The Issue Whether WACOC has given reasonable assurance that the landfill it proposes to build would comply with applicable requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1987), and rules promulgated thereunder?
Findings Of Fact A mile east of the intersection of U.S. Highway 90 and State Road 393, south of Dorcas in eastern Okaloosa County, WACOC has assembled some 1,760 acres on U.S. Highway 90 --- only 160 acres shy of three square miles. WACOC proposes to use as much of the land as possible for the disposal of solid waste, and "would like to use the proposed landfill as a regional landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p.8. (T.68) The company does not own all the land outright but, with the conveyance of a parcel on the morning the final hearing began (T.77), WACOC had obtained (an encumbered) fee interest in the 55 acres on which it proposes to put Phase I, "a hole-in-the-ground landfill which can come into contact with the groundwater table," (T.737) and the subject of the pending application. WACOC has a "whole lot of option money out there," (T.86) although none of WACOC's stockholders has previous experience in the landfill business. Private Enterprise Chris Cadenhead owns stock individually and "is 100 percent owner of SRD, Incorporated" (T.93), itself an owner of WACOC stock. Serving with Chris Cadenhead and Larry Anchors on WACOC's board of directors, at the time of the hearing, was James Ward, formerly a legislator and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. (T.48) Like Mr. Anchors, Mr. Ward originally owned 24% of WACOC's stock. The only shareholder who testified at the hearing was Arthur Frederick Schneider. Before he succeeded Mr. Cadenhead as president of WACOC, Mr. Schneider had had a distinguished career as a naval officer, and later tried his hand at farming, but this venture ended in bankruptcy. "SRD has been funding this thing." (T.86) Where SRD, Inc. obtained more than three-quarters of a million dollars is not clear from the record. As far as the evidence showed, Chris Cadenhead's father, Rhett, had no interest in WACOC, although he did appear on behalf of the company at a county commission meeting in June of 1987. Larry Anchors, a WACOC shareholder and formerly an Okaloosa County Commissioner, contributed $35,000 a few days after the Okaloosa County Commission awarded the waste disposal contract. (T.87) Nothing has been paid the company under the agreement WACOC entered into with Okaloosa County on June 18, 1987, Citizens' Exhibit No. 1, which was reduced to writing on or before July 10, 1987. WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1. Under the contract, WACOC undertakes to move solid waste from transfer points in the southern part of the county and deposit them in the landfill it proposes for a per ton "tip fee of $17.70 (Present value as of 6/16/87)," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 13 (emphasis in original), which is to be "adjusted automatically upward or downward to reflect the change in Consumer Price Index." Id. The County guarantees WACOC 275 tons per day and pledges to "exercise its best efforts to insure that all the Solid Waste generated within the County will be delivered to one of the designated transfer stations or the landfill," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 8, for the next thirty years. At present, the County generates "including the municipality . . . about 525-550 tons a day." (T. 61) The County agrees to cooperate "to obtain financing of the real property and equipment necessary [for WACOC] to perform . . . by a proposed bond issue." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 14. To this end, the county commission adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of industrial revenue bonds in accordance with Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000. Alternatively, and perhaps more in keeping with current tax law, "it's going to one of the larger financial institutions like Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith or someone like that and actually a bond issue through them, non-industrial," (T.74) or so WACOC intends. Phase I Designed to receive Okaloosa County's solid waste for five years, Phase I is to occupy a site on the eastern slope of a small hill between the east and west branches of Mare Creek, which converge in Fawn Lake, north of the property on which WACOC has options. Water flows out of Fawn Lake into a no longer bifurcated Mare Creek (which was dammed to create the lake), and ultimately into the Shoal River, more than 3,000 feet from the site. By rule, DER has designated Shoal River outstanding Florida waters. Fawn Lake and Mare Creek are Class III surface waters. The Phase I site is "zoned for agricultural uses, which was determined by the Okaloosa County attorney to be appropriate for a landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p. 7, No. 5. "The county attorney's determination has not been ratified by the County Commissioners." Id. Site Geology "Subsurface conditions have obviously a tremendous effect on the design of the landfill." (T.592) "[A] site's geological and hydrological characteristics are relevant to its potential for contamination." Prehearing Stipulation, p.7, No.4. Throughout the 1760-acre site, beneath a thin topsoil and root mat layer, the site soils consist of clean loose sands to an average depth of about 8 feet below ground surface. . . . From a depth of about 8 feet to 18 feet, a layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand (with some coarse sand and fine gravel) covers most of the proposed landfill site. . . . Beneath the clayey sand unit are loose and dense . . . sands . . . . WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B. The clayey sand unit occurring underneath the loose, Pliocene sands on the surface is part of the Citronelle formation, which "characteristically changes abruptly over very short distances." (TB. 29) The Citronelle consists "principally of quartz sand, with numerous beds, stringers and lenses of clay and gravel." CCE's Exhibit No. 21, p. 33. "The soils on the site standing alo[ne] would not be sufficient for a liner." I.T. 559 WACOC's expert reported an "average vertical hydraulic conductivity for [the upper Citronelle of] . . . 6.2 x 10-7 cm/sec (1.7 x 10-3 feet/day)." Laboratory tests on soil samples, taken more than eight and less than 18 feet below the surface of the site proposed for Phase I, demonstrated the variability of the sands making up the upper portion of the Citronelle formation on site. The percent finer than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve (silt and clay size fraction) . . . ranges between 17.5% to 41.7% . . . . "Vertical hydraulic conductivities for . . . [deeper] sands [on which waste disposal cell liners are to be laid] range from approximately 2.7 x 10-5 cm/sec to 5.8 x 10-4 cm/sec (0.08 to 1.62 feet/day)." Id. The variability of fines contents among samples reflects variability in hydraulic conductivity in the upper Citronelle, as well. This variability explains why an average permeability or vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle is of limited use in predicting how quickly rainwater will move through it, if these sands are used to cap the landfill after its completion, as proposed. Samples taken from eleven borings made throughout the entire 1,760-acre site were the basis for the applicant's average vertical hydraulic conductivity number. Only one of the borings was done on the Phase I site itself. If a ten-foot thick, continuous layer of clayey sands with a vertical conductivity of 6.2 x 10-7 centimeters per second occurred eight feet beneath the surface, the overlying Pliocene sands would hold a water table year round, given the high rainfall in the area. In fact, the applicants' consultants reported a water table on the Phase I site 21 to 30 feet down, beneath or within, but not above, the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle, in February of 1988. (T.595) The higher water tables observed in October of 1988 were also below the loose surficial sands. This demonstrates a vertical hydraulic conductivity for the upper Citronelle beneath the site proposed for Phase I well above the reported average. A borrow pit, off site but nearby, illustrates the fallacy of relying on average conductivity values to predict the movement of water. At the upper end of the excavation, a seep emerges from the sand to form a stream that flows 40 or 50 feet across red clayey materials resembling those on site, then sinks, disappearing into the earth. Even the value assigned to a particular split spoon sample may be a misleading average. B.T.126-7. Preliminary Plans Drawn In Phase I, WACOC proposes to excavate three different areas or cells for solid waste disposal "to approximately 20 feet below natural grade." (T.116) Accepting information they were furnished, the design engineers made the important (T.172) but erroneous assumption that the water table on site fluctuates only within a range "from five to fifteen feet" (T.132) below that. The plan is to fill each cell with solid waste and covering layers of various soils to a height 90 feet above existing grade. Trees growing within the 300- foot green belt planned for the perimeter of the 1,760-acre site would shield the landfill from the view of motorists on U.S. Highway 90. Separated from each other by berms, cells 1 (520' x 520') and 2 (520' x 650') would abut each other south of cell 3 (480' x 1170'), with another set of berms circumscribing all three cells. The bottom of each cell is to have a gradual V-shape, sloping "approximately one percent in the longitudinal direction and two percent in the traverse direction[s]," (T.116) toward the centerline. The plans call for compaction of the soils, once excavation has been accomplished, and for "root pickers" to remove rocks, roots and any other sharp objects. The plans do not contemplate the use of sieves. WACOC proposes to line these pits by covering the naturally occurring, compacted soils with a 1.5 millimeter (60 mil) layer of high density polyethylene, a plastic which has been manufactured for use in land fill liners at least since 1982. (T.401) The purpose of lining landfills is to contain contaminated water that would otherwise escape into the environment. Rain percolating through solid waste, together with moisture already in the solid waste at the time it is deposited in the landfill, leaches chemicals from the waste, producing a toxic solution called leachate. Products of industry make their way into household garbage and the municipal waste stream. About two percent of waste that reaches municipal sanitary landfills consists of materials which, if generated industrially in quantity could not lawfully be disposed of, except as hazardous waste. Scientists have "found municipal waste landfill leachates that were as toxic as those from Love Canal." (IT.696) Gundle Liner WACOC has decided to obtain a liner which meets minimum requirements of the National Sanitation Foundation Standard Number 54, Flexible Membrane Liners, November, 1983, from Gundle Lining Systems, Inc. (Gundle). "All Gundle materials are available in 22 1/2' widths with no factory seams " WACOC's Exhibit No. 7. Gundle's own employees would unroll the plastic, position it using "tack welding" to form a continuous sheet, join the strips with extrusion welds, inspect the seams visually, perform destructive "shear and peel tests . . . by random selection no less than the [to be] agreed [but unspecified at hearing] frequency . . . . [and conduct v]acuum testing [which] follows no specific standard." WACOC's Exhibit No. 7, Enclosure 6. (T.403, 411- 2) As a condition of the permit (No. 26), DER would require that an independent third party, a registered professional engineer, participate in quality assurance. High density polyethylene's "chemical resistance and durability. . . . enable[ Gundle] . . . to offer a 20-year warranty . . . for both the product and installation." (T.404) Gundle's liability under the warranty depends on how many years remain under warranty and "shall in no event exceed the amount of the sale price." (IT.434) The warranty excludes "any liability for consequential damages arising from the loss of . . . product owing to the failure of the material or installation," id.; CCE's Exhibit No. 3, and any liability whatsoever in the event of acts of God, including floods, and "excessive pressure or stress from any source." CCE's Exhibit No. 3; (IT.432). While the material may well outlast the warranty, perhaps by decades, in "geological time," it will inevitably fail. In the short term, too, the integrity of liners like that proposed is highly problematic. Past problems have included "mechanical damage . . . of one form or another such as with the bulldozer, or if somebody drops something." (IT.429) Here, before the first lift of solid waste (which would not include construction or demolition debris) is placed, four feet of sand (stockpiled during excavation) would be piled on top of the disposal cell liner. A bulldozer's gash might not go unnoticed, but small holes along seams can be missed, despite rigorous quality control measures. At the Ocean County landfill in New Jersey, "there was more liquid . . . than would have been true from the calculated moisture vapor transmission data," (IT.427) but Gundle's chemist testified this might have been "condensation on the soils on the back side of the liner." Id. Leachate Collection Embedded within the sand layer, in the crotch of the V, six-inch, perforated, schedule 80 PVC pipe, wrapped in filter cloth, is designed to collect leachate. The top of the pipe is to be eight inches above the liner, according to the leachate underdrain detail on sheet 15 of WACOC's Exhibit No. One pipe running the length of cell 3 and another running through cells 1 and 2 would move leachate to the leachate trunk line, another (intact) PVC pipe which would, in turn, empty into a paved flume in the leachate collection pond. The pond has been sized to contain the amount of leachate WACOC's consultants originally predicted a 25 year return 24-hour storm would generate, together with the rainfall such an event would deposit in the leachate collection pond, and still leave a foot of freeboard. "You have room below that major storm elevation that holds 60 to 70,000 cubic feet of leachate." I.T. 127. Except for the flume, the leachate pond is to be lined, like the disposal cells, with high density polyethylene. In the leachate collection pond, only 18 inches of sand would overlie the synthetic liner. From time to time, leachate would be pumped from the pond into tank trucks for removal to the Garnier wastewater treatment plant, which has a capacity of 6,500,000 gallons per day. Garnier is specifically permitted to receive only domestic wastewater, but the permit does not forbid industrial wastewater, and the plant now accepts leachate from the Wright landfill. DER has not classified landfill leachate either as domestic or as industrial wastewater. Before accepting it for treatment, the plant might require pretreatment of the leachate, whether on account of its anticipated acidity or for other reasons. If leachate causes sludge from Garnier to exceed standards for heavy metals, the sludge can be deposited in a Class 1 landfill like the one proposed here. WACOC has not yet entered into a contract with Garnier's operator for treatment of leachate. Not until leachate is removed from the leachate collection pond are pumps to be employed. Leachate would have to accumulate on the waste disposal cell liners and enter a pipe, in order to leave the cells. The design specifies perforations along the whole length of leachate collection pipe, around the bottom of the pipe. If the pipes clogged west of the cell walls, leachate could flow through sand and reenter the pipe further downslope. Outside the waste disposal cells, manholes have been planned, to afford access for cleaning the pipes out. The applicant did not demonstrate with calculations that gravity would induce flow through the pipes at a rate sufficient to remove leachate deeper than 12 inches. In the leachate collection pond, which is to be roughly 200 by 500 feet, leachate might attain a depth of several feet, before being pumped into a tank truck. The pond sides are to be lined with high density polyethylene to a height nine feet above the pond bottom. As far as the evidence showed, the depth of leachate in the pond would never fall below 18 inches anywhere on the pond bottom, once leachate began filling the leachate collection pond. Only if leachate were extracted from the sand covering the liner could the leachate head in the pond fall below one foot. The plan is for tank truck operators to place their hoses on "a concrete flume on top of that sand." I.T. 127. Stormwater Management Berms encircling the solid waste disposal cells, together with a series of ditches and culverts, are intended to direct stormwater away from the solid waste to a retention pond for temporary storage and treatment, before discharge offsite. To the extent stormwater which would otherwise flow into solid waste disposal cells can be diverted elsewhere, the volume of leachate can be diminished. The berms also serve to prevent rain falling on solid waste from reaching the stormwater retention pond, or polluting stormwater that does. Lined with relatively impermeable soils, the stormwater retention pond, "a football field wide and two and a half football fields long," (T.201) is designed to be big enough to hold the runoff from a 100 year return storm, leaving two feet of freeboard. In practice, some stormwater would percolate into the ground through unlined ditch bottoms, never reaching the pond. Stormwater that did reach the pond would either evaporate or drain through sidedrains, which are to consist of perforated six-inch PVC pipe, encased in gravel and covered with permeable sand excavated on site. Lining most of the pond's perimeter, this sand would filter water seeping through it from the pond into the side drains. After collecting in an outfall pipe, water draining from the pond would travel 300 or 400 feet, before discharging above grade, near the east branch of Mare Creek. If, as would be likely, sea gull droppings regularly end up in the stormwater retention pond, phosphorous and nitrogen levels in the east branch of Mare Creek and downstream would increase in time. Other Measures Decomposing solid waste produces methane gas. When cell I is completed, vents are to be installed to direct methane gas into the atmosphere above the center of the cell. I.T.140; WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, p.23 and No.9, p.15. "[T]he wind will disperse any gas within the site." I.T.191,221. If sufficient quantities were generated, a gas collection system would be installed. I.T.140. 31 Spotters will try to divert hazardous or infectious waste, and should succeed in the event a hauler tries to dispose of an accurately labelled 55- gallon drum of a hazardous liquid or red-bagged waste from a hospital, but small quantities of gasoline, paint, paint thinners, cleaning fluids and other hazardous materials cannot practically be diverted. At the end of every working day, solid waste is to be covered with a six inch layer of soils from the site. Fences are planned downwind from the working face to collect windblown debris. Closure A landfill is a long-term proposition. Pollutants still leak from Roman landfills dating to 400 A.D. Contemporary landfills and their regulators recognize the importance of capping landfills to minimize infiltration by rainwater (and so production of leachate.) Even though the plans may be revised later, DER requires applicants for landfill construction permits to make plans for closure, before a construction permit is issued. Landfill operators must also make annual contributions to a trust fund to be used to close the landfill and to bear post-closure expenses, which include trucking leachate and monitoring groundwater. WACOC has already established the trust fund and deposited $100. As a condition of operating the landfill over the five years it proposes, WACOC must deposit one fifth of estimated closure and post-closure costs in the trust fund 60 days before beginning to fill, and another fifth annually (30 days after the anniversary date of the initial payment). The cost estimates are subject to revision annually. (I.T. 384, 843-4) Before closing a landfill, the operator must obtain a closure permit. The trust fund is not expected to absorb the costs of cleaning up polluted groundwater, if that should prove necessary. Local governments, which operate many landfills themselves, sometimes step in when problems with privately run landfills develop. ...A leak develops or something that would cost millions of dollars to address it and you don't have the insurance, you're out of business instantly. ...[WACOC's ability] to address a catastrophic situation that could develop with this is limited to how much capital they have. * * * ...[I]f you don't have some insurance, even if its $500,000 deductible,...if the problem occurs, you're gone. And if you don't have the capital to handle it, it will fall back in the taxpayer's lap which is typically what happens... . (II.T. 70-71) As WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12 concedes, WACOC's "liabilities are considerably in excess of its assets." Landfill operators are under no obligation to contract for environmental liability insurance, which is not readily available, in any event. WACOC proposes to cap Phase I with clayey sands excavated on site. The clay required to cap Phase I amounts to "ten acres of the surface by four feet deep, or one acre 41 feet deep." (II.T. 36) WACOC proposes to spread this quantity over all three cells, covering them with an 18-inch clayey sand blanket. On top of that, WACOC would place 18 inches of surficial sand and, finally, six inches of topsoil. The sands are readily available on site, but there is no topsoil to speak of. The clayey sand WACOC proposes to use as a foundation for the cap is too permeable to constitute an effective barrier. (B.T. 149,158), but WACOC could mix it with clay from off site or some other agent to render it less conductive of rainwater. The present plans do not call for mixing, however. High Density Polyethylene WACOC is proposing the synthetic liner underneath waste disposal cells and the leachate collection pond not as one component of a composite liner, (T.158) but as "the state of the art," (T.153) in and of itself. But "flaws in liners are a common occurrence." (IT. 698) After a liner has been laid down and covered with sand, "inadvertent cuts and nicks of unexplained origin" (IT.699) can and do occur. However conscientious, laborers hired as "root pickers" may miss an occasional rock. The plans only call for removal of objects larger than a quarter inch. High density polyethylene is a plastic. If laid over stone or other protuberances, "the plastic will flow away from that pressure point and eventually you will have a hole in the plastic." Id. An investigator examining 60 mil high density polyethylene used as landfill liner "found six pin-holes per acre, mostly associated with the seams, [an] average of 9.4 cuts [per acre] of unexplained origin, [and] 110 [perforations attributable to] rock protu[bera]nces per acre." (IT.705) In an EPA sponsored study, a liner manufacturer installed and third parties "did a careful job of inspecting," id., twelve "rather small" (IT.706) waste disposal cells. Eight of the twelve leaked. Even if holes did not let leachate escape, several carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic organic constituents of municipal waste leachate dissolve in liners like the one WACOC proposes, "diffuse through and are released on the other side." (IT.699) High density polyethylene is practically impervious to water: water vapor can move through it only at a rate of 1 x 10- 13 centimeters per second. But certain hydrophobic substances, including chlorinated hydrocarbons such as trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride, move readily through high density polyethylene, itself a "very hydrophobic material." (T.807) William T. Cooper, a chemistry professor who participated in developing DER's drinking water standards, appearing in this case as a witness for the objectors, testified: [O]ne of the major problems in doing this work [concerning organic pollutants in groundwater] is establishing . . . standards. In other words, we had to pollute water in a well defined way so that our machines would tell us there was a certain amount of pollution in the water. . . . . . . [W]e started using [p]olyethylene tubes into which we would put several different organic molecules for the very reason that these molecules diffuse so readily through the [p]olyethylene tubes that we could control the rate in which we were contaminating water for laboratory purposes. (IT.806) In order to calibrate their instruments, the scientists who developed drinking water standards for Florida relied on polyethylene containers' ability to transmit organic pollutants in solution inside a container to the water outside at a steady, predictable rate. Chemists think of polyethylene "as a condensed liquid . . . . [because] it has the ability to absorb molecules." (T.807) Water and polyethylene do not mix, however, just as oil and water do not; they are said to be immiscible and to form separate phases. When a third substance is dissolved in either of two immiscibles occurring together, the additive's molecules move between the two phases until equilibrium is reached. The concentration in one phase will differ from the concentration in the other, and both concentrations will depend on the amount of the additive introduced (until saturation), but the ratio of the two concentrations (the "distribution ratio" or "partition coefficient") will always be the same, at equilibrium. A chemist in Gundle's employ testified that any "organic solvents in the leachate . . . would tend to float on the aqueous phase." (T.406) But some hydrophobic organics, including trichloroethylene, are denser than water and would not float. (IT.831) Mr. Cadwallader, Gundle's chemist, conceded that organic materials are soluble in water "to a point of saturation, which typically is not very high . . . ." (T.425) The leachate's nonaqueous phase would occur to some extent, perhaps entirely, within the polyethylene liner. In this connection, the objectors' chemists' opinion, which Dr. Brown also shared, has been credited. For the same reasons Mr. Cadwallader "agree[d] that a liner would gain weight when it is immersed in a pure organic solution," (T423) the liner would swell, as a variety of organic pollutants diffused into it from the leachate. Such swelling has been reported in low density polyethylene. WACOC's Exhibit No. 18. With groundwater in contact with the outside of the liner, the organic pollutants with which the liner was swollen would diffuse into the groundwater, until groundwater touching the liner acquired organic pollutants in the same concentrations in which they occurred in the aqueous phase of the leachate standing on the liner. It is even possible that concentrations of certain hydrophobic organics would be higher outside the liner than inside. (IT.818) If indeed a nonaqueous phase floated on top of the leachate, it would serve to replenish the aqueous phase, as hydrophobic organics diffused into the liner to replace those diffusing out of the liner into the groundwater or soils on the other side. (IT.831) Site Hydrogeology Groundwater flow "mirrors the topography of the site." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B, p.6. On the Phase I site, it flows to the north and the northeast, toward the east branch of Mare Creek. At monitoring well 1, the flow is "about a 45-degree angle down and to the east northeast." B.T.119. Lining the disposal cells and the leachate collection pond with high density polyethylene would curtail recharge (and evapotranspiration) under the cells and the pond. The plan is to line the stormwater retention pond with the same clayey sands that fail to hold a water table. B.T.175 Percolation from stormwater ditches or, despite its lining, even from the retention pond might cause slight mounding of the groundwater under those structures. But construction of Phase I would not appreciably alter the general direction of the groundwater flow. To the extent mounding occurs beneath the stormwater retention pond, groundwater table elevations under proposed cell 3 would be higher than they otherwise would have been. Elsewhere, the cell liners should have the effect of lowering groundwater elevations below what they would otherwise have been, ignoring infiltration from stormwater ditches. Any changes may be very slight, since groundwater from recharge areas upslope apparently flows under the site. In February of 1988, piezometers were used to measure water table elevations on the Phase I site. Distance between elevations proposed for liners and the February 1988 water table varied, but were no less than nine feet at any point measured. Based on the February 1988 measurements, the design engineers assumed an unsaturated zone 25 to 30 feet thick. But, on October 11, 1988, the second day of hearing, the same piezometers (B.T. 19) disclosed much higher water table elevations. Near the creek, the water table had risen only 4.92 feet higher than it had been in February, but in the wells closest to cell 1, the October water table exceeded the February elevations by 11.33 and 11.41 feet. (B.T. 40) On October 11, 1988, the water table was "above the bottom of the liner of the proposed landfill in cell two, portions of cell two, a lot of it, portions of cell one and a corner of cell three," (B.T. 44) with "about two feet of water above the proposed liner in the corner of cell two." Id. The levels may have been considerably higher in September. Since periodic measurements have not been taken over the requisite year or two, the seasonal high water table on the Phase I site has not been determined. The height of the groundwater table depends on how quickly rainwater percolates down to the water table to replace groundwater lost to evapotranspirtation or subterranean flow offsite. Groundwater under the Phase I site discharges into the east branch of Mare Creek. The timing as well as the amount of rainfall figure in, because once the soils are saturated, rain runs off instead of infiltrating. Still monthly rainfall is a good indicator of how much water has percolated down to recharge an aquifer. No records of rainfall on the site itself exist, but statistics from sites not far away show that extraordinarily high rainfall in September of 1988 contributed to the groundwater elevations measured on October 11, 1988. At one or more wells on site, the water table dropped another foot between October 18 and October 26, 1988. CCE's Exhibit No. 36. Rainfall data suggest that in most years, "the actual peak high for a water table probably would be towards the end of August." (B.T. 95) At present, the surficial aquifer beneath the proposed landfill site contains potable water. People living in the area draw water from the surficial aquifer for drinking water purposes, in one case from a well only some 30 feet deep. The nearest well to Phase I is 3,000 feet away, on the other side of the east branch of Mare Creek. The surficial aquifer goes all the way down to the Alum Bluff group, 75 feet below ground. Saltwater intrusion threatens in southern Okaloosa County. By 1995, if its growth continues at the present rate, the City of Destin will require another, supplementary water supply. Plans to tap the Floridan in northern Okaloosa County include well fields in the Eglin Air Force Base area and north of Freeport. But the Floridan "won't supply all the future projected needs." (II.T. 16) Desalinization is expensive. Eventually Okaloosa County is "going to have to look further toward the use of surficial water," (II.T. 13) as a public water supply. Leachate Characteristics Leachate from municipal landfills has high biological oxygen demand, high salt content, and significant concentrations of metals and organics. (I.T. 699) Cleaning solvents, oil-based paint, furniture polish, spot removers, xylene, toluene and benzene are among common constituents of municipal waste. Lisa Stewart, who picks up garbage in northern Okaloosa County four days a week, has noticed "containers containing a substance" (II.T.137) bearing such labels as naphtha, methylene chloride, toluol, burnt motor oil, insecticides, fungicides, trichloroethane, oxalic acid, xylol, petroleum distillates, polyglycol ether, plasticizers, sulfuric acid, methanol, ethanol and sodium hydroxide. Scientists have found every chemical DER lists on its "primary or secondary water quality standard numeric list" (I.T. 697) in municipal leachate, as well as "about 20 chemicals that are known to [b]e carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic which are not on that list." Id. At least some of this latter group can be anticipated at the proposed landfill, if it is built. The organic materials degrade only slowly; they have half-lives ranging from 20 to 50 years. (I.T. 698) Biochemical oxygen demand accounts for most of the stench to be expected from leachate standing in the leachate collection pond. The "combination . . . of hazardous waste from small quantity generators and from households we would expect to be somewhere in the range of five to 10,000 tons per year." (T.T.148) In order to predict the amount of leachate to expect, experts on both sides resorted to a mathematical model, known acronymically as HELP, for "Hydrological Evaluation Landfill Program." (T.689) These experts made assumptions about annual rainfall, the permeability of the cap materials which, after their initial excavation and stockpiling are destined to do double duty as a final cover for the landfill, and other factors, in order to calculate the amount of leachate likely to accumulate above the liner. WACOC's consultants calculated a head of 2.4 inches, assuming annual rainfall of 68 inches, and an unrealistically low permeability for the clayey sands under the Phase I site which are to be used for capping the Phase I cells as they attain their design heights of 90 feet above grade. Using WACOC's average vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands of 6.2 X 10-7, without changing any other assumptions WACOC made in running the HELP model, yields a leachate head of 8.5 inches. Even if it were appropriate to use an average, this figure is low, because the permeability of materials recompacted in a laboratory is ordinarily ten times less than when the same material is compacted in the field. Here compaction "in the field" would occur on top of a mound of garbage. "[T]he system will be spongy." (I.T. 752) The HELP model makes no allowance for cracks in the cap, which are bound to occur, if WACOC closes the landfill as it proposes. As garbage degrades, it settles and sinks. This would cause shear planes or faults in the clayey sand cap, which cannot readily be detected, buried beneath sand, topsoil and vegetation. Estimating conservatively, "we could be dealing with twice as much water as we're calculating from the HELP model due simply to cracks in the facility." (I.T. 692) During those periods when the groundwater table is above the bottom of the disposal cell liners, groundwater infiltration through such imperfections as exist in submerged portions of the liners will increase leachate volume. Ignoring groundwater intrusion, cell 1 alone should produce 5,000 gallons a day of leachate the first year after closure. (I.T. 510-1). The applicant's own revised HELP model calculations put the leachate head at more than eight inches in a year in which rainfall on the site exceeded the annual average at Crestview by only eight percent (68 inches vs. 63 inches). A foot or more of head annually can be expected, taking into account cracks in the clay cap. Water Quality Monitoring WACOC's groundwater monitoring plan calls for a single well south and upgradient of the Phase I site to monitor "background" groundwater conditions, and a series of monitoring wells east and north of the site designed to detect any groundwater contamination the landfill may cause. WACOC's Exhibit No. 9, Sheet 11. Four of these downgradient wells would be placed by the eastern perimeter of the zone of discharge to measure compliance with DER's numeric water quality standards at that edge of the zone. Four other wells are planned within the zone of discharge. In addition, surface waters are to be monitored at seven points, five on the east branch of Mare Creek and two on the west branch, but none further south than the berm separating cell three from cells one and two. WACOC's own employees would take samples, arrange for their analysis and report the results to DER. Among the specified parameters are iron and chloride. As far as the record reveals, testing for sodium in addition would not make for earlier or more reliable leak detection. CCE's Exhibit No. 20. The suggestion that groundwater be tested for calcium assumed montmorillonite in the clayey sands, which the evidence did not show to be present. I.T. 988. According to a DER chemist, however, groundwater samples near landfills should be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 601/602. Since VOCs always appear to be present in landfill leachate and they can be detected in the subparts per billion (ppb) range, the test is a particularly sensitive indicator for the presence of organics in landfill leachate. (CCE's Exhibit No. 20, p.2.) Also among the specified parameters is fecal coliform, which makes any other routine testing for bacteria superfluous. Given the economic consequences for WACOC if a leak is discovered, it might be well to require WACOC to contract with an independent third party to monitor, in the event the landfill is built. Since groundwater flow on site has a vertical as well as a horizontal component, monitoring requires appropriate placement not only of wells, but also of screens. One approach is to cluster wells so that a succession of screens covers the entire thickness of the aquifer. Monitoring well screens should not exceed 15 feet in length, in order to avoid dilution that might render contaminants indetectable. CCE's Exhibit No. 2. But a hydrogeologist with sufficient information could place screens within transmissive zones through which groundwater flowing underneath the disposal cells or the leachate pond is likely to move. B.T. 136 With respect at least to leachate constituents that do not diffuse through liners, monitoring groundwater to detect pollution is more difficult if a landfill is lined than if it is not, because contaminant plumes are larger if they emanate from larger sources. CCE's Exhibit No. 19. Unless monitoring wells were sunk at ten-foot intervals east and north of where leachate is to collect, it would be easy to miss the plume from a small leak, which might be destined to become a large leak. But even the objectors' experts do not "consider that very practical financially." (B.T. 135) Groundwater Pollution Both through imperfections in the synthetic liner and, as regards hydrophobic organic pollutants with low molecular weights, by diffusion directly through even flawless portions of the liner, pollutants in the leachate will escape into the environment, if WACOC builds the landfill it has proposed for Phase I. As far as can be told from the evidence, the groundwater table would never reach the bottom of the leachate collection pond, so that adsorption and diffusion in soils underneath the pond would attenuate the effect of any leakage there, before it could enter the groundwater. But the soils on site have very low adsorption capacity and very low biological activity. I.T.719 Leachate leaving unlined, northwest Florida landfills five feet above the water table have caused serious pollution problems. The evidence showed that the groundwater table would rise above portions of the lined bottoms of all three waste disposal cells, on which leachate will also be standing. This may occur infrequently, would not necessarily happen every year, and would last for only a few weeks and days at a time, but it was the condition that obtained at the time of the hearing, two months later than seasonal high groundwater should normally occur. When it does happen, "it's entirely possible the leachate will be the same concentration as the groundwater in contact with the bottom of the liner." I.T. 701. In any case, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic agents (I.T. 697), including up to 20 for which DER has not established numeric limits, would occur in the leachate, and some would enter the groundwater, violating the DER "free from" requirement. I.T. 777. Precise concentrations have not been forecast but, at least at times, over the course of the landfill's existence, the leachate would contain certain mutagenic substances for which no safe lower limit has been established. Nor did the evidence give reasonable assurance that violations of DER's numeric standards pertaining to the trichloroethylenes, the tetrachloroethylenes and vinyl chloride would be unlikely outside the zone of discharge. I.T. 771,781-2. It depends in part on the volume or rate at which leachate or these constituents leak. B.T. 94. The evidence showed they will leak at some rate, even where there are no flaws in the liner. In a test involving higher concentrations of trichlorethylene and other organics than are anticipated here, experimenters observed a "flow rate . . . on the order of 125 gallons per acre per day from concentrated organics." I.T. 702. In 27 acres of plastic, flaws are to be expected. Good intentions notwithstanding, the evidence showed holes in the synthetic liner should be anticipated, and taken into account in designing a landfill. The rate at which leachate will leak through these imperfections depends on their number, shape and size; and, as to each, the depth of the leachate above it and the permeability of the medium below it. A circular hole with a diameter of one- sixteenth of an inch will discharge liquid, standing on top of it a foot deep, at the rate of 70 gallons a day, into air, gravel or porous sand. The rate for a similar hole with a diameter of one-eighth of an inch is 192 gallons per day. In the event of a leak above or near an area like the one into which the seep sank in the borrow pit, the soil would not slow the rate of leakage. (I.T. 718) Otherwise, for a given leachate head, the conductivity of the soil (if unsaturated) would determine the leakage rate. "[T]here will be less depth higher up the liner." I.T.760. But where the liner is lowest and the leachate deepest, the liner will lie over the loose sands that occur beneath the clayey sands. Rating tests demonstrated considerable variability in the hydraulic conductivity of all of the sands tested. Piezometer readings on October 18 and 26, 1988, showed how they transmit water as a unit. In eight days the water table (which is only at atmospheric pressure) fell a foot. The clayey sands would not prevent leachate's leaving the waste disposal cells and entering the groundwater, although in some places (where the leachate has less depth), they would slow the rate of leakage. "We could get tens of thousands of gallons [annually] leaking out of a 27-acre site which this is through holes." (I.T. 707) With groundwater in contact with portions of the liners, the leakage rate there would depend on the relative elevations of the groundwater table and the leachate standing on the liners. If the groundwater table were higher, upward pressure might push groundwater into the disposal cells, disminishing or even preventing leachate leakage until the water table fell below the height of the surface of the leachate. But, when that happened, direct discharge of undiluted leachate can be expected, directly to the groundwater, as long as groundwater abutted a flaw in the liner. DER's rules do not apply the numeric standards underneath or within 100 feet of waste disposal cells, which the rules denominate a "zone of discharge." Whether numeric standards are violated at the edge of the zone of discharge depends not only on the leakage rate, but also on where the leak occurs, on the velocity of the groundwater, and on pollutant concentrations in the leachate. Calculations taking all these factors into account have not been done for WACOC's Phase I. But credible expert testimony predicted such violations would eventually occur outside the zone of discharge. I.T.771. Synthetic liners like the one WACOC proposes are usually placed on top of three feet of highly impermeable, mineralogically suitable clay. "A clay liner...will retain organics to a greater extent than a synthetic liner." I.T. 823. Using it as proposed here, where it would come into direct contact with groundwater, does not give reasonable assurance that groundwater pollution will not occur.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER deny WACOC's application for a permit to construct a class I landfill in Okaloosa County. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 23, 24, 25, 32 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 50, 52, 54, 56 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 except for the sentence "DER has no rule prohibiting contact of the liner with ground water," 63, 65, 66 except for the second clause which is rejected, 67, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 and 85 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the intent to issue is dated April 1, 1988. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, financial feasibility was not demonstrated but is not material under the rules. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4, 5 and 6, closure cost estimates assume the suitability of the clayey sands on site as a cap, which the weight of the evidence did not establish to be the case. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, the use of a high density polyethylene membrane, without more, to keep hydrophobic organic materials out of abutting groundwater is not proven technology, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the rules do not require environmental liability insurance. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 10, 19, 20, 26, 35, 37, 44, 55, 61, 71, 74, 75, 77, 82, 86 and 87 are rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13, the fact that a synthetic liner separates solid waste from the groundwater does not make it permissible to deposit solid waste in groundwater. While the October readings did not prove that groundwater would rise above the sand in which the leachate will collect to touch the solid waste itself, September's rainfall, the rate at which the water table dropped between October 18 and 26, 1988, and the probability of defects in the liner showed that this was a realistic possibility. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 16, two percent of the materials disposed of in municipal sanitary landfills are hazardous in a chemical, if not legal, sense. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the "state of the art" use of high density polyethylene liners is as one component of a composite liner, or even as part of a double liner system, at a hydrogeologically suitable location. This material works well for some purposes and not at all for others. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 28, there was no showing that any other Florida landfill has been placed so as to come into contact with the groundwater table, or that a synthetic liner has ever been used for a landfill without clay; synthetically lined landfills have only recently been installed in Florida, and detection of leaks from lined landfills is difficult. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 29, since uncontaminated water is not a pollutant, it is not a permeant of concern. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 30, the evidence showed that under ideal, test conditions, 8 of 12 liners leaked. Under actual field conditions leaks exceeded 100 per acre. The weight of the evidence makes it unreasonable to conclude that 27 acres of plastic can be laid down in Okaloosa County without any flaws. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the rate of 192 gallons per day assumed gravel or porous sand which offers essentially the same resistance as air; there is no sandy clay anywhere on site, as far as the evidence showed; more than 18 feet below the surface, where most of the liner is to be laid, there are not even clayey sands, according to WACOC's own expert; the sands that do occur there include loose sands with a permeability greater than 4.9 X 10-4; and include numerous gravel beds; the .00022 gallons per day calculation assumes a hole a quarter as large (half the radius of Dr. Brown's) and ignores horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The fact that the water table dropped a foot in about a week demonstrates that the soils cannot be counted on to contain the leachate underneath flaws in the liner. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 33 and 34, Haxo's results were consistent with their conclusions but explicitly not the only basis for them. Gundle's chemist conceded that hydrophobic organic materials diffuse through high density polyethylene. His opinion that an accumulation in the soils on the other side would equalize concentrations and stop further diffusion did not take into account groundwater abutting the liner, and flushing the soils. The liner absorbs materials; but adsorption does not take place there. Transportation and dispersion need not be known as to "free froms." On page I.T. 777, Dr. Brown testified that diffusion would cause violations of DER's regulations, and this testimony has been credited. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 36, the swelling of the liner with organic materials is evidence of the diffusion which would result in organic materials' entering the groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 39 and 41, one inch of leachate in all three cells amounts to 2.25 acre feet, which is more than a "little." Calculations have not been done. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 40 and 42, no allowance was made for cracks in the cap material (which cannot be seen under the vegetation, topsoil and drainage sand layer.) With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 43, a much greater leachate head than within the waste disposal cells may occur depending on where the marker is placed, but hydrophobic organics diffusing through the liner and absorbing in the soils would not be flushed out by groundwater. Except for the last sentence, this proposed finding of fact reflects the weight of the evidence. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 47, some water will evaporate. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 51, monitoring wells 8 and 9 are both more than 100 feet from waste disposal areas. The evidence did not show that the monitoring wells "can be expected to detect any contamination." With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 53, DER's experience also suggested testing for volatile organic chemicals. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the rate of decline also suggests that the water table was as higher elevations than those measured. An applicant must give reasonable assurance that pollution in violation of DER rules will not occur under foreseeable, recurring conditions, including during those times the liner is submerged. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 65, the proposed finding is adopted, as regards physical tears. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 68, the proposed finding is adopted, except for leakage through the liner, sometimes directly to groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 76, clayey sands were not reported below 18 feet. The difficulty with the groundwater monitoring plan is not the soil characterization, but the number of wells. Because synthetic liners leak, clay mineralogy is important to know. No clay is proposed here, however. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 84, effective odor control would also entail emptying the leachate pond regularly. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45 50, 58, 61, 64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 75, the first sentence of No. 76, Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, and the first sentence of 113 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the current tonnage figures appear in the application but their accuracy has not been established by competent evidence. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12, projected profits depend on various problematic assumptions. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the initial payment was $100. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 18, the cost estimate's reasonableness depends largely on what it would cost to obtain suitable material for a cap, which is not clear. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 20, Scott had independent knowledge of the availability and cost of clay. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the proposed finding accurately reflects the evidence, with the qualification that the layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand also contains some coarse sand and fine gravel. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 22, the water table will be below the liner most, but not all, of the time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 28, see the discussion of DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 29, 59, 63 and 78 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 30, hazardous materials will end up in the landfill. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 39, the liner's permeability depends on the permeant. Although it is almost impervious to water, hydrophobic organics move readily through. Clay is a much better liner for those materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the Gundle liner by itself is not the state of the art in Florida or anywhere else for municipal sanitary landfills. Proposed conclusions of law are addressed elsewhere. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 41, in the puncture test, the liner withstood a probe exerting 270 ponds of pressure. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 44, there are no clayey sands at the depth proposed for the deeper portions of the waste disposal cell liners, as WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21 and 27, taken together reflect. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 46, as the manufacturer's representative said, "these liners are a part of the quote unquote state of the art requirement for lined hazardous waste facilities." I.T. 404 (emphasis supplied). The other part is three feet of clay, not sand, underneath. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 47, it depends on the hazardous waste facility. A DER chemist, Mr. Watts, recommended monitoring groundwater near a municipal landfill for volatile organic chemicals. While most municipal garbage is not toxic, leachate from municipal waste is toxic. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 48, the testimony was that the groundwater pollution at Wright landfill was "most likely" from unlined cells. No lined landfill in DER's Northwest District has been built below the groundwater table as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 49, While municipal leachate constituents should not corrode the liner, many can diffuse through it. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 50, some two percent of the waste stream will still be hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 51, some organic materials will sink, rather than float. The sand within which the leachate will accumulate will not extract or absorb organic constituents of the leachate, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 52, removal is first to the leachate collection pond, also lined with high density polytheylene. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 53, it is wholly improbable that 27 acres of plastic will be installed "without physical flaws." Leakage could exceed 10,000 gallons a year. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 54, not all organic materials diffuse though high density polyethylene. Dr. Haxo's views on WACOC's proposal are not a matter of record. The 448-page EPA Study discusses containment techniques. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 55, the Haxo studies are pertinent although they do not purport to replicate a landfill precisely. In some studies he used concentrations of a single organic that were comparable to the concentrations of organics as a whole in municipal leachate. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 56, direct discharge of leachate into the groundwater, even in small quantities could violate the "free from" standards as could diffusion into the groundwater of carcinogenic, teratogenic or mutagenic, hydrophobic organic materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 57, CCE's experts' views about synthetic liners coincided in important respects with those of Gundle's chemist. There is no clayey layer where much of the waste disposal cells' liners are supposed to go. Given the certainty of leakage directly to the groundwater, it is the applicant's burden to do quantative analysis. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 60, there are no data for the site itself. The available data are incomplete. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 62, the February water level is likely to be more common than the October water level. The weight of the evidence did not establish that "under normal conditions the water level should fluctuate no more than five feet." With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the proposed finding reflects the evidence except for the final sentence. *** With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 67, 68 and 69, it is inappropriate to schedule pumpout times at this stage. But it is appropriate to consider above average annual rainfall. Annual leachate production differs from the amount of head at any one time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 73, the design engineer suggested Roto-Rooter. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 74, intersection should not occur. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 77, municipal landfills are not viewed as hazardous waste generators under federal law. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 82, the second sentence was not proven. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 84, there may be some infiltration. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 89, it would be very expensive to place enough monitoring wells to assure detection of any leaks. Placement of screens should be less of a problem than sinking enough wells. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 91, the Watts memo's suggestion of testing for volatile organic chemicals should give additional assurance. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 95, two percent of the waste stream can be anticipated to consist of hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109, the proposed clayey sand materials used in the thickness proposed would not create the barrier claimed. Modifications not proposed in the application are possible. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 110, 111 and 112, WACOC has not given reasonable assurance that pollution of the groundwater in violation of DER water quality standards would not occur; or that no more than a foot of leachate would stand on the liner. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert H. Huelsman Anna M. Huelsman 608 Ironwood Drive Fort Walton, FL 32548 Debra Swim, Esquire 1323 Diamond Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire Post Office Box 887 Mary Esther, Florida 32569 William L. Hyde, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, Laface & Richard Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Chris McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is comprised of residents of the residential neighborhood in close proximity to the construction and demolition debris disposal site or pit maintained by Whitrock Associates, Inc.. Its President is Jim Whitfield, a party Respondent to the subject Consent Order. The Petitioner complains that illegal dumping is occurring at the disposal site, that there is no guard maintained at the gate, and that the gate is not locked when no one is present. It complains that DEP does not inspect the facility enough by only inspecting it once per year and that the facility should be closed down. Its chief objections are that refuse is being dumped in what it considers to be a stocked fishing lake. The "lake" is a borrow pit partially filled with water, which resulted when excavation of the dirt in the pit penetrated below the ground water table. The chief objections raised by the Petitioner amount to the nuisance "eye-sore" nature of the facility and the concomitant deleterious effect its presence and activity has arguably had on property values and the Petitioner's members' ability to re-sell homes. The Petitioner's standing is not contested. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating landfills, construction and demolition debris disposal sites and other such waste sites, within the purview of Section 403.161, Florida Statutes, concerning pollution discharge and, more specifically, rules contained in Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, concerning solid waste and similar materials and disposal facilities. DEP is a party Respondent to this proceeding because the Consent Order it has entered into with the owner and operator of the site, Whitrock Associates, Inc., has been challenged, within the point of entry period afforded by that Consent Order, by the above-named Petitioner. Whitrock Associates, Inc. maintains a construction and demolition debris disposal site, in the form of an excavated pit, located between Carmel Drive and Vicky Leigh Road in Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida. An inspection of the facility by DEP personnel on October 13, 1994 revealed the disposal of organic debris in surface water at the site, the disposal of which is illegal in ground or surface waters. It also came to DEP's attention at this time that the facility was operating with an expired general permit. Consequently, an enforcement action was initiated against the owner and operator of the facility. After extensive negotiations, the subject Consent Order resulted, which has been challenged by the Petitioner. The essential provisions of the Consent Order would require that the Respondent to it, meaning Whitrock Associates, Inc., cease disposal of construction and demolition debris at the facility, which is not "clean debris". "Clean debris" is inert debris, such as brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete, including embedded pipe or steel. The Consent Order provides that within 60 days of its effective date, all such non-conforming construction and demolition debris shall be removed from the water at the site and that the Respondent, Whitrock Associates, Inc., shall submit a notification of intent to use a general permit for the construction and demolition debris disposal facility to DEP. Failure to proceed to obtain the general permit would result in closure of the facility, pursuant to Rule 62-701.803(10), Florida Administrative Code. The Consent Order also provides that a $2,300.00 civil penalty and cost payment shall be made to DEP in full settlement of the matters addressed in the Consent Order. That payment shall be made within 30 days of the effective date of the Consent Order. The Consent Order then enunciates, in great detail, the manner in which future penalties will be assessed for any violation of the Consent Order and related time limits, as well as payment methods and circumstances. It also provides a means for handling of delays in compliance with the Consent Order. It provides the means for enforcement of the terms of the Consent Order. Billy Ross Mitchell is an Environmental Specialist with 14 years of experience with DEP. He works in the solid waste section. Among his other duties, he inspects solid waste disposal facilities. He has a degree in environmental resource management. Mr. Mitchell established that this is the type of facility, where, because of the disposal of inert construction debris, which does not pose a significant pollution threat, a so-called "general permit" is sufficient authorization for operation of the facility. The facility was operating with an expired general permit at the time of Mr. Mitchell's inspection, but a new general permit has since been authorized. Mr. Mitchell performed the inspection of the facility, at which he observed illegal construction debris being placed in the water at the site. DEP's rules allow inert material, such as brick, glass, ceramics, and so forth to be placed in water at the site, which, in essence, is a borrow pit. The rules forbid organic materials, such as shingles, lumber and other similar materials, which can sometimes be constituted of pollutant substances, from being placed in the surface or ground water. As shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 3, a letter from Mr. Cooley, a District Director of DEP, to Mr. Lawrence Sidel of the Petitioner, uncontaminated dirt and "clean debris", such as chunks of concrete and the like, are not considered under Florida law to be solid waste. DEP takes the position that there is no prohibition against a person using clean fill, without a required permit, to fill land or bodies of water that are not "state jurisdictional water." The water body on the Whitrock property is not a state jurisdictional lake or water body. It is an old borrow pit, wholly contained on the Whitrock property. State law allows its owners to fill it with dirt or clean fill. Whitrock is not allowed to use any material classified as "solid waste" in filling the pit, hence the violation cited to that firm in the particular mentioned above, concerning the non-inert construction debris that was placed in the water. The Respondent's Exhibit 4 is an engineer's report prepared for the Whitrock facility involving the "notification of proposed use of a general permit" process for the operation of the construction and demolition debris disposal facility. This is the general permit notification process and general permit referenced in the Consent Order. 1/ The site has been used for many years as a borrow pit for dirt fill material or sand, as well as a disposal site for construction debris. In the general permit achievement process, the owner proposes to grade the site so that the final grade is the original, natural grade, with a slight two percent top slope to promote runoff to surrounding retention swales which will be installed at the site. The soil borings reflect that at all depths tested, sand is the underlying soil at the site. The borrow pit has been excavated below the natural water table, which has resulted in ponding of water on the floor of the borrow pit. This is proposed to be filled with "clean" debris, as it is received on site. Clean debris is solid waste which is virtually inert and which poses no pollution threat to ground 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. Examples of it are as depicted in paragraphs six and seven, supra. Clean debris disposal is thus proposed within the pit bottom to an elevation of one foot above water table, above which construction and demolition debris will be disposed. The owner of the facility will be the person responsible for operation, maintenance, and closure of the proposed disposal facility. Procedures will be followed to control the types of waste received, the unloading, compaction, application of cover, final cover, and control of storm water at the site. The existing perimeter fence will remain with a lockable gate at the entrance to the site. In accordance with Rule 62-701.803(8), Florida Administrative Code, at least one spotter/operator will be on duty when the site is operating to inspect incoming waste. If prohibited waste is discovered, it will be separated from the waste stream and placed in appropriate containers for disposal at a properly-permitted facility. A commercial dumpster is located on site for unpermitted waste and is regularly emptied by a sanitation contractor. This practice is proposed to continue with the issuance of the general permit for the construction and demolition debris facility. Construction and demolition debris filling operations will proceed from the northwest corner of the site and progress in an easterly direction along the north property fence line. Due to the depth of the existing cut, approximately 25 feet, it will take approximately three separate "lifts" of waste and compacted material in order to reach a finished grade elevation, to match the original grade of the surrounding terrain. Additional soils required for intermediate cover material and final cover will be obtained off site from other sources. Filling operations should allow for approximately a 100-foot wide working face to aide in keeping a manageable disposal area. A dozer and front-end loader will be available on the site to compact waste material into the "working face." Each lift will be six to eight feet thick. Closure of each portion of the facility will occur as waste compaction approaches original grade. Final cover, seeding or planting of vegetated cover will be placed during stages, within 180 days after reaching final-design waste elevations. The final cover will consist of a 24-inch thick soil layer, with the top six inches being capable of supporting vegetation. The site shall be graded to eliminate ponding, while minimizing erosion. Upon final cover placement across the site, the owner will notify DEP within 30 days. Storm water will be controlled via retention swales surrounding the site. The swales are sized to accommodate one-half inch volume across the site. These specifications are those proposed to be installed and operated at the site in return for the grant of the general permit and are necessary elements of the negotiations and ultimate settlement agreement reached embodied in the Consent Order. Thus, they are required by the Consent Order, should it become final agency action. Chief among the Petitioner's concerns is the matter of the alleged non-compliance of the disposal site and facility with zoning for that area and land-use ordinances, as well as concerns regarding property values, tax assessments and the inherent difficulty in re-sale of homes caused by the presence and operation of the facility. 2/ The Petitioner, whose members, among others, are a number of adjoining landowners, some of whom testified, also complains of pollution of the water body involved, the standing water in the bottom of the borrow pit. Witness Mitchell, as well as Respondent's Exhibit 4, concerning the conditions under which the general permit will be obtained and operated (conditions also repeated in the Consent Order), established that the deposition of only construction and demolition debris and clean fill in the water will pose no pollution which violates Section 403.161, Florida Statutes, and attendant rules. The terms in the Consent Order, which require the general permit and the conditions referenced in the Respondent's Exhibit 4, concerning the general permit, will result in minimal hazards of pollutants entering surface or ground waters, or in polluted air or water emanating from the site in violation of regulatory strictures, assuming frequent inspections by DEP are made to insure compliance. Thus, it has been established that the proposed Consent Order is reasonable under the circumstances. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Consent Order issued in the case of State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection v. Whitrock Associates, Inc. be ratified and adopted as final agency action, in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1996.
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 presented in the case are whether Respondents P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard are liable for violations of state statutes and rules, as alleged in the amended NOV, and, if so, whether the proposed corrective action is appropriate, and whether the proposed civil penalties and costs should be paid by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., is a Florida corporation. P & L Salvage owned and operated an automobile salvage yard at 4535 and 4537 West 45th Street in West Palm Beach, Florida (the “property,” “facility,” or “site”). The property comprises less than two acres. Respondent Marlene Ballard is a Florida resident and the president, treasurer, secretary, and director of P & L Salvage, Inc. Historical Use of the Site Beginning in the 1960s, the site was used as an auto salvage yard, first under the name Johnny’s Junkyard and later as General Truck Parts. In 1981, the owner of the salvage yard, Marie Arant, sold the facility. The record is not clear about the exact identity of the purchaser. The Alliance report, referred to later, states that the property was purchased by “the Ballard family.” The record evidence is insufficient to prove that Marlene Ballard ever owned the salvage yard. The parties agree that the salvage yard was operated for a time as P & L Salvage, which was unincorporated. Then, in January 1990, the site was purchased by Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., which owned the site continuously until January 2007. Marlene Ballard lived in a house on the site from the 1980s until the property was sold in 2007. A separate building at the site was used as P & L Salvage’s office. The general operation of the salvage yard was to bring junk cars and trucks to the site, remove fluids from the vehicles, remove parts for sale, and then crush the dismantled vehicles in a hydraulic crusher to prepare them for transport and sale as scrap metal. The automotive fluids removed from the junked cars were stored on the site in 55-gallon drums for later disposal. Respondents presented evidence to show that the person who had the most knowledge of and managed the day-to-day operations in the salvage yard was an employee named John Boyd. When John Boyd ceased employment at the salvage yard, Marlene Ballard’s son, Thomas Ballard, took over the management of the yard. Respondents contend that no evidence was presented that Marlene Ballard conducted or participated in any activities that resulted in contamination, or that she had authority to prevent any potential contamination that might have occurred. However, Ms. Ballard was familiar with the activities in the yard, having worked and lived on the site for many years. She did the bookkeeping and signed payroll checks. All employees answered to Ms. Ballard. She contracted for environmental assessment and remediation work, and signed the hazardous waste manifests. She was acquainted with the contamination that could and did occur at the salvage yard. Eagle Sanitation, Inc., which operated a roll-off container business, leased the site from September 2005 until January 2007. Eagle Sanitation also obtained an option to purchase the property. At first, Eagle Sanitation only leased about a quarter of the site because there were many junk autos, tires, and other salvage debris still on the site in September 2005. For several months, Thomas Ballard continued to sell auto parts and scrap from the site, and to clear the site. Eagle Sanitation did not have complete use of the site until early in 2006. Eagle Sanitation’s business consisted of delivering roll-off containers for a fee to contractors and others for the disposal of construction debris and other solid waste, and then picking up the containers and arranging for disposal at the county landfill or, in some cases, recycling of the materials. Roll-off containers at the site were usually empty, but sometimes trucks with full containers would be parked at the site overnight or over the weekend. During its lease of the site, Eagle Sanitation did not collect used oil or gasoline and did not provide roll-off containers to automotive businesses. No claim was made that Eagle Sanitation caused any contamination found at the site. Contamination at the Site In 1989, Marlene Ballard contracted with Goldcoast Engineering & Testing Company (Goldcoast) to perform a “Phase II” environmental audit. Goldcoast collected and analyzed groundwater and soil samples and produced a report. Cadmium, chromium, and lead were found in the soil samples collected by Goldcoast. Some petroleum contamination was also detected in soils. These pollutants are all associated with automotive fluids. The Goldcoast report states that groundwater samples did not indicate the presence of pollutants in concentrations above any state standard. The Goldcoast report did not address the timing of discharges of contaminating substances that occurred at the site, except that such discharges had to have occurred before the report was issued in 1989. That is before the property was purchased by P & L Salvage, Inc. During an unannounced inspection of the salvage yard by two Department employees on August 15, 1997, oil and other automotive fluids were observed on the ground at the site in the “disassembly area” and around the crusher. There were also stains on the ground that appeared to have been made by automotive fluids. No samples of the fluids were taken or analyzed at the time of the inspection. The Department inspectors told Marlene Ballard to cease discharging fluids onto the ground, but no enforcement action was initiated by the Department. Ms. Ballard was also told that she should consider removing the soil where the discharged fluids and staining were observed. In early 1998, RS Environmental was hired to excavate and remove soils from the site. This evidence was presumably presented by Respondents to indicate that they remediated the contaminated soils observed by the Department inspectors, but no details were offered about the area excavated to make this clear. In 2004, in conjunction with a proposed sale of the site, another Phase II investigation of the site was done by Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), and a report was issued by PSI in May 2004. The PSI report is hearsay and, as such, cannot support a finding of fact regarding the matters stated in the report. Presumably as a result of its knowledge of the PSI report, the Department issued a certified letter to Ms. Ballard on June 24, 2005, informing her that the Department was aware of methyl tert-butyl ethylene (MTBE) contamination at the facility. MTBE is an octane enhancer added to gasoline. The Department’s June 2005 letter advised Ms. Ballard that Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 required “responsible parties” to file a site assessment report (SAR) within 270 days of becoming aware of such contamination. The letter also informed Ms. Ballard of the proximity of the City of Riviera Beach’s wellfield and the threat that represented to public drinking water. The June 2005 letter was returned to the Department unsigned. In October 2005, the Department arranged to have the letter to Marlene Ballard served by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. The Department received a confirmation of service document that shows the letter was served by a deputy on October 14, 2005, but this document is hearsay and does not support a finding that Ms. Ballard had knowledge of the contents of the letter. The Department did not receive an SAR within 270 days, but no enforcement action was immediately initiated. On December 15, 2006, the Department issued a six- count NOV to P & L. Salvage, Inc. P & L Salvage requested a hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. In January 2007, in conjunction with Eagle Sanitation’s proposed sale of its purchase option to Prime Realty Capital, LLC, Alliance Consulting & Environmental Services, Inc., (Alliance) conducted a site assessment at the site and produced an SAR in April 2007. At that time, as indicated above, P & L Salvage had ceased operations at the site and Eagle Sanitation was operating its roll-off container business there. The SAR states that in January 2007, “[a]pproximately 80 yards of black stained oily-solidified shallow sands were excavated [by Eagle Sanitation] from the central and northeastern portions of the site, where car crushing, fluid draining and battery removal were historically conducted.” The soil contained lead, iron, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic, but testing did not show the excavated soils constituted hazardous materials and, therefore, the soils were disposed at the county landfill. The area of soils where the Department inspectors in 1997 observed automotive fluids and staining appears to have been included in the soils that were excavated and removed in 2007. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. Testing by Alliance of other soils at the site showed “no significant petroleum metals concentrations” and Alliance did not recommend the removal of other soils. The presence of an MTBE “plume” of approximately 30,000 square feet (horizontal dimension) was also described in the SAR. The plume is in the area where the crusher was located. Several groundwater samples from the site showed MTBE in concentrations above the target cleanup limit. The City of Riviera Beach operates a public water supply wellfield near the site. The closest water well is approximately 250 feet from the site. The SAR concludes that “the potential exists for the MTBE plume to be pulled downward” toward the well, and recommends that a risk assessment be performed. Alliance recommended in the SAR that the MTBE contamination be remediated with “in-situ bioremediation” with oxygen enhancement. No remediation has occurred on the site since the date of the Alliance report. The Alliance report did not address the timing of contaminating discharges that occurred at the site. To the extent that Alliance reported contamination in 2007 that was not reported in the 1989 Goldcoast report, that is not sufficient, standing alone, to meet the Department’s burden of proof to show that P & L Salvage, Inc., caused “new” contamination after 1989. Competent evidence was not presented that the Alliance report describes “new” contamination. The authors of the reports were not called as witnesses. No expert testimony was presented on whether the data in the reports can establish the timing of contaminating discharges. It is not the role of the Administrative Law Judge, nor does he have the requisite expertise, to compare the environmental assessments conducted by Goldcoast and Alliance and make judgments about whether some of the contamination reported by Alliance had to have occurred after 1989. Although the Department’s expert, Paul Wierzbicki, testified that it was his opinion that the contamination was attributable to the “operations of the P & L Salvage yard facility,” he was answering a question about “what caused the contamination” and, in context, his testimony only confirmed that the type of contamination shown in the photographs and reported in the site assessment reports was the type of contamination associated with auto salvage yards. Mr. Wiezbicki’s testimony is not evidence which can support a finding that the contamination at the site, other than the automotive fluids and stained soils observed by the Department inspectors in 1997, was caused by P & L Salvage, Inc.1 On June 12, 2007, after reviewing the Site Assessment Report, the Department issued a letter to Marlene Ballard, requesting additional data and analysis. At the hearing, the Department presented a responding letter from Alliance dated June 21, 2007. It was disputed whether the Alliance letter is evidence of Ms. Ballard’s receipt and knowledge of the Department’s June 12, letter. However, even if Ms. Ballard did not know about the Department’s letter in June 2007, she certainly became aware of the letter in the course of this proceeding. The amended NOV issued in January 2008 mentions the letter, and the letter was listed as an exhibit in the parties’ June 4, 2008 Pre-hearing Stipulation. On January 24, 2008, the Department issued an amended NOV which dropped three counts from the original NOV and added two new counts. Most significantly, the amended NOV added Marlene Ballard and Thomas Ballard as Respondents. P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard responded to the amended NOV with petitions for hearing. Thomas Ballard did not respond. At the hearing, the Department presented testimony of employees that were involved in this enforcement action regarding the value of their time expended on various tasks associated with this case. Bridget Armstrong spent eight hours inspecting the site of the contamination, eight hours drafting the NOV and consent order, approximately 30 hours reviewing technical documents, and 15 hours corresponding with Respondents. Ms. Armstrong’s salary at the time was about $20.00 per hour. Paul Wierzbicki spent 16 hours investigating facilities in the area, reviewing the contamination assessment reports, and overseeing the enforcement activity of his subordinates. Mr. Wierzbicki was paid $33.00 per hour. Kathleen Winston spent 10 hours reviewing a site assessment report and drafting correspondence. Ms. Winston’s salary at the time was $23.56 per hour. Geetha Selvendren spent 4-to-5 hours reviewing the site assessment report. She was paid $19.00 per hour at the time. Finally, Joseph Lurix spent three hours reviewing documents. His salary at the time was $34.97 per hour.
The Issue The issue is whether a permit should be issued to Respondent, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC (LER), authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility in unincorporated Lake County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties LER, whose mailing address is Post Office Box 2872, Windermere, Florida, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State. LER's principals are Linwood Brannon and Richard Bazinet, both of whom have had at least ten years' experience in the operation and construction of demolition debris disposal facilities. The Department is an agency of the State that is authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2005)2, to evaluate applications and issue permits for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facilities. The permit in issue here was processed, reviewed, and approved for issuance by the Department's Central District Office in Orlando, Florida. Petitioners Miriam Resto and Jim Taylor did not appear at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by the issuance of a permit. Petitioner Timothy L. McCormack resides at 11321 Valley View Road, Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida. Mr. McCormack's home is "a little over a mile" north-northwest of the proposed facility. His concern with the proposed facility is generally over contamination from the landfill, and not contamination occurring at the property. Petitioner John A. Mapp, Jr., resides at 21307 County Road 561, Clermont, Florida, which is approximately one-half mile from the proposed facility. Mr. Mapp's home is upgradient from the facility and consequently he has no "individual concerns" as to how the proposed facility would affect his home. He is concerned, however, with potential groundwater contamination from the facility. Petitioners David and Lisa Cimini did not testify at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by this proceeding. According to the Partial Pre- Hearing Stipulation filed by Respondents, however, they reside at 21423 County Road 455, Clermont, Florida, which is near the proposed facility. Background On July 26, 2005, LER filed an application with the Department for a permit authorizing it to construct and operate a facility for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling in an unincorporated area of the County. A lengthy definition of construction and demolition debris is found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(27), which reads as follows: discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from a construction project; effective January 1, 1997, except as provided in Section 403.707(12)(j), F.S., unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from the facilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their components and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste where generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de minimus amounts of other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at construction and demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris. The facility will be located on a 44.33-acre site one- half mile west of State Road 561, off County Road 455, in an unincorporated part of Lake County. Based on this description, it appears that the facility will be located east of Howey-in- the Hills, west of Tavares, and approximately half-way between Astatula and where State Road 561 crosses the Florida Turnpike to the southwest. The site presently has an active sand mine (borrow pit) that covers an area of approximately twenty-two acres. The facility intends to recycle metal, concrete, asphalt, wood chips, and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and will serve areas in Lake County and nearby communities. In response to LER's initial application, the Central District Office submitted a Request for Additional Information dated August 22, 2005, asking for additional well and site information, operations plan details, and financial assurance clarification. On October 20, 200, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information. While the application was being processed, Mr. Cimini advised the Department that two additional wells surrounded the property, including one that had recently been installed on property owned by Mr. Gary Sprauer that lies within five hundred feet of the limits of waste disposal of the facility. On November 18, 2005, the Department submitted an additional Request for Additional Information, in which it brought up the fact that Mr. Cimini had advised the Department of the existence of these wells. On November 28, 2005, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information, in which it stated that only one well, which belonged to a Mr. Sprauer, had been drilled within five hundred feet of the proposed facility; that there was no electricity to the well; that the nearest residence was approximately seven hundred feet away; and that the well was not approved or being used as a potable water well. Therefore, LER asserted that the Department should not treat the Sprauer well as a potable water well subject to the five-hundred-foot setback from potable water wells for landfills established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(2)(b). LER's submittal provided additional information on the geology and operational aspects of its proposed facility. On December 6, 2005, LER submitted additional information in response to items discussed at a meeting held between the Department and LER on December 2, 2005. The submittal contained further information about potential drinking water wells around the proposed facility, and LER reasserted that the Sprauer well should not be treated by the Department as a potable drinking water well. Based upon its own investigation, however, the Department concluded that the Sprauer well "was a bona fide drinking water well for domestic supply." On January 6, 2006, Mr. Bradner, a Department solid and hazardous waste program manager who was assisting in the processing and review of the application, wrote a memorandum to the file confirming that the Department considered the application complete as of December 6, 2005. On February 10, 2006, LER provided additional hydrologic and operational information in order to try to convince the Department not to apply the five-hundred-foot setback to the Sprauer well. This information showed that the Sprauer well would be upgradient from the proposed facility. The Department allows waste to be placed within five hundred feet of an existing potable water well based upon site-specific conditions as demonstrated by an applicant. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(b). On March 27, 2006, in response to the Department's comments on its submittal of this additional information, LER submitted further hydrologic and modeling information to support its contention that groundwater flowed away from the well belonging to Mr. Sprauer. On April 27, 2006, LER provided the Department with further refinement of its groundwater model to demonstrate that there would be no impact to the Sprauer well. On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued notice of its intent to approve the application and issue a permit to LER. Of significance here is the fact that the Department did not require LER to install a liner and leachate collection system. This was consistent with the terms of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.730(4)(a), which does not require a liner unless the Department demonstrates that the facility is "reasonably expected to result in violations of ground water standards and criteria." On May 17, 2006, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that there is a substantial risk that the surrounding groundwater will be contaminated by leachates from the facility, and that the Department should accordingly require LER to (a) install a liner and associated leachate recovery system in their facility and (b) post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary. The Proposed Project Among other things, the application included an engineering report, an operations plan, a geotechnical evaluation of the stability of the site, a hydrological investigation, a stormwater management plan, a reclamation and closure plan, and financial assurance documentation. These elements are required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.730, which governs this type of application. The proposed facility is to be located on a 44.33-acre parcel in a rural area that has been the site of a sand and clay borrow pit. The pit has been mined for the last thirty years, has been permitted by Lake County as a mine since 1986, and before being used as a mine was the site of an orange grove. As explained by Mr. Golden, the proposed facility's project manager, the site is "high and dry" and "a good site for a landfill." The water table is at least one hundred feet below the ground surface. There is a confining layer of clays and sandy clays approximately one hundred fifty feet below the ground surface at the site of the proposed facility, and the layer has very low hydrologic conductivity, that is, 1,000 to 10,000 times less permeable than the surface sands. The Floridan Aquifer is approximately two hundred feet below ground surface. The horizontal velocity of the groundwater at the site is approximately two feet per year, and the vertical velocity about 1.3 inches per year. As a result, the groundwater monitoring system at the proposed facility would detect any contamination that might be emitted. In addition, approximately twenty feet of dry soils underlying the landfill would absorb whatever comes out of the landfill to begin with, just like a septic tank. The confining layer would be approximately one hundred to one hundred twenty feet below the landfill base and would be anywhere from twenty to forty feet deep. As a result, it is highly unlikely that any potential contaminants that hypothetically might be emitted from the facility would ever reach the Floridan Aquifer. The Proposed Permit On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued its intent to issue the permit. Attached to that intent to issue was a Draft Permit. The Draft Permit restricts disposal of solid waste exclusively to construction and demolition debris (as defined in the rule cited above) and requires LER to comply with an Operations Plan developed by LER. Among other things, the Operations Plan provides for operators trained in spotting and turning away unacceptable waste and other screening procedures to ensure nondisposal of unacceptable waste. The Operations Plan exceeds minimum Department rule requirements. The Operations Plan prohibits disposal of CCA (chromated copper arsenate) pressure treated wood and has a special screening procedure to ensure that these wood products do not come into the facility. The Draft Permit requires LER to install a system of groundwater monitoring wells that surround the property at both shallow and deep depths to detect any potential contaminants coming off of the site. Thus, LER will be required to monitor the surficial aquifer, the Floridan Aquifer, and adjacent wells to ensure protection of area groundwater. The wells will act as a form of early warning indicator so that corrective action can be undertaken in the event the wells show a potential threat to drinking water beyond the property boundary of the proposed facility. The Draft Permit requires two wells to be installed immediately to the north of the Sprauer well, even though it is upgradient from the site. To be conservative and prudent, the Department is requiring that the number of wells that LER must install be substantially greater than the minimum required under Department rules. Based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, Mr. Golden concluded that LER has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will not discharge pollutants in contravention of Department standards or rules. Mr. Bradner agreed with this conclusion and likewise concluded that LER had provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will comply with all of the required statutes and rules. The weight of the evidence supports these conclusions. The weight of the evidence also supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the proposed facility will not be a source of contamination for wells within or greater than five hundred feet of the proposed facility. In the same vein, Mr. Bradner determined that the Sprauer well was the only existing potable drinking water well within five hundred feet. Both experts concluded that the Sprauer well would not be adversely impacted based upon the Department's review of the groundwater modeling data provided to it by LER. Finally, the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that, based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the Department should not require LER to install a landfill liner at the proposed facility. Mr. Bradner agreed with that conclusion. Petitioners' Objections In their Petition, Petitioners have raised the following objections to the issuance of a permit: That because the proposed facility would have no liner, the local environment and drinking water supplies would not be adequately protected from contamination; That the application significantly underestimates the amount of recharge to local aquifers; That the application ignores or underestimates the ecological fragility of the area; and That the location of the Sprauer well should require a reconfiguration of the footprint of the proposed facility. As relief, the Petition asks that the Department require a liner and associated leachate recovery system and adequate financial assurance to ensure proper operation and cleanup if necessary. During opening argument, Petitioners raised one more issue not previously raised in their Petition — - the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed facility in conjunction with two other landfills in the area. This allegation was not timely raised, however, and has been disregarded. The positions taken by Petitioners (other than cumulative impacts) appear to be interrelated, that is, the Department should require a liner because the area is ecologically fragile and recharge is greater than calculated by LER. In support of their position, Petitioners first presented the testimony of Mr. McCormack, who is engaged in the commercial nursery and landscaping business. Mr. McCormack identified the presence of CCA treated wood as his main concern from a contamination standpoint. His concern is that a possible spread of leachate will result from mingling the wood with rainwater or groundwater and that the surrounding groundwater (which ultimately flows into Double Run Springs, the Harris Chain of Lakes, and the Floridan Aquifer) would be adversely impacted. Mr. McCormack estimated that the edge of the Double Run Springs system was approximately 2,500 feet, or around one- half mile, from the site. He expressed the opinion that it was physically impossible to remove such wood prior to its being landfilled. Mr. McCormack conceded, however, that he was not an expert on landfill management or hydrology and had no personal experience with the operation of a landfill. There is specific language in LER's Operations Plan prohibiting the disposal of CCA treated wood and requiring best management practices to enforce the prohibition against the disposal of CCA treated wood. This requirement is mandatory, and not voluntary, and provides reasonable assurance that CCA treated wood would not be a potential source of contamination. The testimony of expert witnesses Bradner and Golden, who expressed this view, is accepted as being more credible on this issue. Petitioners also presented the testimony of Mr. Mapp, who critiqued the hydrological investigation performed by LER by asserting that the recharge to the Floridan Aquifer is four or five times the amount stated in the application. He also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rates were understated.3 Mr. Mapp is a systems analyst for Lockheed Martin Missiles and has a master's degree in business and an undergraduate degree in physics. While highly educated, Mr. Mapp has no prior experience in any kind of hydrologic, geologic, chemical, or similar types of analyses, or any analyses of the rate of transport of chemicals in the environment. The knowledge and opinions rendered in this case by Mr. Mapp were obtained through personal research after the permit application was filed. Mr. Mapp opined that LER's recharge calculations constitute a "significant discrepancy." He acknowledged, however, that his estimate of the true speed of downward flow of water at the site of the proposed facility was "just off the cuff" and did not factor in the effects of applying cover to, and the filling and capping of, the landfill. He did not know how fast particular contaminants may migrate through the groundwater or what volume of waste might be necessary to cause a violation of groundwater quality standards. He also could not give a specific calculation of where a contaminant might be located after a set period of years. Unlike the other experts in this case, the witness had not calculated Floridan Aquifer recharge rates or otherwise used Darcy's Law.4 Even if the permit application underestimated the recharge rate, the thickness of the confining layer below the base of the proposed facility, which was conservatively estimated, would cause groundwater to flow horizontally, not vertically, once the confining layer is reached. As explained by Mr. Golden, LER did not rely exclusively on the recharge calculations that Mr. Mapp relied upon in determining recharge rates. Separate information regarding the permeability of the confining layer provides additional support for the recharge calculations. Mr. Mapp also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rate calculations were underestimated, based upon his review of a study of a deforested site elsewhere in the Lake Wales Ridge. He assumed the evapotranspiration rate in that study (for a site located fifteen miles away) would be applicable to the site of the proposed facility, and he then assumed that the evapotranspiration rate identified in the permit application for the proposed facility would be applicable only to the properties adjacent to the proposed facility. There is, however, no scientific basis for drawing an analogy between the borrow pit that is the location of the proposed facility and the deforested site with different geological characteristics about which Mr. Mapp read in the study he relied upon for his conclusions. Furthermore, LER undertook site-specific analyses of the permeability of the soils underlying the site of the proposed facility, whereas Mr. Mapp's calculations were based upon assumptions drawn from a study of a site fifteen miles away. The testimony of Mr. Golden is found to be credible and persuasive on this issue. Finally, there was no evidence concerning Petitioners' contention that LER should post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary. Therefore, no modification to the permit in this respect is required.
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 granting the application of Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, for a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facility in unincorporated lake County. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 8th day of November, 2006.
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).
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 Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed award of contracts for innovative recycling projects pursuant to a Request for Proposal, solicitation number 9002C, is proper?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Ramco is a sole proprietorship owned by Joe Dean Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey is engaged in the business of recycling roofing materials. Ramco currently operates three sites in Florida which accept roofing debris: Manatee, Lee and Duval Counties. Ramco operates two machines which grind roofing debris for use as road and base material. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida assigned responsibility for regulating solid waste management. The Request for Proposal. Pursuant to Section 83(12), of Chapter 88-130, Laws of Florida, the Department was appropriated $750,000.00 to be used "for grants to private persons for innovative recycling projects which will demonstrate applications and products from recyclable materials." On November 3, 1989, the Department issued a Request for Proposal, solicitation number 9002C (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP"), seeking proposals for awards of the $750,000.00. The RFP proposed to award grants of "up to $75,000.00" to the winning proposals. Therefore, the RFP required at least ten winning proposals be selected by the Department. The Department also decided to designate the eleventh through fifteenth best proposals as alternates. Section A.10 of Attachment B of the RFP provides, in part, the following "Description of Work Being Procured": The 1988 Solid Waste Act Appropriated $750,000 from the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund to be used by DER for grants to private persons for innovative recycling projects. . . . The ultimate goal of the Innovative Recycling Grants is to help manage the state's solid waste and to foster the expansion of markets for recyclable materials. Eligible projects, therefore, must demonstrate applications and products derived from recyclable materials which have the potential for significantly reducing the amount of waste that requires disposal in Florida's landfills. [Emphasis added]. "Innovative recycling projects" are defined in the RFP as follows: "Innovative recycling projects" means recycling processes and techniques which have not been fully proven under the circumstances of their contemplated use and which represent a significant advancement over the state of the art, when compared to an appropriate conventional technology in terms of the following: significant waste reduction; cost reduction; environmental quality; and increased energy conservation or recovery Innovative recycling projects can also mean an unusual application of an existing technology. The Description of Work Being Procured section of the RFP also provided that "[p]rojects received should be considered commercially available recycling technology not presently in widespread use. Research and development should be substantially completed." [Emphasis added]. The terms "commercially available" are defined in the RFP as follows: "Commercially available" means a recycling process or technique in which research and development are substantially completed and the process or technique has been shown to be technically feasible. Finally, Section A.10 of Attachment B of the RFP provided that "[o]ther projects will be considered, if the proposals fully explain how the project will be innovative and meet the criteria in this request for proposal." The RFP was not challenged by Ramco or any other substantially affected party. The parties included the following stipulated fact concerning the issuance of the RFP in their Prehearing Stipulation: The procedures followed by the Department in developing and promulgating the RFP, including all notices to all bidders, were consistent with Chapter 287, F.S., and all rules promulgated thereunder. In pertinent part, the RFP provided that proposals received in response to the RFP were to be ranked as follows: Each RFP will be reviewed by a technical committee of at least three persons with technical knowledge about the Solid Waste Program. Each of the reviewers will work independently using the outline shown in Attachment C. Each reviewer will use the total point scores to rank the responders and a mean rank for each responder will be calculated. The mean rank scores, without accompanying responders names, will be presented to the chairman of the selection committee who will determine the final rank of the proposals. . . . . The technical committee required by the RFP was comprised of William Kahn, Julie Gissendanner and Barry A. Swihart. The committee members have experience and technical knowledge about the Department's Solid Waste Program. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the technical committee was not properly constituted and consistent with the RFP. Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP provided the following evaluation criteria which were required to be used by the technical committee in evaluating proposals: Introduction Scope and Schedule Qualifications Level of innovation Scientific/Technical Quality Commercialization Potential Applicability to Florida's Specific Solid Waste Needs Technology Transfer Cost effectiveness of the Project Anticipated Benefits of the Project Minority Business Utilization The parties stipulated to the following fact concerning the evaluation criteria in their Prehearing Stipulation: The criteria contained in the RFP, by which the Department rated the bidders, were in accordance with Chapter 403, F.S., and were appropriate for determining which projects should be awarded Innovative Recycling Projects grants, subject to 7.d. below. Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP and Attachment C of the RFP explained the evaluation criteria listed in Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP. The information concerning each of the evaluation criteria sought by the Department in its RFP was explained. Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP also set a limitation on the number of pages explaining how a proposal would meet each criterion could be submitted. Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP provided the following with regard to nonresponsive proposals: Nonresponsive RFP's include, but are not limited to, those that: (a) are irregular or not in conformance with the solicitation requirements and instructions; (b) fail to utilize or complete prescribed forms; (c) are conditional, incomplete, indefinite or ambiguous; (d) are intended to accomplish only a portion or portions of the overall work; or (e) have improper or undated signatures. A NONRESPONSIVE RFP WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The FDER may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the RFP's received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which ARE NOT PREJUDICIAL to other responders. Responses to the RFP. A total of 39 responses to the RFP, including one from Ramco, were received by the Department. Responses to the RFP were sealed when received. The responses were evaluated individually by each member of the technical committee by application of the criteria to each proposal. The proposals were not rated comparatively or even discussed by the members of the technical committee. The members of the technical committee were not familiar with any of the proposals. The members of the technical committee were not biased against Ramco nor in favor of any proposal. The evidence failed to prove that the technical committee acted improperly in evaluating the proposals. Two of the 39 responses to the RFP were rejected by the Department as nonresponsive pursuant to Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP. One of the nonresponsive proposals was rejected because it was a project involving incineration. On page 4 of Attachment B of the RFP it was provided that incineration technologies would not be considered. Therefore, the Department's action in rejecting this proposal before evaluation was consistent with the RFP. The other nonresponsive proposal was rejected because it contained no information. The Department's action in rejecting this proposal before evaluation was consistent with page 8 of Attachment B of the RFP. The RFP did not require that a determination be made as to whether proposals were "commercially available" and "innovative recycling projects" before the proposal was evaluated. These factors were not specific criteria. Instead, the RFP contemplated a determination of whether proposals were commercially available and innovative recycling projects by application of all of the evaluation criteria. The RFP required the Department to take into account innovativeness of proposals and their commercial availability in ranking the proposals. It would have been improper for the Department to reject a proposal solely because it determined that the proposal was not commercially available or innovative. As used in the RFP, "commercially available" did not require that a product be available. In fact, the RFP, by defining commercially available to mean a process or technique in which research and development are substantially completed contemplated projects which did not yet have a product. "Commercially available" was properly interpreted by the technical committee to allow projects that had the potential for commercialization. Projects which were somewhere between merely completing a feasibility study and a finished project in their development were acceptable under the RFP. The evidence failed to prove that the Department's determination that all of the 37 proposals that were evaluated had some commercial availability and innovativeness was improper. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the proposals submitted by the other bidders should have been rejected as nonresponsive because they lacked an available product or lacked innovativeness. The Evaluation of Ramco's Proposal. Ramco proposed to develop its roofing debris recycling process throughout Florida. Ramco represented that it recycles roofing debris for use as road and base material. Ramco requested $335,000.00 to implement its proposal; $5,000.00 per County. Ramco's proposal was ranked 34th out of the 37 proposals evaluated by the technical committee. Evaluator A, Barry A. Swihart, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 27th. Evaluator B, Julie Gissendanner, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 34.5. Evaluator D, William Kahn, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 37. Based upon the rankings of Ramco's proposal and the testimony of the members of the technical committee, Ramco's rank was reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Swihart's lower ranking of the proposal was the result of his stricter application of the evaluation criteria. Mr. Swihart's lower ranking was offset by Mr. Kahn's more generous approach. Several times during Mr. Kahn's testimony he indicated that he had given the Ramco proposal "the benefit of the doubt." Ms. Gissendanner's application of the evaluation criteria was the most reasonable. During her testimony, Ms. Gissendanner consistently and accurately referred to the evaluation criteria. It was apparent that Ms. Gissendanner reasonably and accurately evaluated the Ramco proposal consistent with the specific requirements of the RFP. The overall ranking of Ramco by the entire technical committee was consistent with Ms. Gissendanner's reasonable ranking of Ramco. Mr. Ramsey testified during the formal administrative hearing that the Ramco proposal should have received the maximum score for all of the evaluation criteria except minority business utilization. Mr. Ramsey's testimony, however, consisted primarily of self-serving conclusions unsupported by any backup data which could be appropriately considered. While it is true that Ramco presented an exhibit (exhibit 1) containing photographs, contracts and other documentation concerning the operation of Ramco, most of the evidence included in the exhibit was not part of the proposal submitted by Ramco to the Department. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to consider those portions of the exhibit in this proceeding. To do so would have the effect of allowing an inappropriate amendment to the Ramco proposal. The Ramco proposal, like Mr. Ramsey's testimony, contained in large part self-serving and unsupported conclusions. Details concerning how Ramco has actually recycled roofing debris (how much material has actually been used for roads or as base and who in particular has used the recycled material), and the nature of the machine used by Ramco to recycle roofing material (how is it fueled and how efficiently), were not provided in Ramco's proposal. The scores awarded Ramco's proposal properly reflect the lack of detailed explanation of the proposal. The following findings of fact concern the application of the evaluation criteria to Ramco's proposal. Although the explanations of the evaluation criteria contained in Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP and Attachment C of the RFP have not been quoted, these explanations are hereby adopted as facts and have been considered in making the following findings of fact. Scope and Schedule Criterion. Ramco received scores of 2, 1 and 3 points of a possible of 7. The scores were based upon the lack of detailed work plans, milestone charts or quarterly due dates. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Qualifications. Ramco received scores of 6, 7 and 2 points of a possible 7. Mr. Ramsey was given credit by Mr. Kahn and Ms. Gissendanner for his experience since 1985 in the roofing recycling business of Ramco. The low score awarded by Mr. Swihart was based upon Mr. Ramsey's lack of formal education. Mr. Swihart's score was not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. The evidence failed to prove, however, that a modification of Mr. Swihart's score would have affected the Department's decision not to award Ramco a contract. The evidence also failed to prove that the other scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Level of Innovation. Ramco received scores of 7, 4 and 7 points of a possible 14. The Ramco proposal lacked a sufficiently detailed description of the project's innovation. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Scientific ("Significant" in Attachment C)/Technical Quality. Ramco received scores of 2, 0 and 4 points of a possible 10. Again, Ramco provided very little information requested as part of this criterion. Although proposals could include as many as 6 pages to describe the information required for this criteria, Ramco barely used a half page. The response to this criteria is representative of the problem with Ramco's proposal: We will cost evaluate and design roofing recycling facilities for all 67 Counties in Florida. To remove roofing debris from Florida's wolid [sic] waste stream and recycle it into an excellent road and base material to be purchased and used by counties road works department [sic]. We have collected, recycled, sold, transported, and applied thousands of tons of these recycled materials. There are no negatives, only positives to recycling roofing debris. We can have a LARGE impact on Florida's landfill needs by removing and recycling roofing debris. Approx 900,000 tons per year. This response does not address the criterion as required by the RFP. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Commercialization Potential. Ramco received scores of 8, 5 and 4 points of a possible 10. Again, supporting information was not provided by Ramco. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Applicability to Florida's Specific Solid Waste Needs. Ramco received scores of 10, 10 and 2 points of a possible 10. The lower score was awarded because the Ramco proposal will impact only a part of the construction and demolition debris waste in Florida. This conclusion is consistent with the RFP. If anything, Ramco could have received fewer points for this criterion. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Technology Transfer. Ramco received scores of 6, 2 and 3 points of a possible 7. Again, lack of specific information concerning this matter was provided. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Cost Effectiveness of the Project. Ramco received scores of 7, 5 and 2 points of a possible 10. The specific information requested concerning this criterion was not provided. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Anticipated Benefits of the Project. This criterion was worth a total of 15 points, Five points were available for each of three subparts: (a) technical/market barriers to the project; (b) proposed results impact on reducing waste needed to be disposed of; and (c) potential for significant commercialization and technology transfer. Ramco's proposal was awarded 1, 0 and 0 points for the first subpart (it was not addressed), 4, 5 and 3 points for the second subpart and 3, 3 and 0 for the last subpart. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Minority Business Utilization. Ramco received no points. Ten points were available. Ramco did not question the scoring of this criterion. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the scores awarded to Ramco, with one minor exception, were unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP. Although Ramco should have received a higher score from one evaluator for Mr. Ramsey's qualifications, the evidence failed to prove that the additional points would significantly affect the proposed award winners. The Department's Proposed Action and Ramco's Challenge. On January 17, 1990, the Department posted a list of the ten proposed contract winners and the five alternates. The winners consisted of the ten proposals which received the highest scores from the technical committee. Ramco was not selected as one of the ten contract winners or one of the five alternates. On January 18, 1990, Ramco filed a letter indicating its intent to protest the Department's proposed action. On January 29, 1990, Ramco filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department. On February 7, 1990, the Department filed Ramco's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Conclusion. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's ranking of Ramco's proposal or any other proposal was unreasonable or inconsistent with the requirements of the RFP. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's proposed ten contract award winners or the five alternates were unreasonably determined by the Department or were inconsistent with the RFP Department Costs. The costs incurred by the Department in this proceeding have been set out in four Affidavits of Cost filed by the Department with its proposed recommended order.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing Ramco's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ramco's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Although general true, this is not the crucial issue in this case. 32. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4-5 Hereby accepted. 6-7 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Generally true. The proposed facts concerning scope and schedule are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact concerning qualifications are generally accepted in finding of fact 40. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 41. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 42. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 43. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 44. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 45. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 46. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 47. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed findings are not relevant to this proceeding. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or based upon evidence not included with Ramco's proposal. 20-28 See 15. Most of these proposed findings of fact are summaries of testimony taken out of context, are not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant to this proceeding. See 8-10 and 16. "Innovative recycling projects" and "commercially available" were not precisely speaking "criteria." Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31-58 Although the nature of the proposals discussed in these proposed findings of fact are correct the conclusions concerning alleged deficiencies with the proposals were not supported by the weight of the evidence or were not relevant to this proceeding. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3. 2 1. 3 4-5. 4 6-7, 12-13 and 50. 5 16-17. 21 and hereby accepted. 15 and hereby accepted. 8 22-23. 9 7-10. 10 9 and 11. 11-12 Hereby accepted. 13-14 27-30. 15 Hereby accepted. 16 27-30. 17 19. 18 24-26. 19 27-28. 20 27-30. 21 See 32. 22-23 See 31. 24 32 and 34. 25-26 36. 27 37. 28 39. 29 40. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 30 41. 31 42. 32 43. 33 44. 34 45. 35 46. 36 47. 37 48. 49 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 40 57-58. Copies Furnished To: Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017-C Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Chris D. McGuire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32299-2400 Leonard J. Shore, Esquire 515 Route 111 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should issue a solid waste construction permit to the David J. Joseph Company (Applicant) to construct lined cells at its existing Class I solid waste landfill in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. It is the position of the applicant and the Department that all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of said permit have been met, while Mr. & Mrs. David Brenner (Petitioners) contend that the application fails to meet the criteria for the issuance of this permit.
Findings Of Fact The applicant filed an application for a solid waste construction permit with the Department on May 2, 1988. This application was given permit number S029-77041. The applicant proposes to expand its existing solid waste Class I sanitary landfill located near Kingsway Road and Interstate 4, east of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, through the construction of a lined addition. This entire site consists of approximately 16 acres, but the lined portion for which this permit is sought comprises about eight acres. This site was purchased by the applicant in 1978, to landfill shredder waste, or "fluff", produced at its Tampa shredder. In fact, the applicant has operated this site as a landfill since 1978, under two previous permits issued by the Department in 1978 and 1983, and approximately nine acres of the site have already been filled. The Department gave notice of its intent to grant this permit on September 23, 1988, subject to specified conditions. The Petitioners, thereafter, timely requested this administrative hearing. The applicant is engaged in the ferrous scrap business at fourteen locations throughout the United States, and provides steel mills with raw material for their use in the production of new steel. It operates a large shredding plant in Tampa, Florida, which consists primarily of an automobile shredder and related equipment. The shredder is a large crushing and grinding piece of equipment which, in approximately 20 seconds, grinds scrap autos into small chunks of scrap the size of a man's fist. A conveyor system separates the scrap produced in the shredding process into three streams. The first stream consists of steel scrap that is sold to a steel mill. Approximately 80% of automobile scrap is steel. The second stream consists of non-ferrous material, primarily aluminum, zinc, copper, brass and other non-steel items found in autos, which are then sold to dealers in that particular type of metal. The third stream is waste material, or "shredder fluff". Approximately 17% of the material in automobile scrap is fluff. Guidelines have been established by the applicant which limit the type of material which will be accepted at the shredder facility as feedstock for the shredder operation. These guidelines prohibit acceptance of lead-acid batteries, gas tanks, tires, catalytic converters, and loose mufflers and tail pipes. Automobiles which are accepted by the applicant at its Tampa plant have already been crushed at separate locations by other companies engaged in the car crushing business prior to their purchase by the applicant. In the crushing process, most automobile fluids are liberated, but oil and other fluids not liberated during the crushing process are then liberated in the shredding process, and are intermingled with all three product streams produced at the shredder mill. Shredder fluff consists largely of automotive components such as upholstery, plastic, glass, rubber, dirt, and other non-magnetic and non-ferrous materials. The applicant's shredder operation in Tampa generates approximately seven to eight tractor trailer loads of fluff per day which are deposited at their current landfill. During 1988, the fluff from approximately 200,000 autos was disposed at this site. The existing landfill is located approximately 550 feet off of the roadway, and is accessible by an entrance road leading to the main gate of the site. The landfill is completely fenced with barbed wire around its perimeter, and there is a locked gate at the access road. There is a full time manager on site. Only shredder fluff produced by the applicant's Tampa shredder is deposited at this site. The applicant delivers its waste to this landfill using its own equipment and personnel. The applicant has taken reasonable steps to insure that only authorized persons enter the landfill site, and that there will be no unauthorized dumping. In order to continue using this landfill site, the applicant proposes to construct a liner system and leachate collection system for the remaining unfilled portion of the landfill, and also to establish a stormwater management system serving the entire site. A geotechnical and foundation investigation has been performed on the site to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of site soils, and the ability of those soils to support the landfill construction. The potential for movement in foundation soils was specifically addressed. It is to be noted that the applicant has been operating a landfill at this site for ten years without any sinkhole or foundation problems. There are no active sinkholes on the site, nor was there competent substantial evidence that any sinkhole had historically existed on this site. While the site geology is complex, the soils and subsurface geology will support the proposed project. Thus, the site is suitable for construction of lined Class I landfill cells. Beneath a surficial sand layer of approximately 30 feet in depth, lies an interbedded layer of sands, clay and heavily weathered limestone lenses approximately 40 feet thick, under which lies the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant will excavate below the level of the existing pit floor to remove any limestone protrusions which could adversely affect liner integrity. A dense clay layer, graded to remove rocks and other protrusions, will be used as a secondary barrier to retard the movement of contaminants into groundwater, and to further minimize the potential impact from limestone pinnacles upon liner integrity. The primary containment system will be a liner system constructed of a thick, high density, 60 millimeter polyethylene membrane, applied to both the bottom and sides of the landfill. Below-grade portions of the landfill will be lined completely. A layer of geotextile material is placed between the synthetic liner and clay layer to act as a cushion against stresses on the liner. The liner will be constructed in 30 foot wide strips with welded seams, every inch of which is vacuum tested. Laboratory testing is also conducted on sample coupons of welded seams to insure that the seams are as strong, or stronger, than the original material, and the areas from which coupons are taken are then extrusion welded and vacuum tested. The liner system is designed to withstand stresses, and any differential settlement, that are reasonably expected to occur at this site. It will minimize the risk of leakage of leachate to the environment, as was recognized by Dr. Richard Strom, an expert in hydrogeology called by Petitioners, who stated this is an improvement in the previous unlined operations at this site, and decreases, although it does not completely eliminate, the possibility of ground water pollution. The applicant's project design includes a leachate collection system which will allow leachate generated in the landfill to flow through a 12 inch thick gravel layer, which will act as a drain in the base of the landfill. Fluids will run to low spots and will then be channeled to sumps, where leachate is collected so that it can be disposed of by pumping away from the liner system and spraying onto the active face of the landfill. Natural evapotransporation will then reduce the volume of the leachate. An approved groundwater monitoring program is currently in place, and is being operated at the applicant's existing landfill. It consists of an upgradient well in the northeast corner of the site, and three down gradient wells, one in the southwest corner, one on the west and one on the south sides of the property. These down gradient wells are adequately placed to intercept groundwater flow from the site since the predominate groundwater flow is from the northeast to southwest. These wells all monitor the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant's groundwater monitoring program is adequate and appropriate to detect any leachate or other contaminates emanating from the landfill which might pollute the groundwater, and provides reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated by the landfill operations. The applicant has proposed a stormwater management system for the entire site which is designed to separate non- contact stormwater from that water which actually falls on, or comes into contact with, the waste material. All rainwater coming in contact with waste will be treated as leachate, and handled through the leachate collection system. The non-contact stormwater will be collected in a series of bermed drainage ditches around the site, and will be drained away to retention ponds for infiltration. During times of normal rainfall, there will be sufficient capacity in retention ponds to store all non- contact stormwater on site until it either evaporates or percolates into the ground. During extreme storm events, excess stormwater can be channeled off site to a nearby sinkhole for discharge. Routine monitoring will be conducted to ensure that water in the system has not been contaminated with leachate. The Department has delegated stormwater plan approval authority to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which reviewed and approved the applicant's stormwater management system through the issuance of a permit in 1988. Noxious odors do not emanate from the existing landfill operations, although there is a slight odor similar to an auto garage service bay close to the disposal materials. This is not a sickening or noxious odor, as acknowledged even by Dr. Strom. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that leachate sprayed on the active face of the landfill, after having been collected through the leachate collection system, will not result in, or cause, noxious odors at the landfill site. The applicant has established that this project to enlarge its existing landfill with a lined addition will not release contaminants into the underlying soils and groundwater.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental regulation enter a Final Order approving the application of the David J. Joseph Company and issuing permit number S029-77041. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-6009) Rulings on the Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected in Findings 1, 9-12. Rejected in Findings 10-14. Rejected in Finding 16. Rejected in Finding 16, but Adopted in part in Finding 13. Rejected in Findings 10-12. Rejected in Finding 15. Rejected in Finding 14. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings 1, 2. 2-3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 7. 11. Adopted in Finding 8. 12-15. Adopted in Findings 9-11. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 13. 19-21. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Findings 9 and 16. Adopted in Finding 17. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Wilcox, Esquire Katherine Harasz, Esquire 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 1650 Tampa, FL 33602 William D. Preston, Esquire Thomas M. DeRose, Esquire 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale Twatchmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
