994.3 On May 8, 1994, after passage of but prior to the Drycleaning Act becoming law, Respondent DEP announced that it was suspending all enforcement actions against drycleaning and wholesale supply facilities based on the Florida Legislature's passage of the Drycleaning Act. On May 16, 1994, Respondent Industrial's expanded contamination assessment report prepared by AB2MT was verbally approved by DERM. On January 24, 1995, DERM forwarded a Final Notice Prior to Court Action (Final Notice) to Respondent Industrial. The Final Notice stated that Respondent Industrial was not in compliance with the NOV, requested that Respondent Industrial enter into an administrative consent agreement within thirty days, and indicated that the case would be turned over to the County Attorney's Office if the referenced violations were not corrected.4 On August 30, 1995, a guidance document, regarding applications under the Drycleaning Act, was issued by Respondent DEP. The guidance document stated that Respondent DEP would begin accepting applications to the state-administered program created by the Drycleaning Act upon adoption by Respondent DEP of a rule to implement the program. In a meeting on January 25, 1996, DERM informed Respondent Industrial that it had a continuing obligation to cleanup and that it possibly could be found grossly negligent for failing to conduct a cleanup. On March 13, 1996, Respondent DEP adopted the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Rules (Rules), Chapter 62- 781, Florida Administrative Code. The Rules specified eligibility requirements for applications submitted under the Drycleaning Act. On April 21, 1996, Respondent Industrial made application to Respondent DEP for acceptance into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. On September 16, 1996, Respondent Industrial was accepted by Respondent DEP into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, pursuant to Chapter 62-781, Florida Administrative Code. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served October 4, 1996, Petitioner appealed Respondent DEP's acceptance of Respondent Industrial into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. According to Petitioner, Respondent Industrial's willful failure to assess and remediate contamination at the site of the wholesale supply facility constitutes gross negligence, thereby precluding its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order finding Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of May, 1998.
