The Issue The issue for consideration in the proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit ("OSDS") authorizing installation of an on-site sewage disposal system for property the Petitioner owns near the Suwannee River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in consideration of the relevant provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and whether the Petitioner should be entitled to pursue a variance from the permitting statute and rules embodied in that chapter of the code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida on the east bank of the Suwannee River, adjoining the river. The property is more particularly described as Lot 9, Block B, Two River Estates. The property was purchased on January 3, 1985 and was platted as a subdivision on January 5, 1959. The lot in question upon which the OSDS would be installed should a permit be granted, is approximately one acre in size. On April 30, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS seeking authorization to install such a conventional septic tank and drain-field system for disposing and treating household sewage effluent on the subject property. The system would be designed to serve a single-family residence, containing approximately two bedrooms, and approximately 1,200 heated and cooled square feet of living space. Upon making application, the Petitioner was informed that he would have to obtain a surveyed elevation of his property, as well as the ten-year flood elevation for his property for the river mile of the Suwannee River at which his property is located. The Petitioner consequently retained Herbert H. Raker, a registered land surveyor, who surveyed the elevation for his property. Mr. Raker established a bench mark elevation of 29.24 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation on that lot has an elevation at the surface grade of 28.5 feet. The subsurface of the lot at the installation site is characterized by appropriate, "slight-limited" soil extending 72 inches below the surface grade of the lot. The wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface grade of the lot. Consequently, there is more than adequate slight-limited soil to handle disposal and treatment of the sewage effluent from a single-family residence, such as is proposed, since the wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface of the property. Thus, a more than adequate treatment space and appropriate soil beneath the bottom surface of any proposed drain field to be installed at the site would exist so as to comply with the pertinent rules cited herein. The problem with a grant of the subject permit consists only of the fact that the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation, that is, it is approximately 1.5 feet beneath that elevation. The Suwannee River Water Management District report submitted to the Respondent agency by the Petitioner in the application process for the OSDS permit (in evidence) reveals that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 30 feet above MSL. The soils prevailing at the proposed installation site, the great depth of the wet season water table, and the fact that the lot is approximately one acre in size and above the minimum size requirements for the installation of an OSDS, all militate in favor of a grant of the permit, except for the basis for its denial initially, that is, that it is simply beneath the ten-year flood elevation for purposes of the prohibition contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. Although located within the ten-year flood elevation, the site is not located within the regulatory flood way so that if a mounded system or other raised OSDS alternative system were proposed and installed, an engineer's certification would not be required regarding the issue of raising the base flood level by the deposition of fill at the installation site for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. There is no central water system available to the property; however, although there was conflicting testimony about the distance the proposed installation site would be from a neighbor's potable water well, the testimony of the Petitioner is accepted as being most certain in establishing that more than the required distance from that potable water well exists between it and the proposed septic tank and drain-field installation site, since the Petitioner established that approximately 110 feet is the actual separation distance. The Petitioner purchased the property to construct a single-family residence for himself and his family. He expended a substantial sum of money for the property and is unable to use it for its intended purpose without the subject permit or at least a variance so as to authorize him to install an OSDS. The Petitioner offered no concrete proposals or plans for an alternative system which might reasonably accomplish treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question without harm to ground or surface waters or the public health. No substantial proof was offered of a system which would either dispose of and treat the effluent at a location above the ten-year flood elevation or, if still below it, would adequately treat and dispose of the effluent sewage to safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved, such that its existence slightly beneath the ten-year flood elevation would only be a "minor deviation" from that portion of the permitting rules. In point of fact, it would seem that a mounded system would be feasible on a lot this size, especially in view of the fact that the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trenches or absorption beds would only have to be raised slightly over 1.5 feet from the surface grade of the subject lot and installation site in order to comply with the ten-year flood elevation parameter, which was the only basis for denial of this permit application. No proof was offered concerning how such a mounded system would be designed, installed and otherwise accomplished, however. Upon denying the initial application for the OSDS permit, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative hearing process rather than make application for a variance and proceed through the internal variance board mechanism operated by the department in order to obtain a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-06.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent advised the Petitioner of this because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River; and as the Respondent interpreted the Governor's Executive Order Number 90-14, which incorporated by reference the "Suwannee River Task Force Report" commissioned by the Governor, the Order absolutely prohibited the granting of any variances authorizing installation of OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River or the granting of any OSDS permits themselves authorizing such installations.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Gary Wilson P.O. Box 2061 Lake City, FL 32055 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact On a site that would abut St. Johns County on two sides, the City proposes to develop as a landfill about 400 of the 880 acres it owns in the southeast corner of Duval County. The proposed southeast landfill is designed to serve the approximately 300,000 people living in Duval County south and east of the St. Johns River, by receiving 1,700 tons of solid waste a day for ten years, 400 or 500 tons a day more than people in that part of the city now generate. Sandhill and Swamp Scattered over the portion of the property proposed for solid waste deposition are cypress marshes and blackgum sloughs isolated from a swamp and from each other by upland pine plantation and sandhills. Except for some 40 acres cut off from the remainder by a fill road, the hardwood swamp covering approximately 265 acres of the City's property is part of the pristine "Durbin Swamp system which is a major wildlife area, including habitat for threatened and endangered species." T. 2820. Durbin Swamp south of J. Turner Butler Boulevard and east of U.S. Highway 1 is "the most valuable wildlife habitat in the area, maybe in the southeastern United States." T.2921, 3058. The City's consultants characterized 64 of the 123 gopher tortoise burrows they found on some 105 acres in the southern part of the site as active. Sherman's fox squirrels feed and nest on the property. Although "very little of the sand hill habitat [remains] in its natural condition on the property," (T. 185) turkey oak, long leaf pine and sand pine communities do survive. Isolated wetlands scattered through the eastern portion of the site have also been timbered, and ditches intersect many of them. St. Regis Paper Company, who owned the land until earlier this decade, "dug a series of canals . . . to drain . . . part of the land ["it was called upper wetlands"] . . . so that the ground could be high enough to raise good grade pine trees." T. 1417. "The isolated wetlands . . . provide habitat diversity for wildlife, a seasonal source of drinking water, possible refuge during forest fires, as well as breeding and forage locations," (T. 1255) according to the City's draft application. "Wildlife noted on the site includes Florida black bear, white-tailed deer, raccoon, armadillo, cottonmouth, river otter, common night-hawk, alligator, yellow bellied sapsucker, turkey, frog, quail, dove and red- shouldered hawk," (T. 1255) also according to the City's draft application. Bobcats are common. According to the St. Johns River Water Management District's chief environmental specialist, "animals that you would find utilizing the uplands . . . would be a range of small rodents [including] mice, rabbits . . . insects, [mostly tree] frogs, toads, snakes [including] black snakes, rat snakes . . . [o]possums . . . pastorine birds, cardinals, bluejays, blackbirds . . . [and] probably some hogs." T.537-8. Wood storks wade and feed in the isolated wetlands on site. Wood stork rookeries have been found five miles to the southeast and seven miles north of the City's property. Bald eagles nest nearby but off site. Eagles used the now abandoned eagle nest on Eagle Nest Island "three-quarters of a mile from this proposed landfill site," (T. 1419) at least as recently as 1983. One or more eagles still perch on a dead cypress limb on the property (T. 2422), if not elsewhere on site. Ospreys, southeastern American kestrels (T.2918) and six or seven species of woodpeckers, including the rare hairy woodpecker (T2914) have also been seen on site. "There are dirt logging roads just as there are in any property in Florida, but not a great number." T. 2751. "Almost all of the pine flatwoods habitat on the site has been replaced with planted pine." T. 184. The property is comparable to the Wacasassa tract in Gilchrist County which is on the Conservation and Recreational Lands list and under consideration for state acquisition because of its "comparatively unaltered nature." T. 2721. In the past, conservation efforts have brought animals to the property for refuge. T. 1420. Listed Species The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (Game and Fish) lists the gopher tortoise and the Shermans's fox squirrel, said by one witness to be "imminently threatened," (T. 2899) as species of special concern. T. 2875. A species of special concern "is beginning to show a decline and needs to be . . . considered as a target of conservation and if present conditions continue it's going to be listed as threatened." T.2874. Game and Fish lists the Florida black bear, the southeastern American kestrel and the bald eagle as threatened, the same category in which the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife) lists the American alligator. A threatened species is one destined to become endangered "if present trends continue." T.2874. Both Game and Fish and Fish and Wildlife list the wood stork as endangered, and Fish and wildlife lists the bald eagle as endangered. "An endangered animal is one that under present conditions is in danger of becoming extinct in the near future." T.2874. Listed in the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species are the bobcat and the river otter. By definition, rare animals are not often seen in the wild. The parties stipulated that the staff of CZR, Inc., a consultant engaged by the City, spent an aggregate of 1400 man-hours on the landfill site, of which 429 man-hours were spent on site for the purpose of performing a wildlife survey. T. 2803. Despite their effort and putative expertise, the City's consultants did not see even a single listed animal. This failure contrasts with sightings by hunters and other experts who spent less time on site, and may be attributable to the time of year (two weeks in the fall) the survey was performed (T. 2425-27, 2893, 2899) or to the way in which it was done, (T. 2429, 3067, 3068) which a wildlife ecologist testified rendered it of "trivial value." T. 3079. The study was expedited in anticipation of a hearing date. T. 2426-27. In any case, the survey does not give reasonable assurance that species whose range includes the City's property are not present in suitable habitat on site. T. 2896-97, 3079-80. This is, indeed, the conclusion the City's own experts reached as regards the gopher tortoise itself, because of the clear sign these creatures' burrows give of their use of the property. Similarly, with respect to the Sherman's fox squirrel, although only a single individual was spotted, distinctive nests and piles of pine bracts on site established their presence. Bear tracks corroborate infrequent sightings on the property, as well as south and east of the site. On a large tract of land to the north, bears are fed daily; three or four feed each day. T. 2421. Alligator sign bore witness to the alligator's use of the property, although the only sighting clearly proven at hearing occurred just across the boundary line. Of course, wildlife does not respect legal boundaries. There is no reason not to believe that the red-cockaded woodpeckers, with six active nests within three miles or the Bachman's sparrows heard singing nearby do not frequent the City's property, which offers suitable habitat for both. It is even possible that the Florida panther, common in the area as recently as 30 years ago, may have roamed the site in more recent years in pursuit of deer or feral hogs. Two witnesses swore they had seen Florida panthers within two miles of the site, one only a few months before the hearing, (T. 1362, 1371, 1419), and a third testified he thought a "cat" he had seen two and a half or three years before the hearing just north of the site was a Florida panther. T.2429-32. The Florida Everglades mink, a threatened species according to Game and Fish, has been spotted at least twice in a cypress bog across the street from the City's property, and probably occurs on the property, as well. Not spotted either on the City's property or on adjacent land, the Florida mouse, the eastern indigo snake and the gopher frog are known to make their homes in gopher tortoise burrows. Of these listed commensal species, the indigo snake is particularly likely to inhabit the site. "The blue indigo snake was turned loose on that property in . . . '81 or '82, since it was an endangered species." T. 1420. The site also affords suitable habitat for the long tailed weasel, under review for listing. Game and Fish has listed the Florida mouse and the gopher as species of special concern. Bachman's sparrow is under review for listing. Fish and wildlife views both the red cockaded woodpecker and the Florida panther as endangered, while Game and Fish views the latter as endangered but the former as threatened only. Aquatic or Wetland Dependent An "aquatic and wetland dependent" species is a species that "requires wetlands or aquatic systems to satisfy some critical biological need in its natural life cycle," (T. 524) apart from simply drinking water. "[W]ithout wetlands or aquatic systems, these species would probably be extirpated from the state." Id. The Sherman's fox squirrel, the gopher tortoise, the Florida mouse, the Florida long-tailed weasel, the southeastern kestrel, and Bachman's sparrow are not aquatic or wetland dependent. Because they use watery environments for feeding, reproduction and other purposes, the alligator, the wood stork (the only stork in North America) and the gopher frog are aquatic and wetland dependent. Because "the whole black bear population in our state seems to shift . . . primarily in the fall and winter months, to the wetlands and . . . eat . . . fruit produced in wetland trees," (T. 527) the black bear is deemed wetland dependent. The indigo snake is also so classified because it "seemed to be heavily dependent upon eating frogs." (T. 526). Even though not wetland dependent "historically and naturally," (T. 527) the "less than probably 100 Florida panthers left in the state" are now so viewed because "they have more or less been restricted to the major swamp systems," id., without which they probably would not survive. The contiguous wetlands on site comprise the headwaters of Durbin Creek, which empties into Julington Creek shortly before Julington Creek reaches the St. Johns River. Large scale residential development of lands lying within the watershed of Durbin and Julington Creeks has been proposed. Durbin Creek and the swamp that gives rise to it serve as a "juvenile fish nursery" (T. 2468) for white shrimp, blue crabs, croaker, anchovies, bream, bass, shellfish, bluegill, and sheepshead. Lower dissolved oxygen levels or other stressors in Durbin Creek would decrease populations in fisheries already at carrying capacity, and already threatened by the prospect of overdevelopment. Dredging and Filling The City intends to build a road running east and west between the landfill site and U.S. Highway 1 following, for the most part, an existing dirt logging road, and crossing Old Kings Road, built in 1765 to connect the capital of colonial Georgia with St. Augustine. Turbidity screens and staked hay bales would be used during road construction to protect adjacent waters. After construction, seeding and mulching would stabilize the sloping shoulders of the fill road. In connection with construction of the access road, plans call for filling wetlands contiguous to Durbin Swamp, 2.8 acres within DER's jurisdiction and 3.5 acres within St. Johns River Water Management District's jurisdiction. Fetterbush, gallberry, scrub palmetto, cinnamon fern, bamboo vine and sphagnum moss grow in these contiguous wetlands, under a canopy of slash pine, loblolly bay, cypress and swamp tupelo. The proposed Class III disposal area would lie two hundred feet north of the south property boundary and 600 feet west of the east boundary. Over significant portions of this 88-acre site, fill dirt is to be used to raise the grade, because the land is so low. Enough fill is to be placed in the marshes and sloughs to avoid depositing solid waste in the water. Trucks would haul fill dirt to the eastern part of the site ("the area starting at the northeast corner of the Class III landfill and extending about 300 feet to the west, starting from a point about midway along the eastern margin of the landfill, and extending about 450 or 60 feet to the west, and along the southern portion of the Class III landfill, about . . . 600 feet" T. 1562) and elsewhere on site, smothering isolated wetlands, where more or less healthy vegetation, generally of the kind found in the contiguous wetlands, now grows. The 132-acre Class I disposal area, which would abut the Class III area on the north, would also cover isolated wetlands now on the site. Together with excavation of associated stormwater retention basins, the disposal areas would disturb a total of 46.3 acres of isolated wetlands within the St. Johns River Water Management District's jurisdiction. The St. Johns River Water Management District originally asserted jurisdiction over 48.5 acres of isolated wetlands, City's Exhibit No. 80, but the objectors offered no evidence that staff's subsequent decision that vegetation on one 2.3-acre parcel did not qualify was erroneous. This total does not include isolated wetlands less than half an acre in extent or isolated wetlands lying both within and without the disposal areas which will cease to function as such when truncated by dredging or filling. In this latter category are some ten acres that will not themselves be dredged or filled. T. 2777-8. St. Johns River Water Management District identified 5.3 acres of high quality isolated wetlands with connections off-site that are to be impacted, City's Exhibit No 80, along with another 11.2 acres of "low quality" isolated wetlands. Id. No stormwater retention basin would intrude into DER's jurisdictional wetlands, but approximately nine tenths of an acre falling within the St. Johns River Water Management District's contiguous wetlands boundary would be devoted to stormwater retention basins. Replacement Wetlands To mitigate the planned filling of contiguous wetlands for construction of the access road, the City proposes "to excavate 3.5 acres of nonjurisdictional pine plantation and create a contiguous swamp wetland." City's Exhibit No. 56. Mature dahoon holly, loblolly bay, cypress and gum trees "will be transplanted from on-site [isolated] wetlands proposed for construction impact." Id. A tree spade is to be used to transplant trees with trunks as much as 12 inches in diameter at "breast height" and up to 50 feet tall, along with existing soils, microbial communities and adjacent understory vegetation. The "physical structure of the trees themselves . . . provide a good deal of the habitat." T. 436. Removing mature trees from isolated wetlands and replanting them in created wetlands would, to some extent, mitigate the loss of perches for bald eagles and other birds. Mature trees in the created wetland would be replanted at a density "approximately half that of existing on-site wetlands to be impacted." Id. Only 80 percent of the replantings are to be replaced, if they die; and then only if it is clear within three years that replacement is needed. A six-inch layer of organic soil, to be spread after the trees have been transplanted, would "provide for growth of herbaceous vegetation." Id. The City would monitor the created wetland (part of mitigation area "A") for three years and transplant additional trees, if needed to assure survival of not less than 80 percent of the number of trees originally planted. Of these 3.5 acres, the City has identified 2.8 as specifically intended to mitigate the filling of wetlands within DER's jurisdiction. With respect at least to this portion, the created wetland "will function probably much the same as the 2.8 acres" (T. 2765) to be filled in constructing the access road and "would compensate for the" (T.2765) attendant loss of vegetation. In transplanting mature hardwoods, "[i]t's sort of a physical impossibility to get all the root material . . . [and y]ou also get some loss of branches, limbs and stems just from the physical movement of the tree." T. 2482-83. One reason a wetland "system stays wet . . . is a thick canopy." T.2486. With more sunlight streaming through a sparser canopy, the "vegetation is not going to be the same." T. 2487. "[B]ecause you don't expect the wetlands to function as well as the original wetlands you're replacing, there is a general rule of thumb that . . . you create twice as much wetlands as the wetlands you've destroyed." T. 2488. "A three-to-one ratio would not be unusual for a good mature forested hardwood system." T.467. St. Johns River Water Management District's Applicant's Handbook calls for a ratio between 2:1 and 5:1, but states: "The ratios may also be adjusted when wetlands creation is combined with wetland mitigation proposals such as an open buffer area adjacent to the wetlands, conservation easement, wetland enhancement proposals or alternative mitigation proposals." T. 504. The ratio proposed here is less than one to one. In all, mitigation area A would comprise 11.0 acres of what is now pine plantation. Aside from a .55 acre pond in the middle, mitigation area A would consist of wetlands contiguous to existing wetlands on which three different, if related, vegetative communities are to be planted. In addition, the City proposes to create three different isolated wetland areas, one of which (mitigation area D) it characterizes as "high quality." Six acres of what is now pine plantation would be excavated on the north edge of the property. Using the same, experimental techniques proposed for mitigation area A, cypress trees would be placed on 3.4 acres, and 2.6 acres would be devoted to a combination of loblolly, cypress and dahoon holly. Another 9.8 acres of isolated wetlands would be created within borrow pits, 6.8 acres in borrow area No. 1 (mitigation area B) which would include .55 acres of open water, and 3.0 acres in borrow area No. 2 (mitigation area E.) Just north and east of the truck scales, mitigation area B would receive 200 adult trees per acre planted to the extent they are available on site, or 400 trees per acre planted with nursery stock. The same density is planned for mitigation area E, to be located across the road from stormwater retention basin 4. The City also proposes to remove a segment of a logging road built on fill that now cuts off 40 acres from the remainder of Durbin Creek Swamp. Removal of the fill and revegetation would not only increase the extent of the swamp by 0.3 acres, it would restore historic sheet flow in that part of the swamp. Finally, the City proposes to spread muck, if available, over the shallow, southern part of stormwater retention basin 2 and plant 12 acres of grass ("[w]etland herbaceous species" City's Exhibit No. 80) which, however, the City reserves the right to dredge up "from time to time". Id. p.13. Other Effects, Other Mitigation Building and operating the landfill on the site proposed would displace upland wildlife and fragment largely undisturbed and undeveloped wildlife habitat. Fences along the northern, eastern and southern site boundaries would present a physical barrier. Human activity, particularly daytime traffic on the access road, would also create a "bio-geographical barrier." Developing a landfill at the edge of the swamp amounts to "leapfrogging," instead of expanding existing pockets of industrial or other development. A witness characterized the area to the south of the site as "rural developed"; some 164 people live within a mile of the center of the site. T. 78. But private ranch lands to the north, like undeveloped land to the east, afford good wildlife habitat. Habitat fragmentation divides and isolates animal populations. "Fragmented populations are more susceptible to disease, inbreeding and with time, poaching." T. 2890. The landfill would displace gopher tortoises, their commensals, if any, and other wildlife using sandhill or pine plantation habitat, as well as wildife, including wood storks and other migratory birds, making use of the isolated wetlands that are to be filled over. With the filling of isolated wetlands, migratory birds would lose holly berries and other forage. Filling or excavating acreage at the periphery of the swamp would also destroy habitat and displace wildlife. Wildlife now on site reaching suitable habitat elsewhere will have to compete for limited space against animals that have already established territories. The result should be a net decline in populations. T.2898. Increasingly sequestered, the Durbin Swamp system is already under pressure from urbanization to the north. For animals that remained in the vicinity, development of the landfill would occasion other difficulties. But evidence that landfill noises and odors "would have no discernible impacts to the value of wetlands as habitats for aquatic and wetland dependent species" (T. 528) went unrebutted. A buffer of at least 50 feet would separate contiguous wetlands from stormwater basins and other construction, but this is considerably less than the 528 feet Dr. Harris testified was necessary to avoid "greatly erod[ing] the native faunal diversity of the Durbin Swamp wildlife." T.3073-74. Placement of the landfill on this site would increase the numbers of a half dozen "middle-sized mammal omnivores" (T. 3078) so that gopher tortoises, turkey, quail, "anything that nests on the ground will be subject to the plundering by the enhanced population of raccoons, opossums, gray foxes, red foxes . . . and such." T. 3079. Increased numbers of armadillos would also pose a heightened threat to animals that nest on the ground. Landfill operations can be expected to attract seagulls and birds of other species, including nest predators and the brown-headed cowbird, which takes over other birds' nests to lay its own eggs (T. 3071-2) and would pose a particular threat to Swainson's warbler. It is not clear that any of the mitigation areas the City proposes is intended to replace wood stork feeding habitat that would be lost to dredging and filling. Wood storks feed on dense fish populations in shallow water, when receding water levels make the fish easier to catch. Isolated wetlands on site that have served this function would be lost (T. 2419), although not all of the isolated wetlands to be lost have enough water to support the kind of fish on which wood storks prey. The deep, steep-sided ponds planned for the mitigation areas do not replicate the necessary conditions. Whether birds may safely feed in or drink from untreated stormwater run-off in shallow portions of the retention basins is doubtful. When it rains, particularly the initial flush of run-off would deliver pollutants, including oil, greases and gasoline left by garbage trucks, to the retention basins. T. 1820-1. Removing the fill road and restoring normal flows to the 40-acre patch of the swamp on the other side, as the City proposes, would not add to feeding areas available to wood storks, except for the 0.3-acre roadway itself. The project would disrupt "very superior black bear habitat." T. 3059. Tending to avoid human activity, bears would likely range further east, foregoing foodgathering on site. On the other hand, food or other refuse brought to the landfill might lure bears to their deaths, intentional or accidental. "[C]ollisions with human vehicles," (T. 3062) is the chief cause of black bear mortality in Florida. Bears have been killed in this fashion within a mile of the site, (T. 351 1411-4, 2438) although not during daylight hours when the landfill would be in operation and garbage trucks would travel the access road. Creation of wetlands will not mitigate destruction of upland habitat. On the contrary, additional upland would be taken to create the wetland mitigation areas planned. But the City proposes to give a conservation easement on 129 acres of upland, adjacent to the swamp, that is to remain undeveloped. The upland easement would preclude a host of uses inimical to wildlife, and would mitigate to some extent the loss of wetland habitat for animals which use both uplands and wetlands, like the black bear, even though cut over slash pine plantation is among the very least important or productive wildlife habitats in Florida. The easement would not include sandhill habitat. The City has also undertaken to give a conservation easement covering some 260 acres of wetlands contiguous with Durbin Creek Swamp. This would not, of course, increase the extent of existing wetlands, but it would add a measure of protection for those that survived the project. Perhaps most importantly the wetland conservation easement would preclude expansion of the landfill further into the wetlands, as long as it remained in force. Existing regulatory restrictions on the use of wetlands prevent many uses, even without an easement. Apparently no regulation precludes harvesting bottomland hardwoods, however, so long as no excavation is involved, and vegetation, once severed, is not redeposited on site. But converting deforested areas to pinelands, without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers would probably not be authorized, under 33 U.S.C. s.1344 (f)(2). See Avoyelles Sportmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1983). The City proposes to relocate gopher tortoises and any indigo snakes, gopher frogs or Florida mice that can be found to an unspecified new home off- site. Survival rates for gopher tortoises after similar relocations in the past have ranged between 30 and 100 per cent. By the year 2,000, the St. Johns County gopher tortoise population is predicted to fall by 90 percent, and Duval County is predicted to be devoid of gopher tortoises, even without relocation efforts of the kind proposed. Some or all of the gopher tortoises slated for removal may be descended from those who were brought to the site from Lake City. Perhaps even some who started out in Lake City would themselves make this second exodus to a new promised land. Stormwater Management The site proposed for the southeast landfill does not lie within a basin for which the St. Johns River Water Management District has adopted volumetric requirements. A "set of double [triple (T.1740)] box culverts five feet by eight feet . . . and . . . four other," (T. 425-6), "equalizer culverts," large enough for bears to move through (T. 415) would convey preexisting surface flows. A cross drain in the vicinity of the service plaza would serve the same function. Flood elevations would not increase more than a foot immediately upstream or more than 0.1 feet 500 feet upstream. The access road would not impound surface waters. Exfiltration trenches paralleling the access road "designed based on South Florida's criteria" (T. 1737) would filter contaminants from water running off the road. Within 72 hours of a 24-hour, 25-year return storm, the exfiltration system would be able to treat twice the volume of stormwater that recurrence of such a storm would generate. T. 1743. The scale plaza area where garbage trucks moving east on the access road would be weighed before being directed further down the road to a disposal area, is to be built on an upland portion of the property, and with it a wet detention pond to which surface water from the plaza and associated roadway would drain. Swales and berms would divert surface flow from undeveloped parts of the property that might otherwise reach the detention pond. The interceptor ditch and associated works would reduce by 2.5 hours the time of concentration for runoff from a 202-acre watershed, but cause no other changes in watershed characteristics. A weir would make it possible to regulate overflows and allow detention of run off long enough for biological assimilation of most pollutants. For the 25 year return, 24-hour storm, the pre-development peak rate of discharge (6.3 cubic feet per second) is less than the post-development peak rate without detention (18.4 cubic feet per second) but more than the post- development peak rate of discharge with detention: 3.9 cubic feet per second. An orifice below the weir, with a diameter of 1.5 inches, is designed to discharge less than half the treatment volume (22,088 cubic feet or 2.5 inches times the impervious portion of the area drained) in 64.21 hours. The design meets DER and St. Johns River Water Management District criteria. Portions of stormwater retention basins 1 and 2, situated north of the disposal areas, would lie within the 100-year flood plain. These two retention basins are designed to receive stormwater running off the Class I site or diverted around the site, as is stormwater retention basin 3, while stormwater retention basin 4 is intended to collect stormwater flowing off or around the Class III disposal area. Stormwater retention basins 3 and 4, like the southern area of stormwater retention basin 2, are not to be excavated to a depth of more than five feet below grade, to prevent groundwater from seeping into stormwater retention basins, dewatering the wetlands where it would otherwise emerge. With terraces at 20-foot intervals, to a height of 60 feet above grade for the Class I site and 40 feet above grade for the Class III site, both landfills would resemble Mayan temples, at build out. Ditches around the perimeter of each terrace are designed to convey stormwater to slope drains which would bear water to the level below, eventually to the perimeter ditch on grade, from which it would flow, through box culverts under roads built around the landfill, into the retention ponds. To the extent necessary to prevent groundwater infiltration, the ditches are to be lined. Stormwater retention basin 2 has two discharge structures, while each other basin has a single discharge structure leading to a ditch that would convey stormwater to Durbin Swamp. Perforated pipes, swathed in filter cloth, would be buried under highly permeable sand, along the sides of the retention ponds. Installed above seasonal low groundwater elevations, in order to avoid draining groundwater from the area around the ponds, during dry seasons, (T. 1781) they would have to go below seasonal high groundwater elevations, in order to be low enough to serve as drains for the retention ponds. Ambient groundwater would seep into the pipes, whenever groundwater levels outside the ponds rose above the pipes' elevation. But the pipes would still be able to drain the retention ponds, because of the relatively greater (vis-a-vis soils on site) hydraulic conductivity of the highly permeable sand to be trucked in for use as a filter medium. In time, these side drains or underdrains would clog and require expensive maintenance. But, assuming proper maintenance of the retention pond drains and of the drains that make up the roadway exfiltration system, the landfill and associated development would not flood or dewater wetlands that are not themselves to be dredged or filled. Except what is lost to evaporation, water entering the retention ponds would reach the wetlands, whether through the underdrains, over the weirs and through the conveyance ditches, or by movement underground after seeping through the bottom of the basin. The post-development peak rate of discharge from the area draining into the stormwater retention basins should not exceed pre-development rates for a 24-hour 100 year return storm or any lesser event. Because of roads and other impervious surfaces, a greater volume of surface water should reach the wetlands, causing stages about two inches higher than under pre-development conditions in "a typical summer thunderstorm." T.1782-3. The increase in surface flow corresponds to a decrease in water percolating down into the groundwater, and may result in additional loss to evaporation of water that would otherwise reach wetlands. But any such effect will be slight; surface and groundwater levels and surface water flows will not be adversely affected. T. 1783. Nor will existing surface water storage capabilities be adversely affected, despite the placement of portions of retention basins 1 and 2 within the 100-year flood plain. This encroachment at the very edge of the flood plain would rarely have any effect on surface water flows. Almost all development is to occur outside the ten-year flood plain. The stormwater basins could hold an inch of runoff without discharging water over the weirs. The underdrains, which would, when originally installed, have a hydraulic conductivity of about 130 feet per day, could remove an inch of run-off within approximately 40 hours. On the conservative assumptions that half of a two-foot vadose zone would already be saturated at the time a 24-hour, 25-year return storm dropped an additional 8.9 inches of rain on site, and that soils on site have a porosity of .5, the retention ponds could contain the resultant run-off for treatment, before discharging it first through weirs then through the underdrains. Three surface water monitoring stations are planned. One upstream would make it possible to assess background conditions. Another at the point of discharge from stormwater retention pond 2 would reveal whether the retention ponds and their sidedrains were functioning as intended. A third monitoring station in the southwest corner of the site should give similar information as to the roadside exfiltration system. Hydrogeology Except in the southeastern corner of the City's property, where the ground slopes down to the east, the land the City owns, like the adjacent land to the south owned by the McCormicks, slopes down in a more or less northwesterly direction, falling from 55 feet NGVD on the southern boundary to 15 feet NGVD at the northwest boundary, which intersects an elbow of the swamp. Although groundwater flows east of north under the southeast corner of the property, the flow under the property is generally northwesterly, following the topography. Class II groundwater in the surficial aquifer underlies the property at depths ranging "from almost to land surface to five or 10 feet below." (T. 1517). City's Exhibit No. 161. Groundwater flowing northwesterly crops out in isolated wetlands, evaporates, transpires or discharges into the swamp. To assure that the bottom of each exceeds seasonal high groundwater levels, measured in February of 1987, by the number of inches a 24-hour 25-year return storm would add, fill would be placed under both disposal areas, as needed. Because the Class I solid waste disposal site is to be lined, recharge by rainfall would be precluded there. With a liner intercepting percolating rainwater, groundwater would not attain predevelopment levels. The depression thus induced under the Class I site would more than offset the tendency groundwater under the Class III site would otherwise have to mound up into the bottom layers of solid waste deposited there. Recharge from rainfall (become leachate) would continue at the unlined Class III site; the height of accumulated waste would slow or stop evapotranspiration offsetting percolation there. But groundwater would flow down steeper gradients to lower levels underneath the Class I site (which lies between the Class III site and the wetlands where groundwater discharges) rather than rising into waste disposed of on the Class III site. The horizontal component of flow would continue to exceed the vertical component by several orders of magnitude. Beneath the surficial aquifer, which extends to depths of 50 to 100 feet below ground and consists of sand interspersed with a "matrix of soil, organic materials, clays and silts . . . little layers of clay and hardpan" (T. 1517) lies a continuous, confining layer of gray, sandy material with gravel and shell fragments, 12 to 40 feet thick, blanketing the undulating surface of the Hawthorne formation underneath. "[S]ome 40 percent of the material comprising the Hawthorne formation in this area is clay and the remainder is a mix of sands, silt stone, shell beds and phosphatic sands." (T. 1526) This assures that rainfall or other fluids percolating into the surficial aquifer on site will move horizontally downgradiant, reentering the atmosphere or discharging to the surface, rather than penetrating the thinner aquitard above the Hawthorne formation and sinking another 250 feet or more through the Hawthorne formation itself into the Ocala group and Floridan aquifer below. No subterranean feature in the vicinity permits water in the surficial aquifer to reach the Floridan. No peat, muck or other unstable soils underlie the site. Under 3,000 pounds per square inch, the maximum load anticipated, the ground is not expected to settle more than one inch. The addition of fill dirt does not alter this estimate significantly. Disposal Design The Class III disposal area would not have a liner, a leachate collection system or gas controls. After travelling through soils under the site, leachate from the Class III site would enter the groundwater. The City proposes to train and direct staff, to the end that only yard trash and construction and demolition debris end up in the Class III disposal area, where waste would be deposited directly on fill dirt or naturally occurring soils. No solid waste is to be disposed of within 200 feet of wetlands contiguous to Durbin Swamp lying within DER's jurisdiction. A composite liner of the kind in place at Alachua County's southeast landfill would form the corrugated bottom of the Class I landfill: a 60 mil high density polyethelene layer overlying two six-inch lifts of calcium montmorillonite, a clayey sand that is to be placed on compacted subgrade configured in "a herringbone design with peaks and valleys." T.765 Separating trenches in the valleys, sloping ground would rise, then fall at least two feet for every hundred horizontal feet. Steps would be taken to remove rocks, twigs, roots and the like, before compacting subsoils on site. A machine called a sheepsfoot is to be deployed, once half the montmorillonite has been put down, to pulverize clods and mix the material, in an attempt to assure uniformity within each lift of clayey sand. Other machines would compact each lift to a specified Proctor density. These efforts would not succeed in eliminating all clods or other imperfections, and the sheepsfoot would mix subgrade with the bottom layer of montmorillonite, introducing new impurities. Soils on site have hydraulic conductivity ranging from 1 x 10-3 to 1 x 10-4 centimeters per second. Clayey sand is also subject to desiccation cracking; as it dries out, large cracks appear. On top of this kneaded, compacted and finished 12-inch layer of clayey sand, once it had been inspected to assure the absence of roots, rocks, sticks, glass or other sharp objects, a specialty contractor would unroll strips of unreinforced high density polyethylene. After arranging the panels to minimize seams in the leachate collection trenches, technicians would weld the polyethylene strips to one another. An independent, third-party quality assurance contractor would inspect and test the seams before the synthetic liner was finally positioned, and as flush a fit as possible was achieved. Both the high density polyethylene and the quality assurance program are to meet the requirements of NSF Standard 54 and EPA Publication SW-870, March, 1983. Some wrinkling and occasional flaws in the plastic liner are inevitable. Wrinkling causes ponding, not only of rainwater during construction, but also of leachate, once the landfill is in operation. Tire tracks or other indentations in the montmorillonite layer can also cause ponding. In time, under the growing weight of solid waste, and with heat that biodegradation of the waste would generate, some of the wrinkles might subside, but the liner might also sink into additional depressions. Careful construction could keep ponding to a depth of little more than an inch. T. 2971, 2979. Extrusion welds (when done properly) render the seams stronger than the panels they join. But even if "you are really, really good" (T. 2957) and even when you're careful you get an occasional problem, one or two per acre, no matter how careful you are. And if you're not as careful, you get more, typically something on the order of five holes per acre. T. 2967 Carelessness on one project resulted in as many as 60 flaws per acre. Nondestructive testing methods do not detect all defective welds. T. 2966. Defects may develop after the plastic liner has been inspected. Stress on high density polyethylene associated with "conform[ing] itself to whatever is underneath it" (T. 2962) concentrates in scratches, gouges and crimps to cause "as much as 30 percent" (T. 2964) of the holes in the material. "[T]here is no shortage of scratches on a construction site." T. 2962. Leachate Collection Another high density polyethylene geotextile, chosen for its transmissivity (the geonet), is to be placed on top of the high density polyethylene liner (the geomembrane), where it would act as a synthetic drainage medium. In order to prevent overlying sand's clogging the geonet, compromising its ability to conduct leachate down into the trenches, a third, highly permeable geotextile, "a non-woven needle punched type" (T. 637) (the geofilter) would go directly on top of the geonet. The twelve-inch sand drainage layer blanketing the geofilter would have hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 centimeters per second, if sufficient quantities of suitable sand could be obtained. (T. 764) Another 12 inches of native soil is to cover the sand drainage layer. While the geofilter and the soil layers above it would parallel the landfill liner on the slopes between trenches, they would form arches over the trenches themselves. Continuing to follow the contours of the montmorillonite, the geomembrane and the geonet would line the trench bottoms. Below these arches, inert drain field rock would fill the lined trenches, supporting one perforated PVC pipe eight inches in diameter in each trench. The Class I landfill is to be built in fourteen 250-foot wide cells, with each cell having two leachate collection pipes on 125-foot centers. Manholes at either end of each leachate collection pipe would allow access, in case unclogging the pipe proved necessary. Longitudinally, the trenches would slope to the north, falling two to 20 feet for every 1,000 horizontal feet. Leachate reaching the trenches would flow along the trench bottoms (or through the pipes) to the manholes on the northern boundary. Also to be made of leachate-impervious PVC, leachate drain pipes, which would not be perforated, would connect all manholes on the northern perimeter. Varying in diameter from eight to twenty inches, depending on the number of manholes they were designed to empty, they would converge at a leachate pumping station north of the perimeter road. T. 590-1. A rupture in one of the single-walled leachate drain pipes could spill massive quantities of leachate on naturally occurring soils. Leachate which reaches the station is to be pumped into a 12,000 gallon storage tank nearby. To be mounted on a concrete slab surrounded by a curb high enough to contain all 12,000 gallons, if the tank failed, the tank would be constructed of high density polyethylene. The plan is to pump leachate from the tank through a four-inch discharge pipe into tanker trucks which would take the leachate to the Buckman wastewater treatment plan for disposal there. During "the maximum leachate production period, when you have 10 cells open," (T.687) an average of 35,000 gallons of leachate a day would require removal for disposal in this fashion. Additional tanks could be built. As a precaution, isolation valves would permit cutting off all flow of leachate to the pump station. In addition, isolation valves would allow cutting off the flow from any of seven pairs of cells (or slowing the flow from all, T. 705) in the event of an abnormal circumstance where leachate production in the facility exceeds the hydraulic capacity of [the] leachate removal system, the pumping station and storage tank and the tanker truck system. T. 591. Isolation berms separate each pair of cells susceptible to being put to use as temporary storage for leachate. The leachate drain pipes themselves afford more than 23,000 gallons of emergency storage. T.703. Ventilation As they decompose, materials to be deposited in the Class I landfill produce methane gas, carbon dioxide, and other, malodorous gases. Collection pipes with eight-inch diameters, running horizontally on 150-foot centers in the second and fifth lifts would allow gas to escape at either end, on the north and south sides of the landfill. This would prevent methane's building up and exploding or catching fire. By assuring their gradual release, it should also minimize the impact of foul smelling gases, which, in any event, are generally undetectable at a distance of more than 1,000 feet. But specific condition eight of the proposed landfill permit requires that the passive system be converted to an active system, if necessary, using vacuum suction and flaring. GIGO Although there "is not much industry in the southeast portion of Duval County," (T. 953) sewage sludges and other industrial wastes "except any hazardous waste as defined in the Federal Register" (T. 947) would be accepted for disposal at the Class I facility, if properly manifested. The proposed southeast landfill would receive waste that would otherwise have gone to the unlined east landfill. Household waste contains toxic materials. Tests of leachate generated in other lined landfills from which hazardous wastes are excluded have demonstrated the presence of some 30 metals and 56 organic compounds. City's Exhibit No. 89. Rainfall percolating through (and moisture already present in) waste deposited at the proposed Class I facility can be expected to leach the same array of substances from materials deposited there. Judging from experience elsewhere, leachate from the Class I facility would contain 13 or 14 (if 4-methyl phenol is included) substances in concentrations in excess of governmental standards or health-based criteria identified by a toxicologist engaged by the City. City's Exhibit No. 90. Among these would be methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and benzene, (T. 1478) as to which "the current regulatory policy is that it is possible for as little as one molecule . . . to act as . . . a carcinogenic initiator . . . [so] that there is no real threshold." T. 1447. Maximum concentrations would exceed those Florida prescribes as primary drinking water standards for titanium threefold, for benzene fivefold, for chromium more than fivefold, for sodium approximately 16-fold, for manganese 68- fold, for iron 280-fold, and for methyl ethyl ketone almost 130-fold. City's Exhibit No. 90. Methylene chloride would occur in the leachate in concentrations 39 times greater than the "USEPA proposed Preliminary Protective Concentration Limits." Id. Only yard trash "soils/land clearing waste, waste from landscapers" (T.956) and construction and demolition debris, "clean debris, inert materials, construction and demolition wastes that are inert, roofing materials," id., and the like, not mixed either with industrial or with regular household garbage, would be accepted for disposal in the Class III facility. Unless these materials are adulterated, they are "easy to bio-degrade . . . [or] are insoluble," (T. 1923) and rainwater percolating through them should yield a leachate with "neutral pH . . . low to moderate [biological oxygen demand] . . . [and] metals [if any] . . . below detection limits or background conditions." T.1923. But "some materials get in" (T. 2106) despite efforts to exclude them. "Demolition debris can have oiled floors and creosoted pilings as part and parcel of the structure." T. 3008. Old paint contains lead and cadmium. Debris from old houses can include rat poisons. Grass clippings "could contain small amounts of herbicides and pesticides." T.2101. In fact, "it's not unusual for yard waste to be very rich in biocides." T. 3009. Such chemicals are used in Jacksonville. When autopsies of seagulls found at the Girvin Road landfill revealed traces of diazanon, tests of water taken from "the stormwater ponds in the subdivision across the street" (T.990) showed diazanon was present there. Bioassays the DER runs on effluent from the City's Buckman wastewater treatment plant regularly report toxicity in excess of allowable limits (T.1877-8) and the EPA has "identified malathion and diazanon as the toxicants," (T. 1881) which are killing at least one species of flea in certain standard laboratory tests performed on the effluent. Leachate Leakage The composite liner would not keep all leachate generated in the Class I landfill from reaching the naturally occurring soils underneath, and eventually the groundwater under the site. Even under normal operating conditions, and even on the City's optimistic assumption that it can achieve a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second, thousands of gallons of leachate a year would escape through flaws in the liner while the landfill was in operation. If leachate drain pipes burst or torrential rains required backing leachate up in the cells, thousands of gallons a day could leak. If two lifts of clayey sand achieve a permeability no lower than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second, millions of gallons of leachate would enter the groundwater over the ten-year active life of the landfill, even without burst pipes or extraordinary precipitation. Once the Class I landfill attained the design height, it would be capped with impermeable materials to minimize leachate generation. As with the liner underneath, the impermeable cap would be covered with sand to facilitate drainage. Vegetation would hold the drainage soil in place. Closure plans have already been drawn, but they are subject to revision and require DER approval before implementation. If necessary, side slopes could be lined to prevent leachate seepage there. Closure would reduce, but would not end, leachate production and leakage. Virtually impermeable to water, high density polyethylene is highly permeable to certain permeants, including some that occur in landfill leachate. Leachate constituents known as "aromatic hydrocarbons" move "right on through" (T. 3017) high density polyethylene. To some extent, the montmorillonite component of the liner under the Class I area would impede these materials' movement into naturally occurring soils. The evidence did not quantify the montmorillonite's efficacy in this regard, but the City's expert's testimony that leakage of this kind would be "insignificant" (T. 830) went unrebutted. Permeation aside, the rate at which leachate leaks depends on the nature, number and size of flaws in the synthetic liner, the height and duration of the leachate head above the defects, and the transmissivity of what is underneath. Here transmissivity turns both on the hydraulic conductivity of the clayey sand in the vicinity and on the extent of air spaces between the clayey sand and the overlying high density polyethylene. Sand grains cause microscopic spaces, while imperfections in the montmorillonite layer and wrinkling of the polyethylene cause larger spaces. Leachate leaking into a space between the geomembrane and the soil spreads over a larger area before penetrating the clayey soil, in correspondingly larger volumes. Calculations predicated on the transmissivity characteristics of the geonet and the sand layer above it demonstrate a theoretical leachate flow over the liner so rapid that leachate would never accumulate on the geomembrane to a depth of as much as a tenth of an inch. But these calculations assume no ponding behind wrinkles in the synthetic liner, or any other impediment to the flow of leachate. Especially since holes in liners are likely to occur near wrinkles (because stresses are greater there) a more realistic assumption, for calculating leachate leakage rates, is a head of one inch, "the smallest practical hydraulic head you can achieve." T. 2994. On the twelfth day of hearing, when St. Johns County's liner expert testified that a six-inch layer of the montmorillonite might result in permeability as high as 5 x 10-4 centimeters per second, the City had not yet amended its application to increase the thickness of the clayey sand layer from six inches to twelve. The City's proposal now calls for two lifts of a 20 percent clayey sand with a saturated hydraulic conductivity in situ of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second. This can be achieved, if at all, only with material that laboratory tests indicate has hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-9 centimeters per second or less. "[I]f you put down clay that the lab says has a permeability of 10 to the minus 7 centimeters per second, . . . when you put it down in the field you get from one to two orders of magnitude greater permeability than that. . . . related to how thick it is." T. 2988. Even a three-foot liner comprised of six lifts ends up with conductivity ten times greater than the same material under laboratory conditions. Mr. Deans, who designed the liner for the City, testified that a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second was "readily achievable" even with six inches of clayey sand, but he had never designed a liner before, and his testimony in this regard has not been credited. To judge from its eleventh- hour amendment, the City did not believe it, either. Only two lifts are to comprise the clayey sand layer. No study of a clayey sand layer as thin as 12 inches has found hydraulic conductivity of less than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second. Three lifts are necessary to create an effective barrier. "[Y]ou need at least three lifts to get the middle one hopefully working right." T. 2987. "[E]ngineers believe that the bottom layer gets fouled, the top layer cracks and has problems. Your best chance is the in between layers. You need at least three layers, and they would rather have four to be reasonable, and EPA says six." Id. Studies of twelve-inch liners put down in two lifts ("[t]he thinnest one we found anybody had ever studied" T. 2980) showed them to be "inadequate." T. 2987. With an inch of head, assuming defects with an average area of 1 x 10-5 square meters, an assumption with which all the experts seemed comfortable (the City's expert assumed larger holes), the published EPA formula yields a per defect leakage rate of 6.7598 x 10-11 cubic meters per second, assuming hydraulic conductivity for the montmorillonite layer of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second. But plans to use only two lifts to form a 12-inch layer do not give reasonable assurance of vertical hydraulic conductivity that low. Mr. Coram's testimony to the contrary, expressly predicated on reports of laboratory tests on samples, did not address the evidence that laboratory tests do not tell the whole story, in the case of a thin layer of clayey sand compromised not only by inherent imperfections, but also by highly permeable subgrade soils, kneaded into it by the sheepsfoot. Because "clods are broken down in the laboratory and stones and cobbles are screened from the sample . . . the effects of both are not accounted for in permeability tests on laboratory compacted samples." City's Exhibit No. 190. Substituting a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second, the EPA formula yields a leakage rate between 57 and 58 times greater: 3.8898 x 10-9 cubic meters per second. Although the EPA's most recently published leak rate formula makes no allowance for less than an ideal fit between the components of a composite liner, City's Exhibit No. 190, the author of the EPA formula, who testified for St. Johns County, subscribed to modifications to the formula developed to take this factor into account. DER's Exhibit No. 35. The montmorillonite layer's hydraulic conductivity is an unrealistically low measure of the transmissivity of the medium underneath the polyethylene. Using it for this purpose, without adjustment, ignores inevitable, intervening air spaces. Perfect contact between a synthetic liner and the soil it overlies cannot be accomplished, even in a laboratory setting. On a project of the kind proposed, contact would range from good, where the relatively larger size of sand grains in the clayey mix creates air spaces, to poor, where wrinkles (left in to avoid the weakening effects of stretching the material) cause much larger air spaces. No expert found fault with the more recent formulae (Bonaparte/Giroud) set out in DER's Exhibit No. 35, and none quarreled with the proposition that the published EPA formula made unrealistic assumptions about the contact between polyethylene and clayey sand. The Bonaparte/Giroud formula that assumes good contact yields a leakage rate of 1.6090 x 10-8 cubic meters per second per defect, a little more than four times what the EPA formula predicts for an ideal fit, assuming an inch of head and vertical hydraulic conductivity for montmorillonite in situ of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second. Assuming poor contact, without varying any other assumptions, yields a leakage rate approximately 5.5 times greater: 8.8115 x 10-8 cubic meters per second. In its proposed recommended order, at page 35, DER accepts, at least for purposes of argument, the proposition that contact between soil and geomembrane would be poor in places, and calculates a leachate leakage rate of 5.45 x 10-3 gallons per day (2.3887 x 10-10 cubic meters per second per defect.) But this assumes that "the permeability of the City's clay liner will be 1 x 10- 7 cm per second and the maximum head over liner will be 0.062 inches." The evidence showed that the maximum head could not be kept below one inch, and did not give reasonable assurances that two lifts would result in vertical hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second for the clayey layer. Substituting an inch for .062 inches gives a rate of 2.9177 x 10-9 cubic meters per second. Substituting 1 x 10-6 for 1 x 10-7 and an inch for 0.062 inches, the leakage rate becomes 1.6034 x 10-8 cubic meters per second. Groundwater Contamination Uncontroverted expert opinion put the flow of groundwater under the Class I disposal area at 0.063 cubic feet or 0.47 gallons per day (2.0592 x 10-8 cubic meters per second) through a hypothetical square or cube one foot on a side. Except under unusual conditions, leachate leaking from the Class I facility would, before entering the groundwater, pass through approximately a foot of fill dirt or naturally occurring soils, which consist in large part (92 to 99 percent) of relatively inert, quartz sand. The presence of organic materials, however small the quantities, raises the prospect of adsorption and other chemical reactions, before steady state is attained. Physically, the soil would disperse the leachate, diminishing concentrations of leachate constituents entering groundwater. After such attenuation as the soil afforded, leachate would enter the groundwater, which would dilute and further disperse it, although not nearly as dramatically as the City's toxicologist testified. This witness assumed uniform mixing, rather than the discrete plume which persons with greater expertise in groundwater contamination convincingly predicted. By using the rate of "groundwater flow beneath a defect and the rate of leakage through that defect . . . [he] c[a]me up with a volume to volume dilution factor to identify a concentration in the groundwater." T. 1214. Because Dr. Jones took an unrealistically low leakage rate as a starting point, he predicted an unrealistically low concentration of one part leachate to 4,400 parts groundwater, inside a cubic foot immediately below each leak. Concentrations vary directly with the leakage rate per defect. T. 1224. The formula that assumes good, but not ideal, contact between liner components yields a leakage rate per defect of 1.609 x 10-8 cubic meters per second, if the layer of clayey sand has hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second. Substituting this leakage rate, the City witness' methodology yields a dilution ratio of 2.0592 parts groundwater to 1.609 parts leachate, or 1.2798:1, more than a hundred times less than the 130:1 dilution ratio that the City concedes is the minimum it must prove, at the edge of the zone of discharge. See Respondent City of Jacksonville's Motion to Strike St. Johns County's Memorandum Concerning Leachate Rates, p. 5. Substituting the coefficient for poor contact, the ratio in the hypothetical cube under the landfill becomes a paltry 2.0592 parts groundwater to 8.8115 parts leachate or .2337:1. Using Dr. Jones' methodology, a leakage rate of 1.6034 x 10-8 cubic meters per second per defect would result in leachate concentrations in groundwater of one part leachate to 1.2483 parts groundwater. Substituting a rate of 2.9177 x 10-9 cubic meters per second per defect yields a ratio of 2.0592 parts groundwater to .29177 parts leachate, or one part leachate to 7.0576 parts ground water. Even if the contact between geomembrane and montmorillonite were uniformly good and the clayey sand layer had a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second at every point, a dilution ratio of only 37.4444:1 would result. In 132 acres of high density polyethylene, the evidence showed that 660 flaws could reasonably be anticipated, and that 132 flaws were absolutely unavoidable. Methylene chloride would end up in the groundwater in proscribed, carcinogenic concentrations as far away as 20 feet from many leaks within 90 days. Under some leaks, perhaps all, benzene, a proven human carcinogen, would also occur in prohibited concentrations. As leachate plumes dispersed, concentrations would diminish, eventually to levels at which they pose "potentially acceptable" (T. 1475) risks even in the case of "a 70-year water consumption of two liters of water per day by a 70-kilogram adult." T. 1217. No evidence suggested that they would remain in concentrations above these levels by the time they reached the edge of the zone of discharge. City's Exhibit No. 193, which uses a leakage rate much lower than the range of leakage rates likely to occur, if the landfill is built, predicts concentrations of various leachate constituents at the edge of the zone of discharge, assuming a leak at the edge of the disposal area. Multiplying predicted concentrations by quotients, obtained dividing likely leakage rates by the assumed rate, suggests carcinogenic leachate constituents would not occur in prohibited concentrations at the edge of the zone of discharge. But extrapolating in this fashion also suggests that violations may occur outside the zone of discharge, absent attenuation in the vadose zone, in the event of a leak at the edge of the Class I disposal area, for iron, manganese and methyl ethyl ketone. Groundwater Monitoring The City proposes to place monitoring wells at intervals of 250 to 500 feet around the Class I and Class III disposal sites. Some 25 shallow monitoring wells would be located 50 to 100 feet from the deposition areas, within the zone of discharge. In addition, seven clusters, each consisting of three wells screened at different depths, would punctuate the boundary of the zone of discharge. A cluster of wells upgradient would make it possible to monitor background conditions. With two-inch diameters and ten-foot screens, each well would receive a flow of less than a gallon a day. The contaminant plume from the Class III landfill would be large enough to be detected readily in samples drawn from a number of wells. But there was testimony that the plume, even from a 10-foot wide leak at the edge of the Class I disposal area, could pass between two wells 500 feet apart, undetected. Rather than a single large leak, moreover, the experts predict hundreds of small leaks in the Class I disposal area liner. The assumption is that flaws in the geomembrane would have an area of only one tenth of a square centimeter, on average. Any one of the plumes emanating from such a leak could easily pass undetected through a 500-foot gap between monitoring wells. The monitoring plan apparently relies on the great number of leaks expected. But even if samples from a monitoring well revealed a leak, the magnitude of hundreds of other leaks would not be disclosed. Well Contrived After the City filed its application for a permit to construct a landfill, but before DER had issued its notice of intent to grant the application, four wells were put in on the McCormick property, within three feet of the southern boundary of the City's property, and within 205 feet of the proposed Class III disposal area. The wells are more than 500 feet from the lined, Class I disposal area. Spaced at 1,000-foot intervals, within a 125- foot-wide utility easement in favor of the City of Jacksonville Beach, three of the wells are 25 feet deep and one is 28 feet deep. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 7. Each consists of a length of PVC pipe, 1 1/4" in diameter, leading to a red pitcher pump mounted on a wooden platform supported by four fence posts. City's Exhibit No. 194. Pumps of this kind must "periodically be pumped and primed or they have to periodically be taken apart and have the internal seals and leather valves replaced." T.2005. On April 7, 1988, the St. Johns River Water Management District issued a warning notice to "Haden McCormick" alleging that the wells had not been grouted, had been dug without necessary permits, and had not been the subject of required well completion reports. The next day, the St. Johns County Environmental Protection Board, apparently in response to applications inspired by the warning notice, issued a permit for each well designating the "usage" of each as irrigation. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 7. Well completion reports dated April 14, 1988, reported that the wells had been grouted. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 3. Asked the purpose of the wells in a deposition on April 25, 1988, J. T. McCormick said, "We need to monitor what [the landfill is] doing . . . [W]e need to . . . prepare ourselves for having people live in this area, to occupy it, to monitor it." T. 2227-8 A week earlier J. C. Williamson, Jr. had requested on behalf of B.B. McCormick and Sons, Inc. that the St. Johns County Environmental Protection Board amend the permits to show well usage as "Private Potable" instead of "Irrigation". This request was granted on April 27, 1988. McCormicks' Exhibit No. 2. On May 2, 1988, St. Johns River Water Management District's chief hydrologist wrote a lawyer for the McCormicks that "the completion reports submitted by a licensed driller, and the St. Johns County permits fulfill the requirements of the District." McCormicks' Exhibit No. 1. Analysis of samples of water taken from the wells on February 27 and 28, 1989, revealed total coliform levels acceptable for private wells. John Haydon McCormick explained the decision to put the wells in: [D]uring that week the City had filed their application with the DER which, in a sense, fixed their design . . . and when we became aware that this Class III landfill was as close as it is to our border, we became concerned about the future use of potable drinking water, and after consulting with counsel we were informed that we could legally install wells along that border. T. 2242. No owner of the property where the wells are located lives on the property nor, as far as the record shows, has an owner or anybody who does live on the property ever drunk water from the wells. About a half mile from the City's property are two other wells near a house on the McCormick property. When an owner's son drank water from one or more of the wells, as recently as the fall of 1988, he had to take water to the site with him in order to do it. The hand pumps require priming and nobody has bothered to store water near them for that purpose. On February 26, 1989, when the City's expert arrived for "splitting samples to submit to different laboratories," (T.1007) The "pumps were in a 20-gallon washtub in the back of . . . one of Mr. McCormick's employee's trucks. They were all removed from the well heads . . . [apparently] being soaked to generally recondition the seals in the pumps and to sanitize the pumps." T.2008 Two "of the old leather seals from the pumps [were] on the ground." T.2009. Within the shallow aquifer, groundwater flows from the wells northerly underneath the proposed Class III disposal area in the direction of Durbin Swamp. Use of the four existing wells "would in no way modify the groundwater flow system." T. 2045. But a well or wells could be so constructed on the McCormick property that continuously pumping from them would reverse some of the groundwater flow under the proposed Class III disposal area, to the extent that water flowing from beneath the Class III disposal area could be drawn from one of the existing wells along the McCormick boundary. T. 2075-80. Nor would consumptive use permits be necessary to dig wells which could cause such a change in groundwater flows. T. 2075. When the City discovered the wells abutting the southern boundary of its property, it did not direct its engineers to alter the design of the landfill to preclude solid waste disposal within 500 feet of the wells. The total project cost, excluding legal fees, is estimated in the neighborhood of $46,000,000. Redrawing the plans now to reduce the size of the Class III disposal area, without altering the size of the Class I disposal area, would take two to three months, and cost approximately $100,000. This approach would require reducing the capacity of the Class III area from 4.1 million cubic yards to 2.5 million cubic yards and, unless construction debris, which can be disposed of without a DER permit, were diverted elsewhere, its useful life from about ten years to about six years. Tipping fees would have to be higher "to recover the capital fixed costs over fewer tons." (T. 2208) Increased design costs alone would require recouping an additional 4 cents per cubic yard (more considering the time value of money) from tipping fees for Class III debris. Operations would be less efficient and presumably more expensive. T. 2207. Alternatively, the entire facility could be redesigned to achieve the same capacity and useful life as now contemplated. Such a redesign would require four to six months' work and cost approximately $250,000. Recovering this cost through increased tipping fees for Class III wastes would add slightly more than 6 cents a cubic yard (again ignoring the time value of money.) Alternative sites for disposal of Class III waste are available to the City. Indeed the site for which the City now seeks a permit was not even among the ten sites originally considered for the project. T. 2224-5. Decreased transportation costs to another site closer to the source of such waste might more than offset increased tipping fees. But separate facilities could create other problems. Ms. Nogas explained: From an operations standpoint . . .If I run out of Class III area and . . . site a separate Class III area somewhere else, if I had a truck coming to that facility and he really should have been in a Class I area, and I say "No, go out the gate and go five miles down the road . . .[to the] Class I facility," . . . I have a much better chance of . . . him never showing up at my Class I facility. T 2208-9. On the other hand, when asked about placing a Class III facility elsewhere in Duval County, Ms. Nogas, reiterating an earlier statement, testified, "[I]f that were what we had to go to, I would have no operational problems with it." T. 221. Mr. Wells' testimony that there "are 16,000 acres of less environmentally flawed acres seven to 12 miles from the generating centroid accessible from four-lane roads and not near residential or commercial properties," (T. 1248) and that the proposed site "is the furtherest site from the generating centroid, 21 and three-quarters miles to the dump site, and will cost taxpayers an extra $3 million to $5 million a year in longer haul time" (T. 1247) was received on the issue of the decisionmakers' credibility only.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER deny the City's request for variance. That DER deny the City's application for a permit to construct a landfill. That DER deny the City's application for a dredge and fill permit. That DER grant the City's application for a permit for management and storage of surface waters, on conditions proposed in the intent to issue, unless modified by agreement of all parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 16th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX A Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 21,23, 24-28, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41-45, 47-48, the first sentence of No. 51, Nos. 52-56, 57 except for the first sentence, which is rejected, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68-74, 95-103, 106-109, 111- 116, 118, 131, 132, 133 except for subpart 7, 134, 136 and 137 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 5, and the second sentence of petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 51, the design rate is not the same as the current rate of deposition. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 22, 75, 110 and 138 relate to subordinate matters. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 19 accurately recites the testimony. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 20 is immaterial. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 29, the City's evidence that leakage of this kind was insignificant went unrebutted. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 32 and 120-123 are immaterial to the present application. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 30, the City's estimates were unreasonably low. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the evidence showed that nine gallons a day was at the upper limit, not that it would actually occur. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 34, at least 13 substances occur in concentrations that exceed health-based standards. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 36 and 63, 117, 119 and 135 are proposed conclusions of law. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 39, the probability of a leak on the edge of the disposal area was not established. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the evidence did not show that when "two or more toxic substances are combined" they necessarily have synergistic impacts. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 46, the City's assumption of no attenuation was an appropriately conservative approach that is not inconsistent with the City's unrefuted testimony that attenuation would occur. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 49, the evidence did not prove that the City would allow four feet of leachate to stand on the liner. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 50 and 60 immaterial to the present application. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 61, the evidence did not establish the contentions following the clause ending "and into Durbin Creek,". With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 65 and 67, the McCormick wells have served ornamental and talismanic purposes, but they were not shown to be potable water supply wells, within the meaning of the rule. At the time of hearing the pumps did not function and were not mounted on the wells. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 76 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that there was at least one effort to collect toxic wastes in Jacksonville. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 77 through 94, proposed permit conditions are not proposed findings of fact. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 124, the evidence was clear that more wetlands were to be destroyed than were to be created. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 125 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner St. Johns County's proposed findings of fact Nos. 126, 127 and 128, mitigation , particularly as regards the wood stork, if the landfill is built. Petitioner St. Johns County's proposed finding of fact No. 129, Durbin Creek enters Julington Creek, shortly before the latter reaches the river. Findings of fact proposed by petitioners J.T. McCormick and the Estate of Benjamin R. McCormick (McCormicks) Nos. 1-4, 6-10, 13, 15-17, 20, 21 and 23 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 5, a preponderance of the credible evidence did not establish that the wells would be used to supply potable water in the future, even if the pumps are repaired to make it possible. Nor did the evidence establish any such authentic, "non-forensic," use in the past. With respect to McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 11, evidence was adduced that other sites had been considered by engineers the City engaged. T. 2224-5. With respect to McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 12, testimony put the delay at two to three months. T. 2139. The City could have avoided this delay. McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that the proportion of the Class III waste stream construction and demolition debris comprises is not stated at T. 2149. With respect to McCormicks' proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 19, the four and six cents per ton computations ignore the time value of money, among other things. McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 22 is immaterial. McCormicks' proposed finding of fact No. 24 is properly a proposed conclusion of law. Findings of fact proposed by Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., St. Johns County Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Inc., Coastal Environmental Society and River Systems Preservation, Inc. came in two unnumbered installments. Findings of fact have addressed the substance of each. Without numbering, it is difficult to treat the material. Petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5-7, 9-10, 12-18, 20, 22- 24, 26-27, 29, 32-47, 49, 50, 52, 55-57, 59-60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72 and 73 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-4, 30, 31, 65, 71, 75 and 76 are properly proposed conclusions of law in part and relate otherwise to DER's preliminary analysis, which is technically immaterial. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 8 and 58, Mr. Kappes said he had seen alligator on site but, when asked for specifics, testified to tracks they had left in the southeast corner of the site. Equally ambiguously, the City stated in its draft application that alligator had been "noted" on the property. The evidence did not show that ospreys are protected or listed in Duval County. Petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 11 and 74 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the inference that all commensals is present is problematic here, since the gopher tortoises were relocated by man from a site many miles away. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 21, 80 to 82 of 105.7 acres of gopher tortoise habitat would be destroyed. Petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 25 is immaterial to this application. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 28, Mr. Wiley so testified. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 48, 51 and 64, although the conservation easement on uplands would not result in additional habitat, it would preclude further diminution. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed findings of fact Nos. 53 and 54, no eagles are currently nesting on site, and Eagle Nest Island, where eagles nested until 1983, is off site. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 61, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Kappes saw the red-cockaded woodpecker on site, even though he found six active nests within three miles of the site. With respect to petitioner STOP's proposed finding of fact No. 68, Dr. White so testified. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-9, 11-15, 17, 24, 26, 33, 37, 39, 41-45, the first three sentences of No. 50, Nos. 52-56, 62-64, 66, 67, except as regards inherent legislative facts, 70-87, 89-92 and 95 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 10, 0.9 acres of wetlands contiguous to Durbin Swamp and within the jurisdiction of the St. Johns River Water Management District would be used for a storm water retention basin. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 20 have been adopted, in substance, except that these steps do not ensure or guarantee a quick return of water quality functions. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21, 32, 35, the last sentence of No. 50, Nos. 51, 88 have been rejected as against the weight of evidence. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 22 and 28, mitigation areas with deep ponds in the middle will permit fish to avoid the conditions under which wood storks feed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 23, the steep sided ponds, sparser canopies and lesser extent of created isolated wetlands offset their "higher quality." With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 25, the mitigation proposed does not amount to a one to one ratio. While significant, the easements preserve the status quo and do not compensate for lost wetland functions. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the evidence suggested no reason why bears would not forage in isolated, as well as contiguous wetlands. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 29, to the extent possible, existing trees would be transplanted; if they all survived, the number of perches would be undiminished, except for branches broken in the process. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 30, sightings nearby and habitat on site amount to evidence of use of the site. As regards the indigo snake, testimony that these animals were introduced to the site was uncontroverted. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 31, alligator tracks were found in the southeastern part of the site. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 34, no southeastern kestrel nests were found on site. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 36, it is not in the public interest to issue a permit for a lined landfill that would cause pollution in violation of DER's water quality standards. If a landfill were properly permitted, it would be in the public interest to have access. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the first sentence (which seems to contradict the fourth) has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 40, there was no evidence of cumulative impacts to Durbin Swamp, as opposed to Durbin and Julington Creeks. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 46-48, the clayey sand, placed in two six-inch lifts, would have much greater permeability as a unit than samples of the same material screened for certain imperfections and tested in the laboratory. In the field, it would not be possible to remove all clods and other materials that make for greater vertical hydraulic conductivity of the unit. Subgrade mixing would occur, in putting down the first of the two lifts. A 12-inch layer would be many more times transmissive than a liner of the same material put down in six six-inch lifts to attain the three feet DER requires, when no synthetic liner is used. Mr. Fluet did not testify that a 12-inch layer would achieve a permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second. He testified that nobody who had studied 12-inch layers had reported permeability of less than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second for a clayey layer of that thickness. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 49, the geomembrane is subject to the effects of pressure and temperature variation would contribute to wrinkling. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 57, leachate leakage would diminish after closure, but would not stop altogether. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 59 and 60, the working hypothesis is that even a single molecule of certain leachate constituents may initiate cancer, although concentrations below the levels identified are said to pose no more than an acceptable risk of doing so. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 61 describes the methodology correctly, but the particular results have not been accepted. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 65, predicted concentrations depend on the leakage rate assumed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 68, data showing the composition of discharges to ground water from other Class III landfills were not presented. Supposed "legislative facts" do not constitute evidence. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 69, the evidence did not show what concentrations of biocides or other chemical constituents were likely to be. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 93, the phrase "monitoring well" was not used. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 94, wells Nos. 21 and 22 were between 25 and 35 feet deep. Haydon McCormick testified that a shallow well near the house was for potable water supply. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 96, has been adopted, in substance, except that additional time might not be required for permitting. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 97 and 99, balancing of social and economic interests is appropriate only if hardship is proven, and immaterial otherwise. The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-9, 16-18, 20-25, 30, 33, 35-38, 42, 44, 46, 49, 50, the first two sentences of No. 55, Nos. 58-62, 65, 73, 74, except for the last sentence, Nos. 75, 77-83, 88-92, 94-100, 104, 107, 108 and 110 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 10, despite timbering of the uplands the site was characterized as "relatively unaltered." With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 11, no decline in water levels was shown to be irreversible. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 12, the study was of "trivial value." With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 13, bald eagles and wood storks do make use of the site and indigo snake(s) were set loose there. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 14, a witness testified to his "confidence" (T.2918) that the kestrel he spotted was a Southeastern kestrel. Signs of alligator were found near the southeast corner of the property. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 15, hunting was mentioned. The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 19, 54, 56 and 84 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 26, the witness so testified. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 27, it was not proven that noise would be "minimized." With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 28, bears could move through the culvert, but elsewhere the access road (particularly during the day), fences and human activity on site would indeed "impede black bear movement in the area." The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 29, 48, the last sentence of 55, Nos. 57, 71, 72, 85, 87 and the last sentence of 101 have been rejected as being against the weight of the evidence or as unsupported by the preponderance of evidence. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 31, mobility will not assure successful relocation if existing populations are fully utilizing habitat in the vicinity. The City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 32, 86 and 93 are properly proposed conclusions of law. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 34, groundwater was shown unlikely to reach solid waste on site. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the maximum head would not be less than one inch. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 41, such sand might not be available on site. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 43, some leachate would leak through the liner. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 45, some rainwater would infiltrate. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 47, the evidence did not show that the clayey sand layer would attain so low a vertical hydraulic conductivity. If these liners have performed well, it has not been without leakage, both through flaws and by permeation. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 51, the subgrade would be inspected, in an effort to assure complete removal of sharp objects. With respect to the City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 52 and 53, permeability is specific to the permeant. The values quoted are for water. High density polyethylene is highly permeable to aromatic hydrocarbons. That liners leak is not speculation. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 63, the design engineer envisioned circumstances that would require backing leachate up in the landfill. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 64, violations were proven, in the absence of sufficient attenuation in the vadose zone, and attenuation there was not quantified. With respect to the City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 66 and 67, these evaluations assumed unrealistically low leachate leakage rates. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 68, this elaborate house of cards bears little relationship to the language of the free from rule. But this approach, too, shows violations, if realistic leakage rates are used. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 69, credible and credited evidence of dramatically higher leachate leakage rates than they assumed contradicted their conclusions. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 70, the witness so testified. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 76, the precise constituents of the Class III leachate were not proven. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 102, the witness so testified. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 103, the well that Haydon McCormick jetted in was 25 to 35 feet deep. With respect to the City's proposed findings of fact Nos. 105 and 106, wells could be placed so that enough water drawn from them would reverse the gradient and cause pollutants to move toward the McCormick property. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 109, the evidence about the effect on operations was ambiguous. With respect to the City's proposed finding of fact No. 111, it is unlikely that the McCormicks would take steps to reverse the flow of groundwater. APPENDIX B Three methods of calculating per defect leachate leakage rates (in cubic meters per second) were proven at hearing, each expressed as an equation or formula requiring values for three variables, for their solution, viz.: h = height of leachate head over defect (in meters) a = area of defect (in square meters) Ks = permeability (vertical hydraulic conductivity) of clayey sand layer beneath defect (in meters per second) The method advocated by the City, published by the EPA, and shown (by the author) to reflect ideal contact between liner components, which does not obtain in practice, is: Q = (0.7) x (h) x (a0.1 x Ks0.88). The method advocated by the County, endorsed by the author of the formula EPA published, and shown to reflect good contact between liner components, shown likely to occur in places, is: Q = (0.21) x (h0.9) x (a0.1 x Ks 0.74) The method advocated by the County, endorsed by the author of the formula EPA published, and shown to reflect poor contact between liner components, shown likely to occur in places, is: Q = (1.15) x (h0.9) x (a0.1 x Ks 0.74) In each case, Q represents the flow of leachate through each defect. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos Alvarez and Carolyn S. Raepple Hopping, Boyd, Green and Sams Post Office Box 6525 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Harrison D. Upchurch and Frank D. Upchurch, III Upchurch, Bailey, and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 170 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-0170 Joseph M. Glickstein, Jr. Glickstein and Glickstein 444 Third Street Neptune Beach, Florida 32233-5111 David S. Dee and Allan Wagner Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Rufus Pennington, III Margol and Pennington, P.A. Suite 1702, American Heritage Tower 76 South Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Debra Swim 1323 Diamond Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sidney F. Ansbacher Turner, Ford and Buckingham, P.A. 1904 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Dan Brooks Hendrickson and 104 Sixth Avenue 4620 Arapahoe Avenue Pass-A-Grille, Florida 32706 Jacksonville, FL 32208 Frank X. Friedman, Jr. T. R. Hainline, Jr. G. Stephen Manning Marcia P. Parker Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 William H. Congdon and Chris McGuire 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kathryn L. Mennella Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429 Larry Gilmore 9131 Fort Caroline Road Jacksonville, FL 32225 Larry A. Wells 237 Pablo Road Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues considered at final hearing were those issues set out in Petitioners' Amended Petition For A Formal Hearing. At the conclusion of the final hearing the parties were given an opportunity to file a proposed recommended order and memorandum in support thereof. Such memorandum and proposed recommended order was received by the Hearing Officer from the Department of Environmental Regulation on November 10, 1976, from Leon County on November 12, 1976, and from the Citizens' Committee to Preserve Lake Lafayette on November 15, 1976. Having fully considered the matters presented herein, the Hearing Officer enters the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Leon County, Florida, has applied for a construction permit to construct a sanitary landfill in Sections 4 and 5, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Leon County, Florida. The proposed site consists of 79.9 acres off of U.S. Highway 27 South. The application is in proper form and contains all information required by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The area to be served by the proposed sanitary landfill is Leon County, Florida, with a projected average population of 155,200. The responsible operating authority as set forth in the application is Leon County. The evidence presented did not establish that the proposed sanitary landfill will attract high concentrations of rodents, insects, or birds which would do serious damage to the land and crops surrounding the site or which would adversely affect the health and welfare of the residents near the site. The application proposes a program for the extermination of any rats discovered on site and further proposes that the working faces of the landfill area will be kept as small as possible with all exposed waste materials covered as frequently as practical to minimize the problem of flies and insects during hot, humid periods. Evidence was presented indicating that construction of the proposed sanitary landfill site could adversely affect surrounding property value. However, the evidence was not sufficient to conclusively establish the extent of this affect nor the time at which it would occur or for which it would endure. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill would not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in or within 200 feet of any natural or artificial body of water or on the watershed of any surface water supply. Lake Lafayette is hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is located at least 500 feet from the flood prone area of Lake Lafayette and 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette proper. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in a sink hole or in the immediate area thereof. Solid waste will be disposed of by being placed in a trench and covered over with successive lifts similarly covered. There are no active sink holes on or in the immediate area of, the proposed sanitary landfill site. Three ponds exist in the immediate vicinity of the site, one of which is to be used for surface water runoff. These ponds were probably formed by past sink hole activity but from the site topography and water elevations it appears that the ponds are now stable and are probably not hydraulically connected with the Floridan Aquifer. No limestone or gravel pits exist on site. The entire proposed site is well above the +50' MSL contour line below which are found flood prone areas in the vicinity of the site. The water table of the site is more than 5 feet below normal ground surface. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste in an area immediately adjacent to or within the cone of influence of a public water supply. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste within 200 feet of any habitation or place of business served by a public water supply system or within 1,000 feet of any habitation or place of business served by an individual potable shallow water supply well with the following exceptions. There are three wells located on the property which would be owned by Leon County that may be within 1,000 feet of the disposal site for solid waste. Of these three wells one has been abandoned and will be sealed. A second is located south of the proposed site at an existing house and will be used as a source of non-potable water and for monitoring the potable aquifer. The third well is located on the northwest portion of the county property and will be maintained as a standby source of potable water. There are two other wells located on the property to be owned by Leon County which are more than 1,000 feet from the proposed disposal site for solid waste and could be used to monitor the Floridan Aquifer. There is a well which serves a private residence and farm located plus or minus 1,200 feet west of the proposed site for the disposal of solid waste. No solid waste shall be disposed of in any area open to public view from any major thoroughfare. The proposed site in not on any public highway, road, alley or the right-of-way thereof. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin is approximately six miles long elongated in a west-northwest, east-southeast direction. The width varies between one-quarter to one-half mile. The western end of the basin contains many sink holes which probably have open connections to the underlying bedrock. The eastern end of the basin, near the proposed landfill site, is swampy and contains many cypress trees. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin appears to be an area of recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is not located in the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The engineering firm of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., conducted a subsurface investigation of the hydrologic and soil conditions at the site of the proposed sanitary landfill. As part of their investigation they performed ten soil borings and installed seven deep ground water monitoring wells. The results of the investigation of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., indicates a low probability of sink hole occurrence. In the course of their investigation, Ardaman & Associates, Inc., discovered a depression in the ground water level at Test Hole No. 9. The significance of this ground water low is that it may be a localized area of recharge. However, as shown by the testimony of the engineers who conducted the investigation for Ardaman & Associates, Inc., as well as by the report of their investigation, this depression creates no realistic danger with regard to the introduction of pollutants into the aquifer or ground water supply, so long as no putrescible wastes are placed within a distance of 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The hydro-geologist testifying on behalf of the Petitioners stated that he believed the radius of influence of the depression at Test Hole No. 9 may actually be less than 1,000 feet and that maintaining 1,000 feet distance from Test Hole No. 9 is a conservative distance. As designed, the proposed sanitary landfill will not dispose of any solid waste or other putrescible waste within 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The soils found on the proposed sanitary landfill site are of low permeability and suitable for a sanitary landfill. The low permeability of the soils will limit both the lateral and vertical seepage of leachate. The vertical flow of potential leachate to the Floridan Aquifer has been estimated at a rate of 1.0 to 1.5 feet per year. The lateral flow rate of such leachate through the soils overlying the bedrock in the Lafayette drainage basin has been estimated at the rate of 2 feet per year. As has been noted above, the proposed sanitary landfill site is located approximately 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette, and 500 feet from the +50' MSL contour line which has been used to describe the perimeter of the flood prone area of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. At the estimated flow rate it would therefore take several hundred years for any leachate produced by the sanitary landfill to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The Floridan Aquifer underlies all of Leon County at depths of 100 to 500 feet. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will have test wells constructed throughout the site to provide a means of detecting any lateral migration of contaminants from the landfill operation should such occur. Periodic samples will be taken from these test wells and analyzed. The monitoring wells will be set up in such a manner that regardless of the direction of flow of subsurface water they will pick up and detect any pollutants that may be passing from the landfill. Some of these test wells will be placed in close proximity to the proposed sanitary landfill site to give early warning of the existence of any leachate flow. If there is any problem with the flow of leachate from the proposed site it will be detected easily within the first five years of operation. Since it would take several hundred years to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin at the estimated flow rates this should provide adequate warning and reaction time for the alleviation of any potential pollution problem. A significant flow of leachate is not expected. The existing pond which will receive the surface runoff from the sanitary landfill site is likely of sink hole origin but after a reasonable investigation it appears that the pond is now stable and not hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. It is estimated that the pond can contain at least a 25 year storm rainfall though there might be some flooding from the pond in a 100 year storm rainfall. As designed, no significant amount of leachate, if any, will reach the surface water runoff retention pond. Petitioners' hydro-geologist did not state that the site is unsuitable for a sanitary landfill. Rather he testified that on the information he had reviewed, which information was that available to the Department of Environmental Regulation, it was his opinion that the Department of Environmental Regulation lacks sufficient information to determine if the proposed site is suitable from a water quality standpoint. Based upon all the testimony and evidence it appears as a matter of fact that the information available to the Department of Environmental Regulation is reasonably sufficient to determine the suitability of the proposed site. There has been no showing of a necessity for alining the proposed trenches which will receive the solid waste. The Planning Director for the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, in a letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation stated that the use of the proposed site for landfill purposes is not inconsistent with the land use plan. He further stated his concern for traffic on U.S. Highway 27, the possible adverse aesthetic impact which he felt could be minimized and his concern that Lake Lafayette be protected from landfill leachate through engineering design. In their Amended Petition Petitioners raised the question of the present zoning of the proposed site. No evidence was presented by Petitioners to show that the site is not properly zoned. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented there appears little possibility that the proposed sanitary landfill will pollute or seriously damage Lake Lafayette, the Floridan Aquifer or any other source of public or private water supply. The proposed sanitary landfill as designed is not likely to cause any significant water pollution or to degrade water quality below those standards set by the Department of Environmental Regulation. None of the prohibitions set out in Section 17-7.04, F.A.C, exist so as to require the denial of the application for a construction permit for a sanitary landfill by Respondent, Leon County. The sanitary landfill criteria set out in Section 17-7.05, F.A.C., have been met by Respondent, Leon County.
Findings Of Fact The property upon which Petitioner seeks a variance from the normal requirements for attaining a permit to install an on-site sewage disposal system is found in Leon County, Florida. Specifically, it is located at Lot 4, Block A, Killearn Lakes Unit I. The relative position of this lot in the subdivision is depicted within Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. Respondent's Exhibits 3 through 5 are photographs of the site. Petitioner intends to construct a 1,200 square foot residence. As the photographs depict, some preparation has commenced to the extent of lot clearing and other site work where the home would be constructed. Killearn Lakes Unit I is a pre-1972 subdivision. When the development commenced, it was anticipated that a community sewer system would be utilized, as contemplated by the plans submitted in April, 1971. Subsequently, some lots within the Killearn Lakes Unit I were allowed to be developed with the use of on-site sewage disposal systems, namely septic tanks. There are 150 lots in that category. In 1979, with the advent of certain rules under Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, the development was allowed to proceed on the basis of four septic tanks per acre. Over time, Killearn Lakes Unit I experienced a history of failures with on-site sewage disposal systems. The failures were promoted by problems with the "sheet flow" drainage system and its patterns of dispersion of storm water runoff, problems of soil permeability and abnormally high wet season water tables, referred to as perched water tables. This resulted in sewage backing up into homes and flowing out onto the ground in the yards of the residences, into streets and onto adjacent neighbors' lots. The problems experienced were widespread within the Killearn Lakes Unit I. This seepage of raw sewage presented a health hazard, as it would on any occasion. Among the residences confronted with this dilemma was Lot 5, Block X, adjacent to the subject lot. Persons residing in that home had to undertake alternative means of on-site sewage disposal to have that system function properly. This included relocation of the apparatus, mounding, use of an aerobic system, and use of pumps to insure that the waste being disposed did not back up into the conveniences within the home. Witnesses who appeared at the hearing described the series of corrections in some detail. Those witnesses included a former owner of that residence and others who had a technical understanding of the problems in that system. The problems in Killearn Lakes Unit I related to on-site sewage disposal systems became so extreme that the Leon County Commission declared a moratorium on the installation of on-site septic tanks in that development. This occurred in 1987. In order to better understand the problems in the Killearn Lakes subdivision, to include Killearn Lakes Unit I, a study was commissioned. That report is referred to as Killearn Lake Waste Water Disposal Study of June, 1987. A copy of the report is found as Respondent's Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. It was prepared for the Leon County Board of County Commissioners and prepared by the Leon County Public Health Unit with the assistance of the Leon County Department of Public Works, Leon County Building Department, Ochlockonee River Soil and Water Conservation District, Northwest Florida Water Management District, Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Some of the highlights of that report concerned the observation that the septic tank systems do not work adequately and that the more systems that are placed the greater the problems. It noted that the nature of the drainage system in this area is a contributing factor to the failures. The soil's poor permeability, relating to the Dothan series of soils in the area which have slow permeability, contributed to the problem. Perched water tables were found above the expected levels for the wet season water tables. They also presented a problem, as did excessive slopes in some areas. In particular, it was noted that 80% of the lots sampled in Killearn Lakes Unit I had severe limitations on the use of on-site sewage disposal systems. Ninety-three per cent of the lots sampled in Block X received excess runoff from other lots and roads at higher elevations. It was noted that French or curtain drains alone would not significantly reduce perched water table complications because of the low permeability of the soils. It was reported that the overall housing density of Killearn Lakes is not particularly high, but the individual lots are small, approximately 1/4 acre in size. This, taken together with the fact that the "sheet flow" concept of storm water management contemplates that the runoff will cascade across the terrain conforming to its contours, means that some small lots will be inundated. This uncontrolled runoff contributes to septic tank problems in that the tanks fail when the soils around them become saturated. The report notes that if there was a different designed drainage system, the impact on septic tanks would be less. The report notes that if something is not done to modify storm water runoff, drainage problems will persist. Consequently, septic tank failures will continue to occur. Concerning the water tables, the soil testing, which was done in Killearn Lakes Unit I, in which the predominant soil is Dothan type, demonstrated that the borings which located mottling of the soils at the expected level of the wet season water table were inaccurate. These indicators did not correspond to reality in that the true water tables were found 12-20 inches above the expected level of the average high water, as seen in the mottling. This phenomenon was revealed in 42% of the lots evaluated which had Dothan soils. The report recommended, among other measures, that no new sewage disposal system permits be issued in Killearn Lakes Unit I until a storm water system had been constructed and demonstration made that the system would collect storm water and thereby lower the perched water table on specific lots under review. The ultimate response to the question of permits for on-site sewage disposal systems in Killearn Lakes Unit I was spoken to in a Resolution of July 14, 1987 entered by the Leon County Board of County Commissioners. A copy of the resolution may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. It was resolved that the permits for on-site septic disposal systems be reviewed by the Leon County Public Health Unit on a case-by-case basis in accordance with criteria announced at Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. This effectively lifted the moratorium. The subject request for installation of an on-site sewage disposal system was reviewed in keeping with the policy decision set forth in the resolution. Respondent's Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence includes a copy of a survey made by the Homeowners' Association for Killearn Lakes, also admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. As part of the study commissioned by the Leon County Board of County Commissioners, it has some relevance in portraying the dimensions of the problem. Those dimensions are better understood by resort to the color scheme which is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 1. It depicts the problem lots in red color, those lots without problems in green color, and the lots upon which no report was made in orange color, as well as vacant lots, to include the subject lot, which have no color scheme. This latter category indicates no participation in the survey. The door-to-door personal survey conducted by Rod Moeller and testified about at hearing does not diminish the impression of the seriousness of the problem with on-site sewage disposal system failures in Killearn Lakes Unit I, which the 1987 study by the Leon County Board of County Commissioners identified. This survey by Mr. Moeller was in a limited area, more specifically related to the portion of Killearn Lakes Unit I nearby the subject lot. The findings of the 1987 study commissioned by the Leon County Board of County Commissioners are accepted as accurate. Eanix Poole, Administrator of Environmental Health for the State Health Office testified at the hearing. He pointed out that the failure rate in the subdivision under question for on-site sewage disposal systems is 25%, as contrasted with the statewide rate of less than 1/2%. He identified the fact that those failures relate to backups within the home and seepage onto the ground. He verified that these events constitute health problems, especially given the number of failures. He sees the lot in question here as being particularly vulnerable to problems given the drainage patterns and its location at the bottom of two hills. The lot in question receives runoff from the two adjacent lots as well. Mr. Poole sees the subject lot as more vulnerable in the wet season and does not believe that any alternatives that are available for placement of the system on the site would sufficiently alleviate the potential failure of the system to make it a successful arrangement. What he sees is a lot in the path of a natural drainage of tremendous quantities of storm water runoff, coupled with poor soil conditions related to soil absorption or permeability in an area where on-site sewage disposal systems have failed. He remarks that dry soils are needed to treat the sewage and that treatment cannot take place in a saturated soil environment. The effects of seepage of the sewage, according to Mr. Poole, is one which can degrade ground water. Mr. Poole is also concerned that the installation of the proposed on-site sewage disposal system above ground will have an adverse impact on the adjacent lots, one of which has already experienced problems. That refers to Lot 5, Block X. These observations by Mr. Poole, as reported, are accepted. Raymond Collins, an environmental administrator with the Respondent's health program office, also testified at the hearing. He is intimately aware of the problems in Killearn Lakes Unit I. Those problems began to occur in the winter of 1986 and continued into 1987. This related to problems with toilets and the seepage of effluent which was running onto people's property and into the streets. He notes a similar failure rate in Killearn Lakes Unit I to that observed by Mr. Peel when contrasted with the experience statewide. In the aforementioned period he received calls and reports from homeowners concerning system failures. In effect what was happening was that the on-site drain fields in Killearn Lakes Unit I would not accept more input and the raw sewage would bubble up and leach out onto the ground. He personally observed a dozen sites which had failures. He was responsible for the coordination of the July, 1987 study which has been mentioned. As a result of that study one of the steps which he took was to advise that staff investigating the permit application requests should elevate the estimation of the wet season water table by 12-20 inches. Mr. Collins agrees with the recommendation of the individual who was assigned to evaluate the application for permission to install an on-site sewage disposal system at the subject lot, who recommended that the application be turned down. Mr. Collins' description of the experience at Lot 5, Block X, related to his knowledge that the initial system had been replaced with an aerobic system, which also proved to be an inadequate on-site sewage disposal system. In 1988, he went to the home of the person living on that lot, and the aerobic system was not working. There was a light rain on that day, and there were problems in the drain-field area. When a soil boring was made to a depth of two feet effluent poured out. The perched water table had risen to a point in the bottom of the drain field, such that when a hole was punched, it provided a conduit for pressure to be relieved. The drain field that was experiencing this problem was not the original drain field. It was a replacement drain field. The drain field being observed was in the front of the lot, right below the ground. The suggestion to alleviate the problem was to move the drain field to the side of the yard and elevate it and install a series of small-diameter pipes. A pump was also needed to move effluent into the drain field, thus, avoiding a backup of the system into the home. He is unaware of any recent failures in the system at Lot 5, Block X. Mr. Collins emphasized the need for soil to remain unsaturated to provide effective treatment and that 24 inches of unsaturated soil is the minimum amount which would be acceptable. Mr. Collins commented about the nature of the subject lot and the fact that other lots drain through it. Mr. Collins commented that the design of the proposed septic tank does not assure success in the treatment of the waste disposed. Unlike the expert of the Petitioner, Mr. Peel, the problem is not that solids are blocking up the system. It is the failure of the soils to accept the volume of water which is being released from the chambers of the septic tank into the drain field. Mr. Collins does not believe that the use of water-saving appliances in addition to the limited size of the home to be built on the subject lot, installation of an aerobic system, and installation of an above-ground system, as proposed, would be successful and not pose a health risk from system failure. The problems would continue to be drainage patterns and poor soils. His remarks, as reported, are accepted as accurate. Terese A. Hegg, Environmental Specialist I with the Respondent's Leon County Public Health Unit, reviewed the application for variance to install the on-site sewage disposal system. She was familiar with the history of problems in Killearn Lakes Unit I before undertaking this assignment and has made more than 50 evaluations in that development. She observed that the "sheet flow" drainage of storm water does not provide reasonable management because it does not drain normally. She is aware that the wet season water table is as much as 20 inches above the normal indicators, as seen through mottling. Her analysis of this site is under the auspices of those requirements announced in Chapter 10D-6.044, Florida Administrative Code, having in mind that the subdivision plat was made before 1972. This includes an examination of the soil characteristics, history of flooding, and water table evaluations. At this site, she noted the poor permeability of the soil. She did soil borings to confirm the nature of the soils and to identify the water table. She took into account the abnormal perched water table that is above what the mottling would indicate as being the wet season water table. Ms. Hegg is concerned that the system on the adjacent lot, which is now functioning adequately, would not function adequately if the subject system was installed. She noted that the drainage pattern from the neighboring lots was toward the subject lot and that water would come from the left and the right lots adjacent to this lot, corresponding to Lots 5 and 3 as you face them. The drainage pattern would then proceed beyond Lot 4 and into a green area. In making her assessment of this application, she was aware of the problems with the on-site sewage disposal system at Lot 5, Block X. The appearance of saturated soil in the entire length of the boring and standing water on the lot is an indication of problems with percolation. The effluent will flow out and onto the ground if these soils are saturated. From her observations and based upon the history of Killearn Lakes Unit I and its failures regarding on-site sewage disposal systems, Ms. Hegg does not believe that the proposed system would successfully address sewage treatment and would promote a risk of on-site sewage disposal system failures for adjacent lots. Ms. Hegg acknowledged that the storm water flows could be diverted; however, she points out that the subsurface water cannot be diverted. Her account of this site and the acceptability of the request for variance as reported is accepted as accurate. Given the soil conditions and the wet season water table expected at this site, the proposed system will not present an adequate unsaturated soil depth for treatment of the sewage and untreated sewage may be expected to seep or leach out onto the ground. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Collins had written to Dr. Richard G. Hunter, Assistant Health Officer for Environmental Health, recommending the denial of the variance request. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence. It details reasons which are similar to those described in this Recommended Order. As a consequence, even though the Advisory Review Variance Board had looked with favor upon the request for variance, that variance was denied by action of Dr. Hunter on May 30, 1990, which relied upon the insights of Mr. Collins, as described in his May 22, 1990 correspondence. A copy of the letter of denial may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 8 admitted into evidence. The purpose of this hearing was not to examine whether Respondent had abused its discretion in denying the variance. The reason for the hearing was to allow the parties to present their points in an adversarial setting, which allowed each party to explain its viewpoint anew. That was done, and the analysis provided by this recommended order ensued. In deciding the facts, these representations have been made with due regard to the remarks of James Earl Peel, an expert in the design of on-site sewage disposal systems, who had on his staff, Gary L. Wood, P.E. His methods in analyzing the issue of the suitability of the installation of an on-site sewage disposal system at the subject site do not coincide with the methods contemplated in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, which controls. This is especially significant in his approaches to soil characteristics and location of the wet season water table. As noted above, his belief that the problem is one of distribution of solids from the septic tank into the drain field overlooks the more significant problem of water volume discharge from the septic tank into the drain field. In fact, Mr. Peel indicated that he is unfamiliar with the requirements of septic tank design, as described in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. On balance, Mr. Peel's reports, in Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4 admitted into evidence and his in-hearing testimony, do not persuade that the system he recommends can be successfully operated at the subject site. His presentation and the overall presentation of Petitioner do not create a reasonable expectation that the system will not fail and create health hazards for the residents of Lot 4, Block X, and others in the vicinity. It is recognized that this lot owner faces a hardship that was not caused by Petitioner. It is also recognized that, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, there is no intention by any entity to install a community system of sewage disposal. It is further recognized that there are no alternative methods that would seem to be successful in addressing the problem of the treatment of the sewage, as related in the previous findings. On the other hand, the discharge that could be expected from this subject system would bring about a condition in which the effluent presented a health risk to this applicant and other members of the public and has the potential to significantly degrade the ground or surface waters, although this latter circumstance has not been documented on other occasions and was not found to exist in the July, 1987 study commissioned by the Leon County Board of County Commissioners. In that report, it was specifically found that the surface water had not been compromised by the on-site sewage disposal system failures described in the overall report.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's request for variance from permit requirements and permission to install an on-site sewage disposal system at Lot 4, Block X, Killearn Lakes Unit I. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4456 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: In the discussion of the testimony of Mr. Poole, the relevant portions of that testimony are reflected in the facts found in this recommended order. Under the heading of testimony said to be attributable to Ms. Hegg, at paragraph 1, while it is recognized that a system might be installed that might not call for diversion of storm water onto adjacent neighbors' properties, the problem on site would remain and would be sufficient reason to reject the application. Moreover, it is not clear that it is the intention to install a system that would divert storm water from adjacent properties. Paragraph 2 under this heading is rejected in its notion that storm water would not have an influence on the proposed system. Paragraph 3 is rejected. Paragraphs 4 and 5 do not lead to the conclusion that sufficient unsaturated soils would be available for the treatment of disposed sewage during the wet season, nor does the representation at paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 under that heading is contrary to facts found. The paragraphs under the reference to James Earl Peel, in those five paragraphs, while accurately portraying the opinion of Mr. Peel and Mr. Wood, does not lead to the conclusion that the application should be granted. Under the heading "Rod Moeller" in the first paragraph, the information provided at hearing and under weather reports does not satisfactorily establish what the rainfall circumstance may have been at the subject property 72 hours before January 24, 1990, as referred to in paragraph 1, nor can it be said that the rain experienced in the overall area contemplated by the attached weather report to the argument by Petitioner was a 25-year storm event. The comment at paragraph 3 under this category that the on-site sewage disposal systems in neighboring lots are functioning fine since modifications in the advent of hurricane "Kate" is contrary to facts found. Under the heading "Ray Collins" in paragraph 1, this proposed fact has no relevance in that the question is the appropriate function within Killearn Lakes Unit I, not at an undisclosed site away from that area. Respondent's Facts These facts are subordinate to facts found. Copies furnished to: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Rod Moeller, Authorized Representative Mallard Cove Construction 14261 Buckhorn Road Tallahassee, FL 32312 John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District 2 Legal Office 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 125-A Tallahassee, FL 32399-2949
Findings Of Fact This proceeding concerns an application for authority to construct and operate a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and an asbestos municipal solid waste landfill, as well as to close an existing 25.5-acre Class I municipal solid waste landfill located in Holmes County, Florida. This facility would function as a new regional landfill, in part, to replace the existing landfill in Holmes County. The applicant, EPAI, is a Florida corporation formed for the purpose of constructing and operating the proposed facility. EPAI has an option to purchase the site involved from its present owner, which will be accomplished after the facility is permitted, if it is, and all necessary permits for construction and operation have been obtained, then the applicant will sell stock in its corporation to City Management Corporation (City) domiciled in Detroit, Michigan. EPAI will then continue to exist as a wholly-owned subsidiary of City and will proceed to construct and operate the new landfill and initiate and complete all closure operations for the existing landfill. The Department of Environmental Regulation is an agency of the State of Florida subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 701, FAC, as pertinent to this proceeding. It is thus charged with regulating solid waste management facilities, including permitting their construction, operation, and closure. It is charged with reviewing applications for such projects and issuing permits therefor if the statutes and rules it is charged with enforcing are found to have been complied with by a permit applicant. It has performed that function in this case up until the point that jurisdiction of the permit application dispute engendered by the filing of the subject petition resulted in transfer of the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, CVA, is a group of Holmes County citizens opposing issuance of the landfill permit at issue. Based upon rulings on the motions to dismiss and extant law, CVA was required to present proof of its standing at the final hearing held in this cause. CVA called two witnesses, neither of whom presented evidence relevant to the issue of standing. CVA did not present any evidence, either through testimony or exhibits, to identify its members, to establish that a substantial number of its members would be affected by the issuance of the permit and the construction and operation of the landfill nor evidence which would identify members whose substantial interests will be affected by the construction and operation in a way different from any effect on the interests of the public at large. Project Background Holmes County currently leases a site on which its existing landfill is located. The site consists of 84 acres owned by Stone Container Corporation, the successor in interest to International Paper Company. The existing landfill itself covers approximately 25.5 acres. The proposed facility to be located on the same tract would serve as a new regional landfill to meet the solid waste disposal needs of Holmes County, as well as surrounding counties. The proposed facility would consist of approximately 20 acres divided into Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill facilities. The project will be located on To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, lying approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the City of Bonifay in Holmes County. The northern portion of the present landfill is an unlined cell operated by the county which began receiving waste in 1979 and ceased depositing waste sometime in 1987. The southside cell of the landfill is clay lined with a leachate collection system. That portion of the county facility ceased accepting waste sometime in 1990. Holmes County is unable to properly operate or to close the existing landfill. Consequently, in June of 1989, the county and the Department entered into a consent order whereby the county agreed to meet certain operational, groundwater monitoring, landfill cell design, administrative and other requirements within certain time periods. The county attempted to meet the terms of that consent order but was unable to do so, primarily for financial reasons. In 1990, the county applied to the Department for a permit to close the existing landfill in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The closure permit application was denied by Department order of May 22, 1991. Waste disposal at the Holmes County landfill had ceased in 1990, but it has not been properly closed pursuant to law and Department rules. Currently, it only has a temporary cover of soil and seeded grass in order to stabilize its slopes on the portion of the landfill commonly known as the "highrise". The closure costs for the existing landfill were estimated at approximately $700,000.00, which is beyond the resources of the county. Residents of unincorporated Holmes County currently are disposing of their solid waste by hauling it to the regional landfill in Campbellton in Jackson County nearby or by dumping it in unauthorized disposal areas, such as streams or roadsides. The City of Bonifay disposes its solid waste in the Campbellton landfill, as well. The Campbellton landfill, however, does not accept several solid waste components, such as yard trash. Since the county was unable to obtain the necessary permits to either operate or to close the existing landfill and was unable to meet State-mandated solid waste disposal and recycling requirements, it entered into an agreement with EPAI in May of 1990, whereby that entity assumed financial and legal responsibility for closure of the existing landfill, including obtaining the necessary permits from DER to close it, upon issuance of DER permits necessary to construct and operate a new Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill at the same general site. The May 21, 1990 agreement between EPAI and the county authorized EPAI to so proceed before DER. Once EPAI obtained the permits necessary, the agreement provided that the county would surrender all right, title and interest in the 84-acre site to EPAI, convey all structures, equipment and appurtenances theretofore used by the county for its landfill operation to the corporation and to assign EPAI any legally assignable benefits which the county would receive under the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act, including recycling grants, if applicable. EPAI, the applicant, has an option to purchase the 84-acre site from Stone Container Corporation. After the issuance of any permits for closure and for construction and operation of the new facilities, the option would be exercised and the property would be conveyed by Stone Container Corporation to EPAI. Once it has purchased that property and the county has abandoned its lease on the property, pursuant to the May 21, 1990 agreement, EPAI would then hold fee title ownership and possession rights to the site. Once it obtained the necessary permits for construction and operation of the new landfill, EPAI will sell its stock to City. EPAI would then continue to exist as a wholly- owned subsidiary of City and will construct and operate the new landfill and close the existing landfill. City is a wholly-integrated waste management corporation based in Detroit, Michigan. It has been operating in the solid waste management field since 1961 and has extensive experience in landfill construction, operation and closure. It operates seven regional landfills, approximately ten transfer stations, and 30-40 residential and commercial solid waste collection companies in Michigan. It also operates hazardous waste facilities in Michigan and in Tampa, Florida. Through construction and operation of its regional landfill and hazardous waste facilities, it is familiar with and accustomed to compliance with all pertinent state and federal regulations applicable to such facilities. City holds a DER permit for its hazardous waste facility in the Tampa, Florida, area and has had a history of no major violations of applicable laws and rules. The corporation was shown to be financially sound. EPAI will operate the proposed facility, should it be permitted, as a regional landfill serving neighboring counties between Okaloosa and Jackson Counties, south to the Gulf of Mexico, and north to the Alabama border. The economic feasibility, however, was not shown to depend on interstate transport or disposal of out-of-state wastes in the landfill. Section 17-701.030, FAC, sets forth the permit submittal requirements for solid waste management facilities. CVA stipulated that EPAI met all applicable permit application submittal requirements in this section, except those in Sections 17-701.030(5)(h) & (i) and 17-701.030(7), FAC. EPAI has an option to purchase the landfill site from Stone Container Corporation, the current owner. EPAI has met the ownership requirement in Section 17-701.030(5)(h), FAC. The applicant will establish an escrow account to insure financial responsibility for closing and long-term care and maintenance of the landfill. A specific condition has been agreed to be placed in the permit requiring the applicant to submit written proof of having established financial assurance for closure and long-term care of the entire site 60 days prior to the acceptance of any solid waste at the facility and within 30 days after permit issuance for operations at the existing landfill. City has the financial ability to establish the escrow account and to provide the necessary financial assurance within 30 days after permit issuance. The applicant has thus satisfied the requirements of 17-701.030(5)(i), FAC, with regard to financial responsibility. Section 17-701.030(7), FAC, requires DER to forward a copy of the permit application to the Water Management District within seven days of receipt of the application. The Water Management District would then prepare an advisory report for DER on the landfill's potential impact on water resources with recommendations regarding disposition of the application. The Department sent the application to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, but the District did not prepare an advisory report. The administrator for the waste management program for the Department's northwest district office, who oversees solid waste facility permitting, testified that, as a matter of course, the District does not prepare an advisory report. Moreover, because the reports are advisory only, DER is not required to respond to any comments or follow any recommendations which may be made by the District in such a report. The Department normally issues solid waste facility permits as a matter of policy without having received a water management district report. 1/ Location and Site Requirements An aerial photograph of this area was prepared, as required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC. It shows the land uses, zoning, dwellings, wells, roads, and other significant features within one mile of the proposed landfill. This map shows several dwellings located within a mile of the site. The closest dwelling, as determined by aerial photograph and performance of a "windshield" survey, is approximately 2,400 feet from the site. The closest potable water well is at the dwelling located approximately 2,400 feet from the site. There are no existing or approved shallow wells within 500 feet of the proposed waste disposal areas at the landfill. Accordingly, the proposed landfill satisfies the condition in Section 17-701.040(2)(c), FAC, that solid waste not be disposed of within 500 feet of an existing or approved shallow water well. The surficial aquifer is located approximately 30 feet from the ground surface at the landfill site. The sediments in the area in which waste is to be disposed of consists of layers of clay and sandy clay having a very low vertical conductivity. The waste disposal cells will not be excavated down to the surficial aquifer. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in ground water. Waste will not be disposed of in a sinkhole or in a limestone or gravel pit, as prohibited by Sections 17-701.030(2)(a) and 17-701.040(2)(b), FAC. The 100-year flood zone is located at approximately 120 feet national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD). The proposed landfill will be located at approximately 125 feet NGVD elevation and within a perimeter berm system. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in an area subject to periodic and frequent flooding, as prohibited by Section 17-701.040(2)(e), FAC. The waste disposal areas are over 200 feet from Long Round Bay, the closest water body. Therefore, the 200-foot setback requirement is met. See, Section 17-701.040(2)(g), FAC. To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, on which the landfill is located, is not a major thoroughfare. There are no other major thoroughfares in the vicinity from which the landfill is visible. Accordingly, waste will not be disposed of in an area open to public view from a major thoroughfare. See, Section 17- 701.040(2)(h), FAC. The landfill site is not located on the right-of-way of a public highway, road or alley, and is not located within the bounds of any airport property. The landfill will not be located within a prohibited distance from airports, as proscribed by Section 17-701.040(2)(k), FAC. See also, Sections 17-701.040(2)(j) and (2)(i), FAC. There are no Class I surface waters within 3,000 feet of the landfill site so the setback provisions in Section 17-701.040(7), FAC, are satisfied. No lead-acid batteries, used oil, yard trash, white goods, or whole waste tires will be accepted at the Class I landfill cell. Only trash and yard trash will be accepted at the Class III cell. Therefore, the prohibitions in Section 17- 701.040(8), FAC, are not violated. A ground water monitoring plan has been developed for the landfill site, pursuant to Section 17-28.700(6), FAC, as required by Section 17- 701.050(3)(a), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. and submitted as part of the initial permit application. This plan addresses monitoring well placement, monitoring, and monitoring plan requirements. It proposes corrective action, as required by Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. Subsequent modifications to that plan were developed by Dr. Thomas Herbert, an expert in geology, hydrogeology, well installation and water quality monitoring. These modifications particularly address monitoring well location and provide additional assurances that the ground water monitoring plan complies with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. These proposed modifications were submitted to DER prior to hearing. A site foundation analysis using appropriate ASTM methods to determine stability for disposal of waste, cover material, and structures constructed on site was performed and the results were submitted to DER as part of the initial application. Additional foundation stability information and the results of another field investigation regarding sinkhole development potential at the site was submitted to the Department. The field investigations and reports in evidence provide assurance that the disposal site location will provide adequate support for the landfill, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC. The landfill site is easily accessible by collection vehicles and other types of vehicles required to use the site. The site design provides for all weather roadways to be located throughout the site for ready ingress, egress, and movement around the site. The proposed landfill is located to safeguard against water pollution originating from disposal of solid waste. See Section 17-701.050(3)(c)2., FAC. The bottom of the waste disposal cells will be located at least six feet above the top of the surficial aquifer. To ensure that ground water is not polluted by waste disposal, the Class I cell will be lined with a composite liner system comprised of a lower unit consisting of 24 inches of compacted clay having a maximum permeability of 1 X 10-7 centimeters per second, and an upper synthetic liner unit consisting of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) of 80 mil thickness. Leachate generated by the waste in the landfill will be collected by a leachate collection and removal system. The leachate control system consists of a two- foot thick layer of sand having a minimum permeability of 1 X 10-3 centimeters per second, with a permeable geotextile filter cloth layer and a highly permeable geonet layer to collect and direct the leachate into a drainage system consisting of a collection pipe system to transfer the leachate to a containment lagoon. Once in the leachate lagoon, the leachate will be evaporated, recirculated over the working face of the landfill, or transported off site for treatment at a waste water treatment plant. The waste disposal areas are located at approximately 125 foot NGVD elevation. This is well above the 100- year flood plain and they are not located in water bodies or wetlands. An adequate quantity of acceptable earth cover is available on site. See, Section 17-701.050(3)(c)3., FAC. The soil for cover will be obtained from the northeast portion of the site located across To Shoo Fly Bridge Road from the landfill site. The landfill site was shown to conform to proper zoning, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(c)4., FAC. The 1991 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element for Holmes County designates this site for "public/semi- public/educational" land uses. The "public facilities land uses" designation includes "utilities and other service facilities" of which municipal solid waste landfills are an example. No other land use designation in the Holmes County 1991 Comprehensive Plan expressly includes landfill uses. CVA adduced testimony from Hilton Meadows, its expert witness, as to plant species he observed in the vicinity of the site. He observed plants that he identified as being species that grow on the edge of or in wetlands, but none of these species were shown to exist on the landfill site itself. Mr. Meadows observed them in locations outside the perimeter berms of the landfill site but did not identify their specific locations other than a general direction from the perimeter berms outside of which he observed the plants. He did not quantify the wetland species he observed so as to establish their dominance and did not conduct a jurisdictional wetland survey, as envisioned by Chapter 17- 301, FAC. Landfill Design Requirements As required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC, an aerial photograph was submitted with the permit drawings. Plot plans were submitted with the permit application, in evidence as EPAI exhibit 1, showing dimensions of the site, location of soil borings, proposed trenching or disposal areas, original elevations, proposed final contours, and previously-filled waste disposal areas. Topographic maps were also submitted with the correct scale and contour intervals required by Section 17-701.050(4)(c), FAC, which show numerous details such as proposed fill areas, borrow areas, access roads, grading, and other details of the design and the site. The design plans also include a report on the current and projected population for the area, the geographic area to be served by the landfill, the anticipated type, quantity and source of the solid waste, the anticipated useful life of the site, and the source and characteristics of cover materials. The landfill will be a regional facility serving the residents of Holmes and surrounding counties. The current population of the area to be served is approximately 63,183 with the projected population for the year 2000 being 76,792. The landfill will receive municipal sanitary solid waste, asbestos, petroleum-contaminated soils, and yard trash. It will not receive used oil, lead-acid batteries, biomedical wastes, hazardous wastes, or septic sludge. The permit application was shown to satisfy all design requirements of Section 17-701.050(4), FAC. Geology, Hydrogeology, and Foundation Stability Dr. Thomas Herbert, a registered professional geologist and licensed well driller in Florida testified of geologic and hydrogeologic investigations and analyses he performed. Mr. Herbert has over 25 years experience in the fields of geology and hydrogeology and was tendered and accepted as an expert in those fields. Dr. Herbert drilled shallow and deep core borings, which were converted into monitor wells to monitor ground water in the surficial and deep aquifers under the landfill site. In addition, he drilled several medium-depth borings along the western boundary of the site to analyze geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in this area, which is the portion of the site closest to Long Round Bay. Dr. Herbert used a hollow stem auger to take the soil borings and install the monitoring wells. This is a device which allows sampling tools to be placed down a hollow drill barrel for more accurate sediment sampling. Dr. Herbert used a continuous sampling system wherein a five-foot core barrel sampled the soil conditions ahead of the turning drill auger. Continuous sampling is preferable to other types of soil sampling equipment because it provides a detailed representative sample of the soil on the site and enables the sampler to precisely determine whether soil materials occur in small thin layers or bands on the site or whether there is a massive deposit of relatively uniform soils. The continuous sampling method also minimizes mixing of soils and creates an undisturbed profile that can be examined once the core barrel is opened. This type of sampling yields a very accurate picture of soil conditions on the site. In addition to the borings taken on the site by Dr. Herbert, other core borings were taken on site by Ardaman & Associates, a geotechnical engineering firm, for the purpose of analyzing the site foundation to determine the site's stability and potential for developing sinkholes. These core boring profiles were analyzed, along with those performed by Dr. Herbert, in determining the site geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. In addition to the core borings, Dr. Herbert reviewed studies on the geology and hydrogeology of the area, as well as the field investigations reported by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, as part of the original permit application submittal. In order to gather additional information on the geology and hydrogeology of the site, gamma ray logging was performed on the wells installed by Dr. Herbert, as well as on the existing wells at the site. Gamma ray logging measures natural gamma radiation from the sediments and permits identification of soil type based on the amount of gamma radiation coming through the soils. Generally, the higher the clay content, the higher the gamma ray count. Gamma ray logging provides an accurate means for determining clay, sand, or sandy clay soils. By examining gamma ray logs of wells he installed and sampled, as well as for wells already existing on the site, Dr. Herbert was able to obtain extensive information about the subsurface soil conditions at the site. Based on these information sources, the geology of the site was determined. The sediments ranging from the surface of the site down to more than 100 feet below the surface are part of the citronelle formation, which consists of consolidated to partially cemented sand, silt, and clay sediments, called clastics, deposited in the Plio-Pleistocene age, between one and four million years ago. The citronelle formation at the site is predominantly clay, with some thin sand lenses running through the clays. The sand lenses or "stringers" grade laterally into the clays or silts. A surficial aquifer is located between 30 and 40 feet below the land surface at the site and is confined immediately above and below by dense, dry clay layers. The top confining unit is estimated to be approximately 10 feet thick. The lower clay confining unit, down to approximately 100 feet below the land surface, consists of dense, dry clays with thin units of sandy or silty clays or clayey sands. Below the citronelle foundation, at approximately 100 feet below land surface, there is a sequence of weathered carbonate rock or mud, termed "residuum". This material is too fine-grained to yield water in usable quantities. Competent limestone is first encountered below the carbonate "residuum" at approximately 262 feet below the surface. This limestone is likely part of the lisbon- tallahatta formation, which is part of the Claiborne Aquifer. In order to investigate an area in the western portion of the site depicted in the Post, Buckley report as being sandy, Dr. Herbert installed a deep core boring and analyzed the soils in that area. He thus determined that rather than being solid sand, as depicted in the Post, Buckley report, the sediments in this area are actually sands interbedded with clay and silt stringers, which decrease the sediments' horizontal and vertical conductivity. He determined that the area is a sandy channel bounded laterally and below by dense clays. As with the rest of the site, the surficial aquifer also is confined in this area. As part of his ground water monitoring plan recommendations, Dr. Herbert recommended installation of an additional monitor well in this area. The core borings and gamma ray logging allowed accurate determination of the site hydrogeology. Transient surface water, termed "vadose" water, percolates down from the land surface through layers of clay, sand, and silt. Within these sediment layers, there are lenses of clay ranging from a few inches to a foot thick. Vadose water is trapped on top of the clay layers, creating shallow saturated zones called "perched" zones, ranging from one to a few inches thick. The vadose water and perched zones are not connected to any ground water systems. Below these perched zones, dense, dry clay layers create a confining layer above the surficial aquifer. The surficial aquifer occurs in discontinuous sandy layers 30 to 40 feet below the land surface. Beneath the surficial aquifer, dense, dry clay layers form a lower confining unit. These confining clay layers overlying and underlying the surficial aquifer create pressure or hydraulic "head", on the water in the surficial aquifer. When a core boring or well penetrates through the upper clay confining layer, the water in the surficial aquifer rises up the well or core casing, due to the hydraulic head, to a level called the potentiometric surface, which is at a higher elevation than the elevation at which the surficial acquifer is actually located. Based on the confined nature of the surficial aquifer, it was determined that water table elevations reported in the hydrogeologic report initially submitted as part of the application are actually potentiometric surface elevations. This is consistent with the information provided in the additional information submittal as part of the permit application which indicates that the potentiometric surface at the landfill site may be five to seven feet below the bottom of the liner. This was confirmed at hearing by Mike Markey, a professional geologist with the Department, who reviewed the permit application and hydrogeologic report submitted by Dr. Herbert and prepared a memorandum dated September 2, 1992, stating that his "previous concern regarding separation of the 'water table' aquifer and HDPE liner is no longer an issue because the 'water table' aquifer was not found" by Dr. Herbert. The surficial aquifer on the landfill site cannot yield enough water to support long-term use as a potable water source. Due to the high clay content in the aquifer, the water has a high sediment content and low water quality, rendering it unusable for domestic purposes. The overall horizontal conductivity for the surficial aquifer on a site-wide basis is estimated to be low due to the discontinuous sand layers comprising the surficial aquifer on the site. While some zones within the aquifer may have high horizontal conductivity, these zones have limited lateral extent and change rapidly into zones of low horizontal conductivity. The steep hydraulic gradient from the highest to lowest areas of the site further indicates that the surficial aquifer has low horizontal conductivity. If water were rapidly moving through the surficial aquifer across the site, the hydraulic gradient would be much less steep. The presence of the hydraulic gradient across the site indicates that the clay in the surficial aquifer system is so pervasive that the water in that system essentially is stagnant. Based upon his extensive experience and familiarity with the clastic sediments like those found at the landfill site, Dr. Herbert estimated the vertical permeability of the sediments comprising the upper and lower confining layers of the surficial aquifer to be in the range of 1 X 10-6 to 1 X 10-8 centimeters per second. These projected permeability values are very low, thus, very little water is moving vertically through the surficial aquifer to deeper depths. The original hydrogeology report on the site submitted as part of the application indicated that the ground water flow is to the west, southwest, and northwest based upon monitoring well and piezometric data. Dr. Herbert's subsequent field investigations confirmed the ground water flow direction as reported in the permit application. Dr. Herbert estimated that the surficial aquifer will be located between 8 and 15 feet below the finished bottom elevation of the Class I waste disposal cell. The intermediate aquifer system is located beginning 80 or 90 feet below the landfill site and is defined as all strata that lie between and retard the exchange of water between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer, including the lower clay confining unit directly underlying the surficial aquifer. In this part of west Florida, the intermediate system is estimated to be 50 to 60 feet thick and acts as an "aquatard", which means that it retards the passage of water from the surficial aquifer to lower levels. The standard penetration test (SPT), which is an engineering test of soil density, yielded values of 40 to 50 blows per inch for soils sampled in the top 20 feet of the intermediate system throughout the site. These SPT values indicate the soils in the intermediate system are extremely dense, over-compacted clay materials. Below the clays, the lower portion of the intermediate system consists of a weathered limestone residuum. Due to the extremely fine grain size of the residuum, it will not yield water in quantities sufficient to support a well. The deep core borings taken at the site indicate that the Floridan aquifer limestone underlying the landfill site has undergone paleokarst evolution. The underlying limestone has been dissolved away over a long period of time, creating the limestone residuum detected in the deep core borings. Based on the deep core borings taken at the site, Dr. Herbert concluded there is no competent Floridan aquifer limestone capable of supporting wells underlying the landfill site, and the Floridan aquifer either is not present under the site or exists only as a relict or remnant of the limestone formations that make up the Floridan aquifer system in other parts of Florida. The core borings taken on site indicate that the paleokarst terrain underlying the landfill contains no cavities, large openings, sinkholes or other features in the rock that could cause the landfill foundation to collapse. All karst features in this area are filled in and "healed" by the carbonate residuum overlying the limestone under the landfill. Dr. Herbert also investigated the geologic nature of Long Round Bay. In addition to reviewing literature regarding the geology of west Florida in the vicinity of Holmes County and topographic maps depicting the site, Dr. Herbert took at least one sediment core boring in Long Round Bay and also circumnavigated the perimeter of the Bay. Based on information from these sources, Dr. Herbert opined that Long Round Bay, like many other drainage basins in the area north of Bonifay, is a collapse feature of the paleokarst sequence in the vicinity, and is a topographic depression caused by weathering away of the limestone over time. The sediments underlying Long Round Bay consist of deep citronelle clays washed into the collapse feature. Long Round Bay is relatively flat with poorly defined outlets and receives surface drainage from the surrounding area. Because there are no defined channels connecting Long Round Bay to Wright's Creek, water movement from Long Round Bay into Wright's Creek is extremely slow. Long Round Bay is likely not an aquifer recharge area because there is no direct karst connection between Long Round Bay and any aquifer. Clays have run off the surrounding area and accumulated in Long Round Bay for thousands of years sealing off any connections between it and any underlying aquifer. In addition to Dr. Herbert's determination of the potential for active karst formation under the landfill site, Ardaman & Associates performed the foundation analysis of the site, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC. The foundation analysis was supervised by William Jordan, a registered professional engineer. He has an extensive education in geotechnical engineering, as well as 11 years of experience in that field. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in geotechnical engineering and materials testing. As part of the foundation analysis, Ardaman & Associates performed two deep core borings to determine the potential for development of sinkholes at the site. Both borings were taken on the western side of the landfill site, closest to Long Round Bay. One of the borings was performed in an area having a relatively high sand content in the soil, as identified in the hydrogeology report submitted in the permit application. The borings were drilled down to approximately 160 feet below the surface, to the top of the weathered limestone horizon. In Mr. Jordan's extensive experience in foundation testing and analysis, presence or potential for sinkhole development is usually evident at the horizon of the limestone or within the top 15 feet of the limestone. The core borings did not reveal any joints, open seams, cavities, or very loose or soft zones at the horizon or on top of the limestone. In addition, the sediments overlying the limestone horizon were determined to consist of medium dense to dense and medium stiff to stiff sediments, which indicate lack of sinkhole activity or potential. No indication of active or imminent sinkhole conditions were found on the site, either through the core borings or from surficial observation. In addition to the deep core borings, Ardaman & Associates, under Mr. Jordan's supervision, also performed four other core borings to a depth of 60 feet below the land surface. These borings indicated the sediments at the site are composed of clayey sands, very clayey sands, "lean" sandy clays, and sandy "fat" clays. The SPT tests performed on the soils indicate the site soils range from medium to high density and are stiff to very stiff and hard. Mr. Jordan performed a settlement analysis of the landfill based on the types of sediments present on site and assuming a compacted unit weight of 37 pounds per cubic foot for the landfill waste. This unit weight is a typical weight value for compacted municipal waste. For settlement analysis, Mr. Jordan used the SMRF elastic compression and consolidation methods, both of which are professionally accepted standard methods for determining settlement of large structures, including landfills. Using these methods, he determined that the total settlement for the landfill over its total life would be between three and five and one-half inches. Based on the uniformity of the subsurface conditions and density of the soils on the site, any settlement would be uniform and thus would not result in tearing or other failure of the landfill liner. Mr. Jordan performed a bearing capacity analysis of the site. Based on the sediments on site, he estimated the safety factor against bearing capacity to be in excess of 10. The minimum acceptable safety factor for large habitable structures, such as buildings, is in the neighborhood of two to three. Thus, the safety factor determined for the landfill site far exceeds the minimum standard for bearing capacity. Mr. Jordan performed an embankment slope stability analysis for the perimeter berm of the landfill. The inside slope of the perimeter berm has a 3:1 slope and the outside slope has a 4:1 slope. Mr. Jordan's stability analysis was performed on the inside slope of the berm which is steeper and, therefore, less stable. Due to the stability of the clay sediments composing the subgrade of the perimeter berm, and based on his extensive experience in slope stability analysis, Mr. Jordan determined there is no danger of deep circular arc failure of the landfill berm. He used a professionally accepted standard slope stability evaluation method called the "infinite slope" method, to analyze the probability for shallow circular arc failure of the berm. He determined a safety factor of 2.0 to 2.4 for the embankment slope, which is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the minimum accepted safety factor of between 1.3 and 1.5 for embankment slopes. Mr. Jordan also performed an analysis of the site subgrade stability for compaction. Mr. Jordan's analysis showed that the stiff or medium dense silty to clayey sands and clays on the site provide a stable base against which compaction over the life of the landfill can safely occur. Based on the foundation analysis performed by Mr. Jordan on the landfill site, it is evident that the landfill will not be located in an open sinkhole or in an area where geologic foundations or subterranean features will not provide adequate support for the landfill. (See Section 17-701.040(2)(a), FAC). The foundation analysis indicates the landfill will be installed upon a base or in a hydrogeologic setting capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement compression, as required by Section 17- 701.050(5)(b)2., FAC. The foundation analysis further indicates the site will provide support for the landfill, including the waste, cover and structures built on the site (See Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC). Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a, FAC, requires the lower component of the landfill liner to consist of a compacted soil layer having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 centimeters per second. Mr. Jordan analyzed nine additional core borings to determine if the native soils on the site meet the conductivity standard in the rule or if off-site soils must be blended with on- site soils to achieve the standard. To test whether the on-site soil will meet the conductivity standard, soils were compacted to approximately 95% of the standard maximum for density, which is the industry standard compaction for soil permeability testing. The soils from eight of the nine borings taken at the site exhibited conductivity values of approximately 4.8 X 10-8 centimeters per second. This value is five times less conductive than the value required by the above-cited rule. Only one boring exhibited a conductivity value in excess of the maximum value established in the rule. Based on the conductivity values determined at the site, it is likely the native soils on the landfill site will meet or exceed the maximum conductivity value mandated in the above-cited rule. If the on-site soils do not meet this standard, then bentonite or another material from off site will be blended with the on-site soils to achieve the conductivity standard mandated by the rule. Ground Water Monitoring and Water Quality As required by Section 17-701.050(3)(a), FAC, a ground water monitoring plan for the landfill site was completed in accordance with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was submitted as part of the application. This plan was incorporated into the notice of intent and the attached draft permit for the landfill, as part of specific condition The ground water monitoring plan subsequently was modified and supplemented by Dr. Herbert to include monitor wells required to be installed by Holmes County on the site, pursuant to the consent order entered into by the county and DER on June 26, 1989, as well as the wells installed by Dr. Herbert as part of his hydrogeologic investigation. DER established a zone of discharge for the landfill site, as required by Rule 17-28.700(4), FAC. The horizontal boundary of the zone of discharge extends to the ground water monitoring compliance wells located at the western, northern, and southern portions of the site and to a line coextensive with the eastern property line for the southeastern portion of the property. The horizontal zone of discharge boundary is located inside the western, northern, and southern property boundaries. The vertical zone of discharge extends from the land surface down to the top of the clay layer underlying the site at approximately +50 to +60 feet NGVD. These zones are established in compliance with Section 17-28.700(4), FAC. The groundwater monitoring plan provides for 15 monitor wells to be located in close proximity to the waste disposal areas and the site boundaries to monitor compliance with all applicable ground water quality standards in Sections 17-3.402, 17-3.404, and 17-550.310, FAC. Four of these wells will be located near the western property boundary to closely monitor water quality to insure contaminants do not seep into Long Round Bay. To detect contamination that may violate applicable surface water quality standards in Sections 17-302.500, 17-302.510, and 17-302.560, FAC, at the edge of and beyond the zone of discharge, the ground water monitoring plan provides for several surface water sampling points on the landfill site near the edge of the zone of discharge. If contaminants are detected in the surface water monitoring system, remediation activities can be implemented to insure the surface water quality standards set forth in the above-cited rules are not violated outside the zone of discharge. As required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)1., FAC, the ground water monitoring plan provides for a well to be located to detect natural, unaffected background quality of the ground water. The monitoring plan also provides for a well to be installed at the edge of the zone of discharge downgradient from the discharge site, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)2., FAC, and for installation of two intermediate wells downgradient from the site within the zone of discharge to detect chemical, physical, and microbial characteristics of the discharge plume, in excess of the requirement for one such well contained in Section 17-701.050(6)(g)3., FAC. The location of the other wells in the ground water monitoring plan was determined according to the hydrogeologic complexity of the site to insure adequate reliable monitoring data in generally accepted engineering or hydrogeologic practice, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)4., FAC. Due to the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer system, and given the location of the intermediate monitoring wells, any contamination detected at the site can be remediated through recovery wells before it reaches the edge of the zone of discharge. Moreover, due to the confined nature of the surficial aquifer system, there is very little free water in the aquifer. Accordingly, any contamination could be quickly removed by recovery of ground water and de-watering of the area in which the contamination is detected through remediation wells. Also, given the location of the monitoring wells on the site, the northerly direction of the surficial aquifer ground water flow on the northern portion of the site near the existing landfill, and the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer, contamination emanating from the existing cell could be discerned from that emanating from the new cell and recovery and remediation operations directed accordingly. The DER intent to issue and draft permit specify an extensive list of parameters which must be sampled at the ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling points on the landfill site, as required by Sections 17- 3.402, 17-302.510, 17-302.560, and 17-550.310, FAC. These parameters must be sampled and reported to DER on a quarterly basis. In addition, annual water quality reports must be submitted to DER for the site. Based on the large amounts of clay content and the low horizontal and vertical conductivity values of the on-site sediments, the stagnant nature of the surficial aquifer system, the virtual absence of the Floridan aquifer under the site, and the location of the monitoring wells, the ground and surface water monitoring program provides reasonable assurance that the applicable water quality standards in the rules cited above will not be violated within and outside the zone of discharge. Liner Design, Performance, Quality Control, and Installation Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1., FAC, requires that a composite liner and leachate collection and removal system be installed in a landfill such as that proposed. Mr. Leo Overmann, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill engineering. He has over 10 years experience in landfill engineering, design, and construction and has worked on the design and construction of over 50 landfill facilities and 250 landfill disposal cells. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in liner design, quality control plans, and leachate control systems design and performance. It is thus established that the composite liner will have an initial 24-inch layer of compacted clay having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 cm/sec. The 24-inch clay layer proposed by the applicant exceeds the 18- inch minimum thickness provided in the above-cited rule and will be placed in the field in layers or lifts of six inches or less. Each lift will then be treated and compacted to proper specifications in accordance with sound engineering practice in order to insure a tight bond between the clay layers. In the process of placing the clay lifts on the site, any roots, holes, channels, lenses, cracks, pipes, or organic matter in the clay will be broken up and removed, as required by the above-cited rule. In order to insure conductivity of the clay liner component does not exceed the above figure, testing will be done at the site or off-site by constructing a "test pad". A test pad is a site at which the liner construction techniques are tested using the clay material that will comprise the lower liner unit. Once the pad is constructed, the hydraulic conductivity of the clay can be tested to determine the most suitable construction methods in order to meet the above-mentioned conductivity standard and the other design and performance standards in the rule section cited last above. The applicant's liner quality control plan provides for testing of the clay liner hydraulic conductivity and compliance with the other liner design and performance standards in the rule (See Section 17- 701.050(5)(c), FAC). A synthetic geomembrane liner consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE) will be placed directly on top of and in contact with the clay liner. If the geomembrane should leak, the clay will then retard leachate migration. Although Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC, only requires a 60-mil thickness liner, the applicant has proposed to use a 80-mil liner. The thicker HDPE liner is less susceptible to stress and wear and tear in the daily landfill operation than is the thinner 60-mil liner required by the rule. The water vapor transmission rate of the 80-mil liner will be approximately 1 X 10-12 cm/sec, which is 10 times less transmissive than the maximum water vapor transmission standard of 1 X 10-11 cm/sec established in Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC. The design also provides for a drainage layer and primary leachate collection and removal system to be installed above the HDPE liner, as required by the above-cited rule. The drainage layer above the liner consists in ascending order, of a layer of geonet material having an equivalent permeability of approximately three cm/sec; a layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile cloth, and a two-foot thick layer of sand. The sand provides a permeable layer which allows liquid to pass through it while protecting the underlying synthetic components of the drainage system and liner. The geotextile cloth component of the drainage layer filters fine particles while allowing liquid to pass through it to the geonet layer. The geonet layer is approximately 3,000 times more conductive than required by Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC, so as to allow rapid drainage of leachate off of the HDPE liner. The drainage layer is designed to reduce the leachate head or hydraulic pressure on the liner to one inch within one week following a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. This was determined by use of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. This model is the standard computer model used in the landfill design and construction industry to determine leachate depth over the synthetic liner in lined landfills. The HELP model calculations submitted in the permit application were prepared by Pearce Barrett, the EPAI landfill design engineer, an expert witness. The HELP model analyzes water and rainfall that falls on active waste disposal cells and percolates through the waste, and the model helps determine the amount of leachate that will accumulate on top of the liner. To determine this amount, the HELP model uses several parameters, including rainfall amount, landfill size, and the number of waste and protective cover layers. The HELP model in this instance involved employment of Tallahassee-collected rainfall data because long-term, site-specific data for the landfill site was not available. The Tallahassee rainfall average is greater than the rainfall average for Chipley, which is closer to the landfill site and, therefore, provides a more conservative, "worst-case" rainfall figure for employment in the HELP model calculations. The HELP is itself a very conservative model, generating a worst-case determination of the amount of leachate that will end up on top of the landfill liner. The model's analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate will be reduced to a one-inch depth on the liner within one week after a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The landfill project design specifications, in the permit application, provide that all materials in direct contact with the liner shall be free of rocks, roots, sharps, or particles larger than 3/8 of an inch. The geonet and geotextile material are in direct contact with the top of the HDPE liner and the clay liner is located directly below the HDPE liner. The project design specifically provides that the clay material comprising the clay liner component will not contain roots, rocks, or other particles in excess of 3/8 of an inch. No waste materials thus will come into contact with the clay liner. The design specifications also provide additional protection for the liner by requiring that the initial waste placed in the landfill be select waste that is monitored and screened for such things as metal objects, wooden posts, automobile frames and parts, and other sharp, heavy objects which could tear the liner. The liner design contained in the application meets the design requirements of Rule 17-701.050(5)(d), FAC. Section 17-701.050(5)(b), FAC, requires that the liner be constructed of materials having appropriate chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients, physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed, climatic conditions, stress of installation, and daily operations. The liner is constructed of HDPE, which is superior to other types of plastic for use as municipal and hazardous waste landfill liners due to its physical and chemical properties. It is a material composed of long polymeric chain molecules, which are highly resistant to physical failure and to chemical weakening or alteration. The liner is of sufficient strength and thickness to resist punctures, tearing, and bursting. The liner has a safety factor of over seven, which is three and one-half times greater than the minimum acceptable safety factor of two, required in the Department's rules for landfill liners. The liner proposed in this instance will not fail due to pressure gradients, including static head or external hydrogeologic forces. Mr. Overmann evaluated the effects of a hydrologic head of one foot over the HDPE liner and the clay liner component and determined that the protective sand layer will insure the HDPE liner does not fail. Mr. Overmann relied on the testimony of Dr. Herbert with respect to hydrogeologic site characteristics in concluding that hydrogeologic forces will not cause liner failure. The 80-mil liner proposed by EPAI will be more resistant to the stresses of installation and daily operation than will a 60-mil liner. The two-foot sand layer above the drainage layer and the HDPE liner will also help protect the liner from stresses of daily operation. Mr. Overmann analyzed the liner's potential for failure between the point at which it is anchored on the edge of the landfill and the base of the landfill where settlement is greatest due to waste deposition. He determined that the HDPE liner would elongate on the order of one percent of its length. This is far less than 700 to 800 percent elongation required to break the liner material. Based on the site foundation analysis and the proposed liner design for the landfill, the liner will not fail due to hydrogeologic or foundation conditions at the site. The liner meets the performance requirements set forth in Rule 17-701.050(5)(b)2., FAC. The liner meets requirements that it cover all of the earth likely to be in contact with waste or leachate. The liner extends beyond the limits of the waste disposal cells to an anchor trench where the HDPE liner is anchored by soils and other materials to hold it in place during installation and operation. The liner design provides reasonable assurance that the liner performance standards contained in the above rule will be satisfied. There are no site- specific conditions at the Holmes County landfill site that would require extraordinary design measures beyond those specified in the rule cited above. The permit application includes a quality control and assurance plan for the soil and HDPE liner components and for the sand, geotextile, and geonet components of the drainage layer. A quality control plan is one in which the manufacturer or contractor monitors the quality of the product or services; a quality assurance plan is one in which an independent third party monitors the construction methods, procedures, processes, and results to insure they meet project specifications. The quality control/quality assurance plan requires the subgrade below the clay liner to be prepared to insure that it provides a dry, level, firm base on which to place the clay liner. The plan provides that low- permeability clay comprising the liner will be placed in lifts of specified thickness and kneaded with a sheepsfoot roller or other equipment. Low- permeability soil panels will be placed adjacent to the clay liner and scarified and overlapped at the end to achieve a tight bond. Each clay lift will be compacted and tested to insure it meets the specified density requirements and moisture specifications before a subsequent lift is placed. Lined surfaces will be graded and rolled to provide a smooth surface. The surface of the final low- permeability soil layer will be free of rocks, stones, sticks, sharp objects, debris, and other harmful materials. If any cracks should develop in the clay liner, the contractor must re-homogenize, knead, and recompact the liner to the depth of the deepest crack. The liner will be protected from the elements by a temporary protective cover used over areas of the clay liner exposed for more than 24 hours. The plan also provides specifications for visual inspection of the liner, measurement of in-place dry density of the soil, and measurement of hydraulic conductivity on undisturbed samples of the completed liner. These tests will be performed under the supervision of the professional engineer in charge of liner installation to insure that performance standards are met. There will be a quality control plan for installation of the HDPE liner in accordance with the DER approved quality control plan that incorporates the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. The quality assurance and quality control plan calls for the use of numbered or identified rolls of the HDPE liner. The numbering system allows for identification of the manufacturing date and machine location, so that the liner quality can be traced to insure that there are no manufacturing anomalies, such as improper manufactured thickness of the liner. The plan also addresses in detail the installation of the HDPE liner. The liner is installed by unrolling it off spools in sections over the clay liner. As it is unrolled, it is tested for thickness with a micrometer and is visually inspected for flaws or potential flaws along the length of the roll. Flaws detected are marked, coded, and repaired. Records are prepared documenting each flaw. If flaws appear frequently, the HDPE is rejected and removed from the site. As the sheets are installed, they are overlapped and bonded together by heat fusing to create a watertight seam. As the sheets are seamed, they are tested in place by nondestructive testing methods to insure seam continuity and detect any leaks or flaws. If flaws are detected, they are documented and the seam is repaired. The seams are also subject to destructive testing, in which a sample of the seam is removed in the field and tested in the laboratory for shearing or peeling apart of the sheets. If destructive testing reveals seam flaws, additional field and laboratory testing is performed and necessary repairs are made. All tests, repairs, and retests are carefully documented, and a map depicting the location of all repairs is prepared for quality control and performance monitoring. The plan for the installation of the geonet, geotextile, and sand layers provides specifications for storage, installation, inspection, testing, and repair of the geonet and geotextile layers. The liner construction and installation will be in conformance with the methods and procedures contained in EPA publication EPA/600/2-88/052, Lining of Waste Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities, as required by Section 17-701.050(5)(a), FAC. The quality assurance and quality control plan proposed exceeds the requirements contained in Section 17-701.050(5)(c), FAC. Leachate Collection and Removal System The landfill design includes a leachate collection and removal system. See Section 17-701.050(5)(e)&(f), FAC. The leachate collection and removal system meets the requirements in the above rule by providing that the design incorporate at least a 12-inch drainage layer above the liner with a hydraulic conductivity of not less than 1 X 10-3 cm/sec at a slope to promote drainage. The drainage layer consists of a geonet layer, a geotextile layer, and a two- foot sand layer. The geonet has a hydraulic conductivity of two to three cm/sec, many times more permeable than required by the rule; and the sand layer will have a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1 X 10-3 cm/sec. The leachate collection and removal system meets regulatory requirements contained in the above-cited rule that the design include a drainage tile or pipe collection system of appropriate size and spacing, with sumps and pumps or other means to efficiently remove the leachate. The design provides that the Class I cell will be divided into operating disposal cells. The design includes a piping system consisting of a 6-inch diameter pipe to be placed down the center of each of the operating cells and encased in a granular river rock medium. The HELP model calculations included in the permit application and evidence indicate that the leachate will be removed efficiently and effectively and that the leachate head will be maintained in compliance with the performance standards in the rule. The piping system is on a slope that drains to a central location or sump. Based on a design preference of City, the piping design will be slightly modified in the construction drawings to provide that rather than going through the HDPE liner, the leachate piping will run up the side of the cell wall and leachate will be pumped out of the cell into the leachate lagoon. The leachate collection and removal system design provides for a granular material or synthetic fabric filter overlying or surrounding the leachate collection and removal system to prevent clogging of the system by infiltration of fine sediments from the waste or drainage layer. A layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile will be wrapped around the granular river rock material surrounding the piping system to filter out fine particles. The design also provides a method for testing whether the system is clogged and for cleaning the system if it becomes clogged. A clean-out tool can be run through the openings in the leachate collection piping system to monitor and pressure clean the pipes if they become clogged. Thus, the leachate collection and removal system will satisfy the leachate system design requirements of Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC. The leachate collection and removal system will meet the performance standards in paragraph (e) of that rule, as well. The leachate collection and removal system will be located immediately above the liner and will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to collect and remove leachate from the landfill. The HELP model analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate depth will not exceed one foot on top of the liner. The leachate collection and removal system will be constructed of materials which are chemically resistant to the waste disposed of in the landfill and leachate expected to be generated. The geonet will be comprised of HDPE, which is chemically resistant to waste and leachate due to its molecular structure. The collection piping system also will be composed of HDPE. The geotextile layer will be composed of a non-woven polyester or polypropylene fabric, which has been determined to be resistant to and compatible with municipal solid waste leachates. The sand layer will consist of non-carbonate materials that are chemically resistant to or compatible with leachate. The evidence shows that the system will be of sufficient strength and thickness to prevent collapse under the pressures exerted by overlying waste, cover materials, and equipment used at the landfill. Geonet drainage layers, HDPE piping, geotextile fabric, and sand layers such as those proposed are routinely and effectively used in landfills, including those that are deeper than the landfill proposed in the instant situation. The leachate collection and removal system meets requirements in paragraph (e) of the above rule, as well, that the system be designed and operated to function without clogging through the active life and closure period of the landfill. The geonet and geotextile layers will prevent the piping system from clogging. If clogging occurs, the system is designed to allow cleaning of the pipes. The collection and removal system will be designed and constructed to provide for removal of the leachate within the drainage system to a central collection point for treatment and disposal. The leachate will drain by gravity from the sump into the leachate lagoon, but will be altered during construction to provide for pumping of leachate out of the system into the lagoon in order to prevent having to penetrate the HDPE liner with piping. Once the leachate is pumped into the lagoon, it will be recirculated over the landfill face, evaporated from the lagoon, or removed off site for treatment and disposal at a waste disposal and treatment plant. Surface Water and Storm Water Management System The storm water management system for the landfill is designed and sized according to local drainage patterns, soil permeability, annual precipitation calculations, area land use, and other characteristics of the surrounding watershed. (See Rule 17-701.050(5)(h), FAC). The engineering expert for the applicant, Mr. Barrett, designed the storm water management system. He considered the presence of dense clay soils on the site which do not provide good percolation because of low permeability, with regard to storm water falling on the site. He also took into account existing drainage patterns, as well as the annual precipitation. The retention and detention ponds and drainage ways designed into the system consist of three detention basins located at the north, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the site and one retention basin located on the western portion of the site. The site is divided into watersheds and is drained by an on-site gravity system consisting of runoff collection pipes to intercept the overland flow and convey the runoff into the retention and detention facilities. Runoff from the northern watershed is treated in detention basin 1, that from the southeast watershed in basin 3, and runoff from the southwest watershed area in detention basin 4. Runoff from the western area or watershed is treated in retention basin 2. A computer model was used by Mr. Barrett in determining the appropriate design for the storm water management system. The model is called the hydrologic engineering center-1 model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is a model routinely and widely accepted in the storm water engineering design profession and discipline for designing such systems. It has historically been accepted by the Florida Department of Transportation, DER, the Corps of Engineers, and a number of counties and municipalities. A number of parameters, such as total runoff area, watershed characteristics, rainfall amount, time of concentration, lag time, and route description, were put into the model to develop the storm water management system design. Because no actual runoff data was available to calibrate the model, the model was run using data for two hypothetical storm events, the 25-year, 24-hour storm and the 10- year, 24-hour storm. Total rainfall amounts for these events were obtained from rainfall intensity duration-frequency curves developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for this geographical area. The detention basins are wet treatment facilities having permanent pools of water. Wetlands vegetation grows on the littoral slopes of the detention basins and removes pollutants from the storm water by natural uptake of pollutants contained in the water through the roots, stems, and leaves of the plants. Based on the HEC-1 model, the detention basins are designed to store one inch of runoff over the permanent pool control elevation and to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall, as required by Section 17-25.040(5), FAC, for projects having drainage areas of less than 100 acres. Each basin has several pipes to allow outflow when the water level exceeds the one-half retention level. As water rises to the outflow pipe level, it flows out of the basin and eventually discharges off site. The outflow pipes are two to three inches in diameter, allowing discharge of a controlled volume of water at a controlled rate. The discharge structures will be constructed in accordance with construction drawings that will include erosion control devices, such as rip- rap. The basins also have vertical riser pipes that discharge if water reaches a higher set elevation, specified in the permit application. Only if the water level rises to an elevation exceeding the 25-year, 24-hour storm elevation would the water flow over the berm. As required by Section 17-25.025(8), FAC, the storm water management system design provides for skimmers to be installed on discharge structures to skim oil, grease, and debris off water discharged from the basins. No more than one-half of the volume will be discharged in the first 60 hours following a storm event. The detention basin slopes that exceed a four to one slope down to a depth of two feet below control elevation will be fenced for safety purposes. See Rule 17-25.025(6), FAC. The retention basin is designed to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall with filtration of the first one-half inch through a sand filter bed in the bottom of the basin within 72 hours following the storm event. The sand filter bed will consist of clean well-graded sand having a minimum horizontal and vertical conductivity or percolation rate of six inches per hour. The retention basin has vertical risers, as provided in the application. Erosion and sediment control "best management practices" will be used during construction to retain sediment on site, as referenced in Rule 17-25.025(7), FAC. Other best management practices, such as sodding embankments or stabilizing slopes with geomats or sand bags will be used. The system is designed to minimize mixing of the storm water with the leachate. (Rule 17-701.050(5)(h)3., FAC). As waste is placed in the landfill, berms are constructed laterally across the cell face to segregate the waste disposal areas from other areas in the cell not yet receiving waste. Storm water coming into contact with waste flows down through it and eventually is collected and removed from that cell by the leachate collection and removal system described above. Storm water falling in a portion of a cell in which waste has not been deposited is collected by piping and pumped to the storm water management system for treatment of storm water because it does not constitute leachate, not having traversed on or through waste. Storm water will not come into contact with the waste within the system as designed. There are not any pipes connecting the waste disposal cells to the storm water system or basins. The storm water system in the permit application was designed in accordance with the criteria enunciated in the above-cited rule. This fact was established by the unrefuted expert testimony of Mr. Barrett and was independently confirmed by three other engineers, including the storm water program engineer of DER, each of whom reviewed the storm water system design. The storm water program engineer inspected the site and determined that the proposed management system will not pose any risk to downstream property, as required by the statute and rules enforced by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD). CVA adduced the testimony of Mr. Hilton Meadows in an effort to demonstrate that the storm water management system design in EPAI's application, and case-in-chief, does not meet applicable criteria in Chapters 17-701 and 17- 25, FAC, referenced above. Mr. Meadows attempted to demonstrate, by calculations determined using the "rational formula", that storm water will be discharged off the landfill site at a rate of 16.11 acre feet per minute during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. An acre foot of water is a depth of one foot of water covering a surface acre in area. According to Mr. Meadows, all storm water would be thus discharged off site at a single discharge point creating a "blowout" of the storm water management system structure at that point which would flood and erode Long Round Bay off the site. In rebuttal, however, Mr. Barrett explained that Mr. Meadows' calculations merely determined the total amount of water that would fall on the landfill site during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and failed to consider the time-volume reduction of storm water off the site over a 24-hour time period. Mr. Barrett clearly established that 16.11 acre feet of water would not be discharged per minute off the site during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. It was further demonstrated that Mr. Meadows did not perform any computer modeling in analyzing site-specific compliance of the proposed storm water management system design against the framework of the applicable design and performance standards in Chapters 17-25 and 17-701, FAC. CVA did not adduce any preponderant evidence which would demonstrate that the storm water management system proposed will not meet the design performance standards contained in the rules and rule chapters referenced above. In view of the more extensive background, education, knowledge, and training acquired both through education and experience; in view of the more extensive and detailed investigation and calculations underlying his design, including the computer modeling effort referenced above; and in view of his corroboration by three other witnesses within the storm water engineering discipline, the opinions of Mr. Barrett, and the witnesses corroborating his testimony, are accepted over that of Mr. Meadows. Gas Control System The gas control system for the landfill will meet the design requirements contained in Rule 17-701.050(5)(j), FAC. It will be a passive system, meaning that no mechanical methods are necessary to withdraw gas from the landfill. A ventilation system will be installed as the final cap is placed on the landfill and will consist of perforated PVC pipes placed vertically down through the soil cover layers, to reach the solid waste disposal areas. The pipes are wrapped in geotextile fabric in order to prevent them from being infiltrated by fine soil particles which could cause clogging of the system. The pipes will run laterally across the top of the waste disposal areas to transfer gas to the vertical vents which vent the gases to the atmosphere. If gas production should exceed the capacity of the passive ventilation system, vegetation will be damaged and odor will become objectionable. If that occurs, a pump can be connected to the system to extract gases mechanically and vent them into the atmosphere or flame them off as a more positive control method. The proposed gas system is typical for landfills of this size and has been well tested for efficiency at other such facilities. The gas control system will not interfere with or cause failure of the liner or the leachate control systems. The gas control system is designed to prevent explosion and fires due to methane accumulation, damage to vegetation on the final cover of the closed portions of the landfill or vegetation beyond the perimeter of the property. It will control any objectionable odors migrating off site. The system, as proposed and proven in this case, meets the design requirements contained in the above-cited rule. Landfill Operation Paul Sgriccia, vice president of City, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill design, operation, and management. He has extensive professional experience in (and supervises a 20-person staff) designing landfills, obtaining permitting, and overseeing daily operation, environmental regulation compliance, compliance monitoring, hydrogeology, and groundwater monitoring with regard to landfill projects proposed, being constructed, or operated by City. Additionally, he is trained as an engineer. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in the fields of landfill operations and landfill management. The above-cited rule chapter requires landfills to have a ground water monitoring system that complies with monitor well location, construction, and sampling requirements of Sections 17-3.401, 17-4.26, and 17-28.700, FAC, and ground water sampling and testing in accordance with those sections, as well as Section 17-22, Parts III and IV, FAC. Mr. Sgriccia's testimony shows that the ground water monitoring plan proposed and considered in conjunction with the hydrogeologic investigation and ground water monitoring recommendations made by Dr. Herbert will meet these regulatory requirements. The recommendations made by Dr. Herbert concerning ground water monitoring should be incorporated as conditions on issuance of the permit. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to notify DER one year in advance of its ground water monitoring schedule so that DER can be present to collect "split samples", as referenced in Rule 17- 701.050(6)(a)3., FAC. Any grant of a permit should also be conditioned on this policy being strictly followed. The application also contains an operation plan, as required by the above-cited rule at paragraph (6)(b). The operation plan provides that EPAI will be the entity responsible for the operation and maintenance of the landfill. The plan provides that in the event of a natural disaster or equipment failure that would prevent waste from being deposited at the landfill, the waste will be disposed of at the Springhill landfill in adjacent Jackson County, pursuant to an agreement between EPAI and Waste Management, Inc., the operator of that landfill. The operation plan contains detailed procedures to control the type of waste received at the facility. Hazardous waste, biomedical waste, lead-acid batteries, white goods, used oil, and waste tires will not be accepted for disposal at the proposed landfill. Asbestos will only be accepted if it is in the proper regulatory approved containers. The operation plan specifies inspection procedures and procedures to be followed if prohibited wastes are discovered. All vehicles hauling waste to the landfill will be weighed and inspected by the operator or appointed attendants at the entry to the landfill. A load inspection will be performed to determine if the waste conforms to the approved waste description before the waste can be disposed. Paperwork, checks, controls, and records maintenance will be performed, as well as random load inspections for municipal solid waste generated by households. Spotters will observe the actual unloading of each vehicle at the active cells. Unacceptable waste will be rejected and cannot be disposed of at the site. Unacceptable waste that is already unloaded inadvertently at the site will be required to be removed immediately. DER will be notified of attempts to dispose of unacceptable waste at the landfill site. The operation plan provides for weighing and measuring of incoming waste and vehicle traffic control and unloading control. All these vehicles will be weighed and inspected before proceeding to disposal cells. The operation plan provides a method and sequence for filling waste into the disposal cells. Waste disposal will begin in the southwest corner of cell one and waste will be disposed in that cell up to an established final grade and the final capping process will be commenced before beginning disposal in another cell. Waste will be compacted on a daily basis when a load is received. Compaction equipment operates continuously over disposed waste loads to obtain maximum compaction. A daily cover of six inches of clean soil will be applied at the end of the day unless more waste will be disposed on the working face within 18 hours. Daily cover helps reduce disease-vectors, such as flies and rodents, as well as to reduce windborne litter. The gas control system will be maintained to insure that riser pipe vents are not dislodged and will be monitored to insure that explosive limits of methane are not reached. When leachate levels in the lagoon reach a certain level, the leachate will be withdrawn and recirculated back over the working face of the disposal area or else hauled off site to a waste water treatment facility for treatment and disposal. Leachate recirculation is becoming an accepted treatment method by regulatory agencies and is considered an effective industry standard treatment method. Leachate is recirculated by application to the active working face of the disposal cell by a watering truck and is dropped on the cell through a distribution bar or open valve pipe at the back of the truck. Leachate will not be applied during rainfall nor will it be aerially sprayed on the cell. Municipal solid waste has significant absorption capacity, so that large quantities of recirculated leachate are absorbed by the waste. The leachate that does eventually run through the waste is collected in the leachate collection and removal system and does not mix with runoff going into the storm water management system. The leachate lagoon is surrounded by a containment dike area with a loading station inside the dike for removal of leachate by truck for off-site treatment at a waste water treatment plant. A hose is hooked to a tank truck and leachate is pumped into the truck. Any spills during the loading process will be contained by the dike and will flow back into the leachate lagoon. The storm water management system will be operated to insure that there is no mingling of leachate with storm water runoff. The design provides for three diversion berms running the length of the Class I disposal cell which divide the cell into four smaller working cells. Any rainwater falling in the clean, unused cells will be removed to the storm water management system. The rain coming into contact with the working face is leachate and is collected and removed from the cell by the leachate control system. The operation plan addresses and satisfies each requirement of Section 17-701.050(6)(b), FAC. Rule 17-701.050(6)(c), FAC, requires certain operational design features to be incorporated in the landfill. Thus, the entire site will be enclosed by a minimum four-foot high fence with a gate that will be locked during off hours. To Shoo Fly Bridge Road is a county-maintained, all-weather road that provides main access to the landfill site. In addition, the roads on the site will be stabilized, all-weather roads. The operation plan provides for signs indicating the name of the operating authority, traffic flow, hours of operation, and any disposal charges, as well as scales for weighing the waste loads received at the site. Dust will be controlled by water spraying to avoid contaminated runoff due to chemical sprays and oils. Dust will be further minimized by use of paved roads, minimizing the areas of disturbed soil, vegetating stockpiles as soon as possible, and vegetating final and intermediate cover areas. Daily cover, use of portable fences, and cleaning operations by operating personnel will provide litter control. Firefighting equipment and facilities adequate to insure the safety of employees will be located on site. Daily cover will be used to minimize the potential for fire and fire extinguishers and water will be used to fight fires. If a fire is too large to effectively fight with on-site equipment, the Holmes County Fire Department will be called to assist. The operation plan for the landfill meets the requirements depicted in the above-cited rule at paragraph (d) in terms of personnel and facilities requirements. A certified attendant will be on site during all hours of operation and a telephone will be located on site. Equipment requirements are contained in the above-cited rule at paragraph (e). The applicant will thus maintain and operate a large bulldozer, soil scraper, front-end loader, water truck, motor-grader for cleaning roads, and portable pumps for storm water management and leachate management. In the event of an equipment breakdown, the plan provides for an agreement between the operator and a local heavy-equipment company to provide a compactor and other essential equipment within 24 hours. The equipment will have protective roll bars or roll cages, fire extinguishers on board, and windshields. The operation plan otherwise provides for protective devices and gear for heavy equipment and for personnel themselves, such as dust masks and hearing protection devices, hygienic facilities in the maintenance building and office, potable water, electric power, emergency first aid facilities and the like. Employees will be hired locally and trained in appropriate safety procedures and practices. In accordance with the provisions of Section 17-701.050(6)(j), FAC, the operation plan calls for solid waste in the Class I cell to be spread in layers of approximately two-feet in thickness and compacted to approximately one-foot thickness before the next layer is applied. Weekly compaction of the waste will be accomplished by heavy equipment at the Class III cell. The compostible materials and the yard trash at the Class III cell will be removed and composted on site. Bulky materials that are not easily compacted will be worked into the other waste materials to the extent practicable. As required by paragraph (k) of the above-cited rule, the compacted solid waste material will be formed into cells with the working face and side grades above surface at a slope of no greater than 30 degrees. The cell depth will be determined by the area in operation, daily volume of waste, width of the working face, and good safety practices. Waste will be placed into the cell beginning at the southwest corner and spread northward, eventually reaching grade level. As elevation of the cell approaches final grade, intermediate and final cover is applied to the cell. The final slope grade will be approximately 4:1 and will be terraced. The operation plan meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(1) of the above-cited rule that the cell working face be only wide enough to accommodate vehicles discharging waste and to minimize the exposed area and use of unnecessary cover material. The waste will not be spread across the entire cell immediately but instead will be spread on a small working face. The typical working area may be 50 feet by 50 feet or slightly larger, and will become larger as more loads of waste are received. Waste is deposited on the working face and compacted until final grade is reached, working across the face of the active cell in a terraced effect. Intermediate and final cover are applied to the portions of the cell that have reached design dimensions. The working face is kept as small as possible to minimize leachate generation, disease-vector problems, and the need for daily cover. The landfill operation meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(m) of the above-cited rule to the effect that initial cover will be applied to enclose each working cell except the working face, which may be left uncovered if solid waste will be placed on the working face within 18 hours. If there are adverse environmental impacts or problems with disease-vectors, initial cover will be placed on the working face at the end of each day for the Class I landfill cell and once a week for the Class III cell. The operation plan provides that an intermediate cover of one foot of compacted soil will be applied in addition to the six-inch daily cover within seven days of completion of the cell if final cover or an additional lift is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion, as required by paragraph (6)(n) of the above-cited rule. The landfill will be closed in accordance with Sections 17-701.050(4) and 17-701.070-.076, FAC. The operation plan further provides that daily cover will control disease-vectors, such as flies, rather than employing use of pesticides. Uncontrolled or unauthorized scavenging will not be permitted at the landfill and will be controlled by fences and on-site personnel. Class III Cell The proposed Class III cell will be located over the old Class I cell last used by Holmes County. This area has a recompacted clay liner and a leachate collection system in place. Only yard trash will be deposited in the Class III cell, however. Based upon the Class III cell design and operating plan that will permit only yard trash disposal in it, any leachate generated from the Class III cell will not pose any threat to or violate applicable water quality standards in or outside the zone of discharge. Asbestos disposal is proposed at the landfill site. A separate asbestos disposal cell is proposed. The operation plan will provide that the asbestos be covered daily with a proper dust suppressant or six inches of non- asbestos material or will be disposed of in an area where proper warning signs, fences and barriers are present. Asbestos accepted for disposal at the landfill will be bagged and accompanied by shipping documents as required by EPA rules appearing in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation. Persons working around asbestos will be specifically trained in its handling and must use appropriate protective equipment, as required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants set forth at 40 CFR 61.25 and other applicable federal regulations. The applicant proposes to dispose of petroleum contaminated soils at the landfill, as well. These soils will be mixed in with the waste on the working face. The soils will not be used as an intermediate cover or come into contact with surface water that will be conveyed to and treated in the storm water management system. Landfill Closure The application includes general plans and schedules for closure of the new and existing landfills. Once final grade is reached, an intermediate cover is applied over the daily cover if the working face will not receive any more waste or will receive final cover within 180 days. The gas control system will then be installed and the final cover consisting of an impermeable synthetic cap will be applied. The final cover will be a plastic cap constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), HDPE, or some other synthetic material and covered by one foot of protective soil, topped by six inches of topsoil to promote vegetation growth. Soils for the closure effort will be obtained on site and will not be obtained by dredging in any jurisdictional wetlands. The final design provides for a terraced landfill profile for the new Class I cell. The waste levels will not exceed 10 feet in height and will be terraced at a 4:1 slope. The terraces will slope back against the cell wall and will be underlain by a subdrain to collect runoff and convey it to the storm water management system. This will prevent erosion of the final cover, waste exposure, and thus, additional leachate generation. The application contains a closure plan containing a general landfill information report and various other plans, investigations, and reports addressing all criteria and factors required to be addressed by Section 17- 701.073(6)(a)-(i), FAC. All such plans, reports and investigations were certified by Pearce Barrett, a registered professional engineer, expert witness and landfill designer for the applicant. The application contains a detailed estimate of closure costs and a monitoring and long-term care plan for the landfill meeting the requirements of Sections 17-701.075 and 17-701.076, FAC. An interest-bearing escrow account will be established for the landfill within 30 days of permanent issuance to cover the closure costs. Funds for closure, monitoring and long-term care of the landfill will be set aside as tipping fees are paid. As portions of the landfill are closed, funds in the escrow account will be available to pay for closure. This type of landfill closure and closure funding is termed "close as you go". This insures that available funds to close the landfill will be present so that funding problems such as those associated with the existing landfill will not arise. The long-term care plan provided for in the permit application and in the applicant's evidence provides for monitoring and maintenance of the landfill for a 20-year period after closure is complete. The storm water management system will be maintained and ground water monitored as part of this long-term care plan.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation dismissing the petition filed in opposition to the permit application and approving EPAI's application for the permit at issue, authorizing construction and operation of a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill, as well as authority to close the existing 25.5-acre Class I landfill in Holmes County, Florida, in the manner and under the conditions delineated in the application, as amended, the Intent to Issue and draft permit and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is further RECOMMENDED that the motion for attorney's fees and cost be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1993, 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 6th day of April, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Frank L. Reppa and Denise J. Reppa, own and reside in their dwelling located at 3863 Plumosa Drive, St. James, Florida. The property is a narrow canal front lot. All lots in the area are small and narrow and the dwellings thereon, mostly mobile homes, are placed closely together. On January 11, 1988, as the result of a nuisance complaint by the Reppa's next door neighbor, Stephen E. Havig, an Environmental Specialist with the Lee County Health Department, a part of the State of Florida DHRS, inspected the property in question and observed that effluent from the Respondents' drain field, a malodorous liquid, had run from Respondent's property down onto the driveway of their neighbors. On January 13, 1988, he returned to the property and spoke with Mrs. Reppa who admitted to living on the property. He again observed that the drain field in the Reppas' septic system was heavily saturated and had failed. Effluent was coming to the surface due to the high water table resulting from heavy recent rains and the failure of the system, and there was still a sewage odor to the effluent. The effluent showed in stains on the neighbor's drive. Mr. Havig told Mrs. Reppa that the problem had to be corrected as it was a violation of the law to allow it to remain. In response, Mrs. Reppa indicated they had no money to effect the repairs and because of that, Mr. Havig, who could have cited them immediately, indicated he would return to his office to see if they could be given some additional time to have the work done. After checking with his supervisor, Mr. Havig, on the same day issued an "Official Notification of Insanitary Nuisance" and a "Notice of Intended Action", both of which were sent by Certified Mail and receipted for by Mrs. Reppa on January 19, 1988. The Notice gave the Reppas until January 28, 1988 to correct the problem. On January 14, 1988, Mr. Havig again talked with Mrs. Reppa, telling her what he was sending and advising her how she could get the problem fixed. When he again went out to the property on January 28, 1988, he noted that the property had dried out due to a lack of rain. However, he could see no evidence that any repairs had been effected. He returned to the property on February 1, 1988 after a rain and observed that the problems had reoccurred. Mr. Havig again spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 8, 1988, at which time she advised him the problem was to be repaired, but they were without funds to pay for it. At that time, Mr. Havig gave the Reppas three weeks to have the work completed with a contractor to be retained within one week. When he spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 16, 1988, she stated she was still having trouble getting a contractor. She had contacted one contractor who looked at the system on February 15, 1988 and who proposed to remove the washing machine from the drain system. When Mr. Havig talked with Mrs. Reppa on February 19, 1988, she indicated she would have to discuss the matter with her husband. Mr. Havig stated at that time that the Department would have to proceed with enforcement action if work was not started on the correction by February 22, 1988. No corrective action was taken by the Reppas and the Administrative Complaint was filed as a result. DHRS considers it important to properly dispose of effluent because, since it contains human waste, it carries bacteria, viruses and a danger of parasites. Agency policy requires that the septic system be continually monitored and that the tank be pumped and the drain field be repaired when necessary. The Department has no funds available to assist those who cannot afford to make repairs. In order to be properly processed, effluent drainage from septic tanks needs a minimum of two feet of soil between the discharge outlet of the tank and the water table. The soil acts as a filter to remove harmful organisms and contaminants from the effluent before it reaches the water table. A high water table, due to heavy rains or other causes, prevents this filtration and causes the effluent to come to the surface. The situation is correctable. Two methods of correction are: 1) elevate the system above the water table, or 2) remove the saturated soil and replace it with a good grade of sand. In October, 1985, another complaint against the Reppas, relating to the same situation, was filed with DHRS. At that time, the Reppas paid $650.00 to have the system repaired by an individual who replaced the drain field, drawing it away from adjoining property and toward the road. Though the contractor assured them this would fix the problem, wash water would continue to come to the surface. As a result, Mrs. Reppa has refrained from washing clothes at her home and takes them to the laundry in town. Because of the actions they have taken, such as having the drain field expanded and moved, the pumping out of the septic tank in January, 1988, and the cessation of washing clothes at home, Mr. and Mrs. Reppa are convinced the system is not overflowing and that the water on the neighbor's property is the accumulation of surface water drainage when it rains. The Reppa property is higher than the neighbor's property and Mrs. Reppa believes that rain water drains down there. The new part of the drain field works and the water in question, she feels, cannot be effluent. The evidence of record, however, indicates to the contrary and that it is waste effluent. Inquiry by the Reppas indicates that it would take $750.00 more to fix the system and the Reppas do not have that money. They are still paying back the money they borrowed from Mrs. Reppa's parents to make the first repairs. Mr. Reppa is a commercial fisherman whose income has been substantially reduced due to the restrictions placed on the taking of redfish. Many neighbors in the area, according to the Reppas, discharge sewage directly into the abutting canal and allow wash water to run out onto the ground. The Reppas cannot comprehend why these individuals, mostly three month winter visitors, are not cited while they, full time residents, are.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that an administrative fine of $50.00 per day be assessed against the Reppas for the violation established, said fine to be effective upon entry of a Final Order herein, with provision that the fine be remitted upon satisfactory proof that the violation has been corrected. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of August, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 06085 Ft. Myers, Florida 33906 Frank Lee Reppa, pro se Denise J. Reppa, pro se 3863 Plumosa Drive St. James, Florida 33986 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's present solid waste-disposal system consists of the operation of six sanitary landfill sites. These sites are being operated in accordance with temporary permits issued by the Respondent. Four of the sites are not adequate sanitary landfill sites. Two of the sites, which are known as the "Sims Farm" and "Ephesus" sites can be developed into acceptable landfill sites. Petitioner has not developed any comprehensive plan designed to comply with the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act, and the rules of the Respondent respecting solid waste disposal systems. When its present temporary permits expire the Petitioner intends basically to continue operating the Sims Farm and Ephesus landfill sites, and to' locate at least two other acceptable sanitary landfill sites. Petitioner intends to comply with all of the Respondent's regulations, but it contends that it cannot comply with the regulation which requires that the landfills be covered every working day. Petitioner proposes to cover the landfills twice weekly rather than daily. Lafayette County is a large county in terms of area, but is very small in population, having less than 3,500 residents. Residents of the county are engaged primarily in agriculture. The county does not have a broad tax base. Estimated revenues for the 1977 fiscal year are $113,340. Thirty thousand dollars has been designated from the county's budget to operate a solid waste disposal system. The clerk of the County Commission is in charge of the county's present solid waste disposal system. The county does not have a full time employee designated to operate the system. The clerk of the County Commission has many duties other than operating the solid waste disposal system. Residents of the county are satisfied with the present system. Prior to the opening of the present sanitary landfill sites there was considerable dumping on private property, on highway right-of-ways, or in the river slough. The amount of waste deposited in the county's present landfills is very small in relation to counties with a higher or more concentrated population. There is very little industrial or commercial waste, and a smaller percentage of putrescible materials than would be found in more urban counties. Although there is a county ordinance prohibiting it, dead animals are occasionally deposited in the landfill sites and burning of trash does occur. Chemical agricultural waste is also deposited in the landfills. Lafayette County has utilized temporary permits to operate its present landfill sites. The permits require the submission of periodic reports. The county has not submitted these reports as required by the permits. Counties surrounding Lafayette County have had varying experiences in reaching full compliance with the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act, and the rules of the Respondent dealing with solid waste disposal systems. In Taylor County, a county with a population of approximately 14,500, approximately $120,000 was invested in equipment. Daily cover of sanitary landfills, including the dumping of green boxes utilized in Taylor County cost $6,512.42 in January, 1976, and $7,159.85 in January, 1977. Compliance with the statutes and regulations necessitated an increase in the county's tax rate. Compliance is being achieved in Gilchrist County, a small agricultural county at very low cost utilizing a single sanitary landfill site system. Compliance has been achieved in Dixie County, a small agricultural county through use of a green box system. Very little research has been performed by Lafayette County to determine how compliance could be achieved most inexpensively. Daily cover of sanitary landfill sites is desirable. Daily cover is the most effective means of preventing open burning in landfill sites, leachate of solid waste, flies and rodents. Daily cover does not totally alleviate these conditions, but it is the most effective means of combating them. Daily cover is much more necessary in areas where there are large amounts of solid wastes than it is in areas with small amounts. Daily cover is also more necessary in areas where there is a large proportion of putrescible versus non-putrescible materials than it is in areas with a smaller percentage. In order to comply with the Respondent's regulations when its present temporary permits expire, the Petitioner will need to purchase a tractor or bulldozer in order to provide a cover at the landfill sites. If daily cover is required, the county will need to hire a full-time individual to perform the cover. If twice weekly cover is permitted the county will be able to operate its system without the necessity of employing an additional person. Twice weekly cover would reduce the operating costs of the county's system by reducing fuel and maintenance costs of vehicles. In view of the fact that no detailed examination has been made of the cost of full compliance, it is not possible to determine from the facts presented whether it is practicable for the Petitioner to comply with the regulations, or whether the expense or cost of measures which the Petitioner must take in order to comply are so great that they should be spread over a considerable period of time. The most that can be determined is that daily cover would be more expensive than twice weekly cover, and that twice weekly cover would not have any profoundly negative environmental effects in Lafayette County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for variance. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P. O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347 Mr. Jay Landers, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases concern whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, or the grant of a variance from the permitting requirements embodied in the statutes and rules cited herein, so as to authorize installation of an OSDS for property they own near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida. See, Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in close proximity to the Suwanee River, more particularly described as Lots 22 and 37, High Point Suwanee Riverfront Estates, a subdivision platted and recorded in 1983. Lot 22 is approximately 150 feet by 127 feet by 121 feet, and Lot 37 is approximately 100 feet by 175 feet by 176 feet in dimension. The lots were purchased on September 22, 1987 and December 10, 1987, respectively. The parties have stipulated that evidence and factual testimony adduced in this proceeding shall apply equally to the circumstance of both lots since they are in close proximity to each other and have similar elevations and other site characteristics. Accordingly, these Findings of Fact will be based upon that stipulated, combined evidence; and all Findings of Fact will apply to both lots, except as to elevation figures peculiar to each lot and as otherwise noted in these Findings of Fact. The Petitioners purchased Lot 22 for $14,995.00 and Lot 37 for $12,500.00. They were purchased in September and December of 1987, respectively. The Petitioners purchased them with the intent of holding them for investment and building a retirement-type home on one of the lots. On March 22, 1990, the Petitioners applied for an OSDS permit for the lots in question. The new systems applied for would be for a frame-type "stilt home", which would contain three bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of 1,232 feet, which equates to a 350-450 gallons per day sewage flow under the standards contained in the Respondent's rules. Hubert H. Raker, a certified, land surveyor of Cross City, Florida, performed a survey on the property, shown by Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. That survey establishes a benchmark elevation for Lot 22 of 11.79 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). That benchmark is actually six inches above the grade level elevation of the property at the benchmark location. Lot 37 was established to have a benchmark elevation of 12.25 feet above MSL, also six inches above the actual grade level of the lot at the benchmark elevation site. The site of the proposed installation of the OSDS has an elevation of 11.19 feet above MSL, as to Lot 22, and 11.75 feet above MSL, as to Lot 37. The ground water level, at the time the site evaluation was made by the Respondent's representative, was 60 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 22 and 54 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 37. The wet season water table for both lots was shown, by "mottling" existing in the soil beneath the surface of the lots, to be 54 inches below `:he surface of both lots. The soil type for both lots, starting with six inches below the surface, is of a "slight limited" soil characteristic and is fine sand down to approximately 48 inches and from 48 inches to 72 inches, consists of "loamy-sand". Such soils are well adapted to OSDS installation and operation. The property was shown, by the Respondent's own Composite Exhibit NO. 2 in evidence, to not be subject to frequent flooding. The property is, however, as to both lots, beneath the ten-year flood elevation established by the Suwanee River Water Management District's calculations and admitted into evidence in this proceeding as a part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit NO. 2. The ten-year flood elevation for both lots was shown to be 15 feet above MSL. Thus the surface elevation of both lots is somewhat below the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation. The bottom of the drain-field or absorption-bed trenches, if the systems were installed on the lots, would be a greater distance beneath the ten- year flood elevation. Thus, the property is located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwanee River and is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwanee River. Other properties and lots in the immediate proximity of the Petitioners' two lots are equipped with OSDS's, including a number of "mounded systems", involving the placement of septic tanks and drain fields in elevated earthen mounds in order to elevate them above the ten-year flood elevation. Petitioner, John W. Holian, testified in a general way that such a system might be feasible and advisable in his situation, as well as the possibility of installing an aerobic septic tank treatment and disposal system, involving the injection of air into the septic tanks so that aerobic, (as opposed to anaerobic), bacteria could perform the sewage treatment function, which typically perform the function better than does a conventional anaerobic system. Petitioner Holian, did not offer any detailed testimony or evidence which would explain and establish how such a system could work without endangering the health of the Petitioners or members of the general public, if placed on the lots in question below the ten-year flood elevation, nor if or how such a system would protect against degradation of the ground or surface waters involved in the proximity" of the sites. If the system were mounded above the ten-year flood elevation, the Petitioners did not establish, through proper engineering testimony and other evidence generated by a registered engineer, that the use of the fill for the earthen mound for such a system would not raise the level of the "base flood." In summary, although the Petitioners suggested such a mounded system or an aerobic system or such a system possibly used in combination, the Petitioners did not go beyond suggesting an alternative and did not offer evidence which could establish that such an alternative would be a reasonable operationally feasible one and would adequately protect the ground or surface waters and the members of the general public from health hazards associated with sewage effluent. See, Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. On May 1, 1990, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding upon the initial denial of their OSDS permit application and advised them that an application for a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation problem at issue, should not be pursued but rather, the formal hearing process before the Division of Administrative Hearings should be employed by the Petitioners. The Respondent asserts, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten year flood elevation was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications. The Petitioners apparently took-that advice because no variance application was filed. It is noted, somewhat parenthetically, however, that in terms of the requirements for the establishment of a right to a variance, the Petitioners have not shown that no reasonable alternatives exist to a standard subterranean septic tank and drain field OSDS, (such as those alternatives referenced in the paragraph next above, which efficacy was, nonetheless, not established by the Petitioners). Neither did the Petitioners establish, in terms of the variance requirements in the authority referenced below, that the installation of an OSDS would not have an adverse effect on the public's health or the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the sites. Because these two necessary elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a variance, through hardship, were not proven by the Petitioners, the elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a hardship variance have not been made out by the Petitioners and one could not be granted under the proof of record in this proceeding, even had the Petitioners made formal application for such a variance. That is not to say, however, that with proper preparation and presentation of evidence, entitlement to a variance could not be established in the future.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3109 AND 90-3445 The Petitioners filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John W. Holian 466 South Lake Triplet Drive Casselberry, Florida Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's Application for Variance from Chapter 10D-6, FAC Standards for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems should be approved?
Findings Of Fact By letter dated September 9, 1986, the County Engineer for Volusia County, Florida, denied the Petitioner's request for expedited subdivision. On or about October 15, 1986, the Petitioner filed an Application for Variance from Chapter 10D-6, FAC Standards for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). On or about November 12, 1986, the Volusia County Health Department recommended denial of the Application. By letter dated November 24, 1986, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that his Application had been placed on the agenda of the Variance Review Group's December 4, 1986 meeting. By letter dated December 16, 1986, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that the Application was denied. By letter dated January 7, 1987, from the Petitioner's counsel, the Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the proposed denial. The property involved in this case is located at 1083 Sheri Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). The Petitioner's parents originally owned 10 acres of property. By warranty deed dated September 12, 1958, the Petitioner's parents gave the Petitioner the Property which consisted of two lots from the ten acres, described as follows: The Easterly 149 feet of the Westerly 295 feet of the Southerly 1/2 (one half) of Lot 140, Blake, as per map in Map Book 1, page 38, of the public records of Volusia County, Florida. The Petitioner's parents also gave five acres of the ten acres to another individual in 1958. This property was developed as a mobile home park. The Property measures 150 feet x 150 feet. The property immediately to the west of the Property is currently owned by the Petitioner's Father. It measures 155 feet x 150 feet. Between 1958 and 1960 the Petitioner began construction of a single- story house on the Property. Also between 1953 and 1960 the Petitioner placed a mobile home on the Property. The Petitioner and his family lived in the mobile home while his house was being constructed. Two septic tanks were placed on the Property sometime between 1958 and 1960. The mobile home located on the Property was hooked up to one of the septic tanks. In 1960 construction of the house was completed and the Petitioner and his family moved into the house. The mobile home remained on the Property until 1961 when it was permanently removed. When construction of the house was completed, both septic tanks were connected to the house. Since 1961, trailers have been temporarily on the Property and have been hooked up to one of the septic tanks. Use of the septic tank by trailers has been infrequent, however, since 1961. Recently the Petitioner placed a mobile home on the Property and hooked it up to one of the septic tanks. The Petitioner was cited by the Volusia County Code Compliance Board for having the mobile home located on the Property. Subsequent to the action by the Volusia County Code Compliance Board the Petitioner attempted to subdivide the Property. The Petitioner proposes using a portion of the Property and a portion of his Father's adjoining property to create a lot 60 feet by 150 feet. The evidence failed to prove how much of the Property and how much of the Petitioner's Father's property would be used to create the new lot. The Petitioner wants to put a mobile home on the new lot and hook it up to one of the existing septic tanks on the Property. The Petitioner plans to provide the mobile home as a home for his daughter who is unemployed. Both of the existing septic tanks on the Property would remain on the Property if the subdivision is approved. The Property is .39 acres and the Petitioner's Father's adjoining lot is .48 acres. The Property and the Petitioner's Father's adjoining property have existing single story residences and use wells located on the property. The private well on the Property is less than 75 feet from the septic tanks. If a new lot is created, it will be located between the Property and the Petitioner's Father's property and all three lots will be less than 1/2 acre in size. The two septic tanks on the Property are larger than normal and the Petitioner is not aware of any problem with the two tanks. The Petitioner does not believe that there has been any contamination of his well caused by the septic tanks. Mobile homes are located in the mobile home park and on other lots in the area of the Property. The mobile homes are located on lots of less than 1/2 acre and they use septic tanks. There is therefore, a high concentration of septic tanks in the area. Mobile homes are frequently moved on and off property in the area but other lots do not remain vacant for any appreciable time. The Respondent reviewed the Petitioner's Application in accordance with its Rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Application be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department Of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Wine wood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mr. Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 James L. Rose, Esquire Rice and Rose Post Office Box 2599 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire District IV Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083
