Findings Of Fact SJRWMD caused "Request for Qualifications No. 91H157" to be published in the Jacksonville Business Journal on May 3 through 9, 1991. In part, the request stated: Interested firms shall submit a letter of interest (three (3) copies) which contains, but is not limited to, the following: Experience in assessing the environmental fate of pollutants. Familiarity with current and historical agricultural practices employed by vegetable farms in Florida. In particular, knowledge of the storage and application of pesticides and herbicides is required. Ability to perform environmental chemistry and to assess the toxicological, chemical, and physical properties of hazardous materials. Ability to evaluate and/or develop site monitoring plans, industrial hygiene plans, site safety plans, decontamination plans, remediation plans, and abatement measures. Experience in performing environmental audits at potential hazardous waste sites. Staff must have the OSHA required 40 hours Hazardous Waste Site Safety Training pursuant to 29 CFE 1910.120. Documentation of experience in sampling of surface water, ground water, soil, sediment, including installation of temporary and permanent wells and split-spoon borings while following current state and federal approved procedures, and must be capable of preparing and implementing a quality assurance project plan specific to each site assessment. At least $5,000,000 of professional liability insurance. Evaluation of submitted letters of interest will be pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Contracts shall be negotiated pursuant to provisions of Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Halff, Jammal and Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G & M) among others, responded to the request for qualifications with letters of interest. SJRWMD staff evaluated the letters of interest and ranked the respondents in order: Halff was first; Jammal was second; and G & M was third. Staff recommended beginning negotiations with Halff. After tabling the matter at the first Board meeting at which it came up, the Board discussed the staff recommendation on August 14, 1991, and, it seemed from a tape recording of the meeting in evidence, was unfavorably impressed with the fact that Halff had only one full-time employee in Florida, Robert Barnard. (Three other people are in petitioner's Jacksonville office on "a sub-contract basis." T.50.) Mr. Barnard, who would have had charge of the work for SJRWMD if Halff had been chosen, spoke at the Board meeting. He came up to the podium and answered questions, but did not make a formal presentation. No other contender was represented at the Board meeting. As far as the evidence shows, each Board member had read all letters of intent carefully: The record is silent on the point. The Board voted to rerank Jammal and Halff first and second, respectively, and directed staff to begin negotiations with Jammal.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that SJRWMD proceed with negotiations with Jammal, Halff and G & M in that order. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 4th day of March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William Lon Allworth, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32207 John W. Williams, Esquire P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Wayne Flowers, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Beker Phosphate Corporation should be granted a hermit to construct an industrial waste water facility pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. By application, dated April 8, 1975, Beker Phosphate Corporation (hereinafter Beker) , sought a permit to construct an industrial waste water facility in Manatee County, Florida, from the Department of Pollution Control (now and hereinafter DER) . The application was received on April 11 and, after advising Beker that the application was incomplete a meeting was held on May 9th between DER and Beker representatives with the result that Beker filed a new application dated June 11, that was received by the DER in July. Further meetings were held in the fall of 1975 and additional in formation was received as to the application. On December 16, 1975, DER secretary. Jay W. Landers, Jr., issued a Notice Of Intent To Grant A Permit With Conditions. The conditions were unspecified in the letter of intent (Exhibit 1.) Subsequently, on December 23 and December 24, 1975, Sarasota County (hereinafter Sarasota) and the Town of Longboat Key (hereinafter Longboat Key), respectively, filed petitions with the DER alleging that their substantial interests would be adversely affected by approval of the permit application and setting forth in their petitions certain disputed questions of fact for determination. After a prehearing conference, Amended Petitions were filed by those parties to clarify and expand on such questions of fact and to resolve procedural matters. Additionally, during this period, George Browning, III, of Sarasota, Florida was granted status as an intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Beker proposes to construct a phosphate rock mine and beneficiation plant on a tract of approximately 11,000 acres in a predominately agricultural and ranching area of Manatee County about 10 miles from Myakka City, Florida. The mining will be performed by two dredges. One will mine overburden and return it to the mined-out area and the other will mine phosphate rock matrix which will be pumped to the beneficiation plant. The plant will consist essentially of two circuits. The first is a washer where the matrix pumped from the dredging operation is partially cleaned of clay and fine sand, and the coarser phosphate particles "pebbles" are separated as a product. The "fines" from the washing operation consist of small phosphate rock particles, sand, and clay. This mixture will be treated in the second section of the plant by "flotation" methods to recover the small phosphate rock particles as a product. During initial operation, the sand and clay will be stored in a temporary waste material storage area, but as the mining proceeds and the dredge pits open up, the sand and clay material will be pumped back to the dredge pits so that sand, and overburden will be mixed and redeposited to reclaim the land. Approximately 8 million gallons of fresh water per day will be drawn from the Floridian aquifer to be used in the flotation circuits. From the plant the water flows in two types of streams--one containing sand suspended in water and one containing clay suspended in water. Both streams flow into a settling pond surrounded by an earthen dam where sand and clay solids settle to the bottom. The clarified water is then decanted through six spillway structures into a hydraulic recirculation ditch outside the dam and flows back to the plant for re-use. The ponds and canals that make up the hydraulic circuit are planned to have sufficient capacity to contain rainwater falling on the site and pond system during the wet season when there are heavy rainfalls (approximately from May to September). Excess water will be decanted from the hydraulic recirculation ditch through a structure into a pipe and then discharged into Wingate Creek. The settling pond will occupy approximately 225 acres and its capacity will be about 8,458 acre- feet. The pond itself can be used to act as a reservoir and water can be built up in the pond during periods of high rainfall. It will not be necessary to release the water at any particular time. It can be released at will when the effluent contains a minimum of pollutant materials (Exhibit 1). Matrix is an unconsolidated mixture of phosphate pebbles and boulders of partly phosphatized limestone, quartz and clay. The washing operation removes unwanted oversized material and fine clays. The purpose of the flotation plant is to recover fine phosphate rock that might otherwise be lost. In the flotation process, flotation reagents, including sulfuric acid, number 2 fuel oil, tall oil, sodium hydroxide, and amines are used for treatment. The wastes are then moved to the settling pond where over a period of time the "slimes", (sands and clays) will settle to the bottom forming an impervious layer which will seal the pond. The settling process removes more than 90 percent of the contaminants from the influent. The coarser clay particles settle first and many of the fine particles settle in a process called "flocculation" by which electrical forces bring the particles together. However, some of the particles will not flocculate and remain suspended in the water. These extremely small particles constitute the total suspended solids that remain in the effluent when it is discharged from the settling area. They probably will not settle out entirely during their course from Wingate Creek into the Myaaka River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. However, even if it were assumed that such materials would settle somewhere between the point of discharge and Charlotte Harbor, over the entire 20 year proposed life of the mine they would form a deposit much less than 1/10th of an inch. Although it is technically possible to treat water to the degree that it would result in distilled water, realistic concepts of treatment establish that an additional settling or "polishing" pond for the proposed facility might not improve the quality of the wastewater finally discharged in state waters to any appreciable degree. Alternative proposals for the reduction of pollutants by additional processing, such as the intentional growth of water hyacinths in settling areas or use of chemical coagulants would result in creating other waste materials and thus be counterproductive (Testimony of Bromwell; Exhibit 1). The applicant's discharge of wastewater to Wingate Creek will average approximately 3.19 million gallons per day. However, since discharge will be effected primarily during periods of excessive rainfall, actual discharges can reach a maximum of about ten million gallons per day during this period. The effluent contained in such discharge will meet the test of at least 90 percent removal of organic and inorganic wastes specified by Rule 17-3.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, when measured by the influent into the settling pond and the effluent leaving that area. This treatment, however, will not produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by the "highest quality municipal waste treatment." The highest degree of treatment that has been reached by municipalities is "advanced waste treatment" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The water quality characteristics of the effluent will meet the standards of Rule 17-3.05 as to concentrations of those pollutants reasonably anticipated to be fond in the wastewater based on samples taken where the waters are discharged into Wingate Creek (Testimony of Gilgallon, Davis, Edwards, Heinzman, Bromwell, Bartow, Wellford, Exhibit 1). In preparing the application, no consideration was given to the need of meeting treatment standards for highest quality municipal waste treatment or advanced waste treatment. Neither did the recommending official of the DER, Mr. Edwards, then Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region, consider this standard because he had been advised by the DER legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) did not apply to Wingate Creek since it was not a tributary to one of the bodies of water listed in subparagraph (c) of the rule 17-3.04(2). This determination was based upon Resolution No. 74-83, September 17, 1974, of the Florida Pollution Control Board that was issued after legal challenges had been made to an interpretation by the Department of Pollution Control legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) required advanced wastewater treatment for industrial waste discharges. The Board, in its resolution, determined that since evidence had not been taken concerning treatment standards for industrial waste discharges at the time of adoption of the effluent standards for sanitary waste contained in Rule 17-3.04(2), the advanced wastewater treatment standards in the aforesaid rule would not be enforced against industrial dischargers pending full hearings on a new Rule to clearly express the Board's intent in this regard (Testimony of Gilgallon, Edwards; Exhibit 1). Special conditions that the Southwest Region, Department of Environmental Regulation, recommends should be attached to any issuance of a construction permit, other than standard conditions and those relating to other types of permits, are as follow: Approval by DER prior to the construction of any above grade phosphatic clay storage facility other than the initial settling pond. Removal efficiencies for oil and grease shall be a minimum of 90 percent and shall not exceed 14 milligrams per liter measured in the discharge effluent. Discharge effluent to Wingate Creek shall meet the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3.05(2) at the point of discharge prior to mixing with the receiving stream. Further treatment of the discharge will be required in the event compliance with proviso (c) above cannot be achieved or significant degradation of the receiving stream occurs as determined by the DER. In addition to required routine monitoring, a detailed analysis of the untreated and treated wastewater to be conducted once on representative samples during (1) month of July and (2) month of February. Such analyses shall, as a minimum, include all the parameters listed in 17-3:05(2). Applicants shall conduct an investigation into total retention possibilities of the effluent including, but not limited to, the following areas: recharge wells retention and storage of excess water during the "wet" season with subsequent reuse during the "dry" season for process and/or irrigation purposes. A report of these investigations shall be submitted prior to submission of operation permit application The location of monitoring wells shall be down gradient from the settling pond. Detailed proposal, subject to the DER approval, regarding exact location and number of wells to adequately ascertain the impact of seepage to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to commencement of operation. Bond to be posted for damages that may result from a clay settling area dam failure. Oral and written communications from the public were received at the hearing and included the following: Announcement by the County Attorney, Manatee County, that the county did not plan to appeal the DER Notice of Intent to Grant the permit (Statement of E.N. Fay, Jr.). The Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, fears that the construction of the phosphate mine up-stream from the Myaaka diver State Park poses a serious potential threat to its aquatic habitat due to the possibility of a dam failure. It also fears that pollutants from the project will tend to settle as the river waters flow through the two lakes in the park. It therefore, opposes the construction until assurance can be given that proper safeguards have been taken to prevent such problems (Testimony of Alverez). The Longboat Key Garden Club believes that the project would involve too much water consumption and also that phosphate mining should be halted until further government studies are made to assure that the safety and health of the populace and the environment will not be endangered through polluted runoff and phosphate spills (Testimony of Monroe). The Save Our Bays Association in Manatee County has collected petitions from citizens in Manatee County requesting a referendum on a ballot this November for or against phosphate mining. The Association believes that such a vote should be taken before final decision is made on the subject. Its spokesman fears that if the quality and quantity of the drinking water is disrupted, it will interfere with continued tourist trade (Testimony of Howard Greer). The Palma Sola Parks Association opposes the Beker Application until there is greater assurance of environmentally safe mining (Testimony of Blankenship) A former physical and health education director is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient data collected on the effect of radioactive materials in runoff and waste. She believes there should be more research in these areas and asked that the public be protected from such hazards (Testimony of Mary Kay Greer). The Manasota-88 project for environmental qualities of 1968 and 1988 believes that issuance of the permit should be withheld until health implications can be determined concerning potential hazards to the Myakka and Manatee Rivers' watersheds (Exhibit 7). A former member of the Manatee County Planning Commission that approved the Beker application prior to action by the County Commission of Manatee County is in favor of the proposed project because Beker's plan to impound water will augment the water facilities of the county (Testimony of Reasoner). The City of Bradenton believes that since it is being required to meet advanced water treatment standards of discharge for sanitary sewage, Beker Phosphate Corporation should be required to meet similar standards (Testimony of Mayor A.K. Leach). A member of the Myakka City Civic Association who is an adjacent land owner to Beker Phosphate Corporation feels that the project is necessary in order to produce jobs for individuals in that area of the county (Testimony of Mizell). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that proposed construction of two dams by the applicant will destroy approximately (4) acres of mangrove areas, three acres of pasture land and about 185 acres of bottom land or hardwood habitat. It recommends an alternative method of backup levies constructed around the primary settling bases on the applicant's land to contain any spills and prevent destruction of the streams and associated wetlands (Testimony of Johnston) The Conservation Council of Manatee County believes that Beker's unique mining and reclamation plan will help the farming industry and also create necessary water reserviors and recreation areas, and therefore endorses its proposal to mine in Manatee County (Testimony of Kent, Exhibit 14). Petitions were submitted at the hearing from approximately 3,000 individuals living in Manatee and Sarasota Counties opposing the issuance of the permit because they believe that phosphate mining is dangerous to the quality and supply of the water and endangers the health of the people (Composite Exhibit 9, Testimony of Humphrey).
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Palm Beach, County on which is housed Petitioner's paving and landscapping business and which is zoned for industrial use. Petitioner intends to install a manufactured building for use as an office. To provide sewage treatment for the bathroom of the office, Petitioner had a septic tank designed and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was its variance request. As a result of a complaint, Petitioner was inspected in August, 1988, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Both inspections yielded citiations for soil contamination by oil and other hazardous waste. Petitioner represented that most of the infractions had been rectified by the date of the hearing in this matter and pledged full cooperation with the County and State rules. To oversee the operation of the business and assure that no further problems arose, Petitioner decided to establish its office on site. The closest sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and does not intend to provide service to the parcel in the near future. The adjoining properties are serviced by septic tanks. As such, the proof did not demonstrate that alternative methods of waste disposal were available to the site However, as part of its business operation, Petitioner does minor repair of its equipment on site and may include oil changes and other such services. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater and intends to use the proposed septic tank for office use only, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of its equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Further, the proof failed to demonstrate that the septic tank would be protected from use by those who handled the hazardous waste. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner and the proof failed to demonstrate reasonable alternatives of waste disposal, the potential for an adverse affect of the operation to the groundwater is great. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions or whether the property was platted prior to 1972. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Hattie Parker 160 Toneypenna Drive Jupiter, Florida 33468 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a solid waste management facility without a permit and disposing of solid waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background DDD is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its president and sole director is William H. Stanton, Jr. The corporation is engaged in the business of "mobil recycling activities" (reduction recycling services for customers). Mr. Stanton owns a two-acre tract of property located in Section 26, Township 28S, Range 24B, on the northwest corner of Mustang Road and Longhorn Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and was formerly used in some form of phosphate mining operations. The Department is the agency charged with the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Based upon a complaint made by a Polk County Health Department employee, on October 8, 2001, a Department enforcement coordinator, Steven G. Morgan, inspected Mr. Stanton's property and observed that Respondents had filled and compacted an approximate 150 foot by 300 foot area of the site with 3 to 5 feet of "wallboard type material," which consisted of "both ground up and large pieces of wallboard." In the middle of the filled area was an additional pile of the same material around 20 to 25 feet high. Petitioner's Exhibits A, D, and E are photographs which provide an accurate representation of the site on the date of the inspection. Based on a visual inspection, but without having the benefit of his own laboratory analysis,2 Mr. Morgan concluded that the material was a solid waste made up of discarded industrial products. Under Department rules, the deposit of solid waste on such a site requires a waste facility management permit from the Department. A check of Department records indicated that Respondents do not hold a permit to operate a solid waste management facility. (DDD does hold a valid air pollution permit for grinding concrete.) During his inspection, Mr. Morgan also observed that the land adjacent to the filled area was wet, had a lower elevation than the compacted area, and contained small pockets of standing water. This was confirmed by photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits D and E. A DDD employee who was present on the site during the inspection indicated that approximately 900 truck loads of the material had been transported to the site from Plant City after Mr. Stanton had "lost" a lease on the property on which the material had previously been placed. This was confirmed by Mr. Stanton who arrived at the site shortly after the inspection began, and who indicated that he intended to use the compacted wallboard as a sub-base (or foundation) for a wallboard recycling facility. A second site inspection by Mr. Morgan conducted on February 5, 2002, confirmed that the conditions (regarding the piles of fill material but not the standing water) at the site were unchanged from those found on October 8, 2001. On that visit, Mr. Morgan observed the site from his automobile but did not walk the property. Two other site visits were made, one on June 19, 2002, by other Department personnel. Except for a photograph (Petitioner's Exhibit C) dated June 19, 2002, which indicates the piles of material were still intact and had not been removed, the results of those inspections are not of record. Shortly after the initial inspection, the Department's Tampa District Office issued a warning letter to Mr. Stanton describing Mr. Morgan's observations and outlining the potential violations. The letter also invited Mr. Stanton to resolve the matter informally and to present a corrective action plan to mitigate the site. When the matter could not be resolved informally, the Department issued its Notice on October 10, 2002, alleging that Respondents had operated a solid waste facility without a permit and had deposited solid waste in an area prone to flooding. Even though the matter was not informally resolved, Mr. Stanton has cooperated with the Department in good faith throughout the regulatory process. The Material on the Site Invoices received in evidence reflect that the source of the deposited material was James Hardie Building Products in Plant City, Florida, and that the material was described on the invoices as "Dry Waste Material," Wet Waste Material," and "Foreign Material." James Hardie Building Products manufactures HardieBoard, which is a one-half to one-inch thick concrete formulated product used in the construction of homes and other buildings, and HardiePipe, which is used in road and bridge construction, culverts, storm sewers, and concrete pipes. The material being deposited was material used in the manufacture of HardieBoard. Mr. Stanton's long-range plans are to grind up, or recycle, the material (after all necessary permits, if any, are obtained) and then sell it to other persons, including cement manufacturing plants in the area, who will then use it for a variety of purposes, including subbase and base material, cement and concrete re-additive, and cement production. HardieBoard (as well as HardiePipe) is a variable mixture of Portland cement, water, fine silica sand, less than 10 percent cellulose (a non-toxic organic material commonly added to such products as ice cream, shampoo, baby diapers, and rayon clothing), and less than 10 percent of inert materials. The cellulose fibers are added to the concrete to avoid cracking and shrinkage and to reduce the weight of the product. Unlike concrete used for driveways and the like, HardiBoard does not have any large aggregate. Disposal of Solid Waste and Clean Debris Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(1)(a) prohibits the storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste except at a permitted solid waste management facility. In addition, no solid waste may be stored or disposed of "[i]n an area subject to frequent and periodic flooding unless flood protection measures are in place[,]" or "[i]n any natural or artificial body of water including ground water." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(d) and (e). These requirements form the basis for the charges in the Notice. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113) defines solid waste in relevant part as "discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations." Section 403.707(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, however, that a permit is not required for "[t]he use of clean debris as fill material in any area." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.220(2)(f). "Clean debris" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(15) as: any solid waste which is virtually inert, which is not a pollution threat to ground water or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. The term includes brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete including embedded pipe or steel. The term "virtually inert" is not defined by statute or rule. However, the parties agree that in order for a material to be "virtually inert," it must have no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater. In addition, if a deposited material releases contaminants into the groundwater thereby posing a threat to human health, it is considered a "threat to [groundwater]" within the meaning of the rule. The rule also provides that the material must not be a fire hazard. Finally, if a material decomposes over time after being used as fill, and releases contaminants into the groundwater, it is not "likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use." Therefore, if a material has no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater, is not a threat to groundwater, is not a fire hazard, and is not likely to decompose over time, it constitutes clean debris and is exempt from the waste management facility permitting requirements. As noted above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.200(15) identifies four materials that are considered to be clean debris: brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete. If a waste product is classified as uncontaminated concrete, it constitutes clean debris and may be used as fill without a permit from the Department. Further, clean debris may be deposited in an area subject to frequent or periodic flooding so long as flood protection measures are taken, or in a natural or artificial body of water so long as other appropriate permits (such as an Environmental Resource Permit) are obtained. Here, the central issue is whether the material deposited on Mr. Stanton's property is solid waste or clean debris. This issue turns on whether the material is virtually inert, is not a pollution threat to groundwater or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. Assuming these criteria are satisfied, the material is exempt from Department permitting requirements for solid wastes. On this issue, the Department contends that the material is not virtually inert and is unlikely to retain its physical and chemical structure. Conversely, Respondents assert that the material is clean debris and falls within the category of uncontaminated concrete. Is the Deposited Material Clean Debris? In determining whether a material is virtually inert, or is a pollution threat to ground or surface waters, two extraction procedures have been sanctioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the measurement of the amount of contaminants that will leak from a material: the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Under both procedures, the material being tested is ground up into small sand-size particles, mixed with an extraction fluid, and tumbled for 18 hours in a rotary agitator while the liquid solution extracts various metals that are found in the solids. The extracted liquid solution is then filtered and analyzed to determine the concentration of metals actually leached from the solids. Under state water drinking standards found in Table 1 of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, the maximum contaminant levels for chromium and barium (stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L)) are 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. In reaching its conclusion that the fill material is a solid waste, the Department relied principally on certain tests of the material run by various laboratories between 1998 and 2000, which showed that the amount of chromium and barium leaking out of the product exceeded the State drinking water standards. See Petitioner's Exhibits K, L, M, and O. However, in every one of those tests, the laboratories used the TCLP, rather than the SPLC, which produced a worst case scenario. For the reasons stated below, the TCLP is not the appropriate procedure to be used for this purpose. The TCLP is the more aggressive of the two procedures, uses a much harsher solution than the SPLC, and generally leaches higher concentrations of metals. However, its principal purpose is to determine whether a material should be classified as a hazardous waste based on its leaching properties or characteristics. Using it to predict whether a material will leach into ground water is inappropriate because it will "leach things out in the laboratory that will never leach in the field." This is because it does not mimic conditions in the field and is "just not supposed to be used for this purpose." Therefore, TCLP leachate values should not be applied to drinking water standards. Conversely, the SPLC uses a less harsh solution during the preparation process, evaluates the potential for leaching metals into ground and surface waters, and is designed to provide a more realistic assessment of metal mobility under actual field conditions. In other words, the SPLC simulates what would happen if the sample were exposed to groundwater and rain to determine if under those conditions metals might leach into the water system below. Therefore, the SPLC is the more appropriate procedure to use here to determine whether the HardieBoard material will leach certain metals into the groundwater at levels that exceed State drinking water standards. Even various Department guidance documents provide that the SPLC (rather than the TCLP) should be used to determine if a material will leach metals into the ground water. See Respondents' Exhibits M, N, and O. Respondents' witness Foster collected three samples of HardieBoard deposited by Respondents at another site and submitted them to PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, for a clinical analysis using the SPLC test. Those results, which have been accepted as being reliable,3 indicate that none of the leachate concentrations for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver exceed (or even approach) the drinking water standards. Therefore, the material is virtually inert, and the groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by use of this material as fill. The parties agree that the material is not a fire hazard. Prior to depositing the material, Mr. Stanton used a commercial waste reduction machine (a Smorcazy Bandit Beast 3680 Horizontal Trough Grinder) to grind or pulverize some of the material into fine particles. As noted earlier, a small amount of cellulose fibers are added to the product during the manufacturing process. The Department contends that after the grinding process occurs, these fibers will separate from the remaining fine particles and dissolve into the ground water. Because of this separation, the Department asserts that the material does not retain its physical or chemical structure after being deposited onto the property. Although cellulose fibers are added to the product during its preparation to strengthen the material (and have been added by cement manufacturers since the 1920s), they are distributed throughout the matrix in the material. This means that the fibers become "part and parcel of the mixture" and will not deteriorate, fall out, or leach out of the material even after routine grinding processes, such as that done by Respondents. As such, the cellulose is not biodegradable, and there is no concern that the cellulose will dissolve into the groundwater. Indeed, HardiePipe, which is used in the construction of culverts, storm sewers, and drainage pipes and has essentially the same constituents as HardieBoard, was approved by the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001 for use on State road and bridge projects. Therefore, it is found that the fill material will retain its physical and chemical structure after being deposited onto the ground. Expert testimony by Dr. McClellan established that the material meets the general definition of concrete, and because it is uncontaminated, it should properly be classified as uncontaminated concrete. As such, the material is clean debris and is not subject to the Department's solid waste management permitting requirements. Finally, the Department points out that the compressive strength (measured in pounds per square inch (PSI)) is much greater for concrete used in driveways than for HardiBoard (2500 PSI versus 20 to 30 PSI), and therefore Hardiboard is not a true concrete product. While the PSI values are indeed substantially different, the load bearing ratio or compressive strength of the material does not determine whether a material falls within the generic category of concrete. Water Issues As noted above, if a material is classified as clean debris, it may be deposited into an area prone to flooding or in a natural or artificial body of water, including groundwater (subject, of course, to other unrelated requirements or safeguards). There is no evidence that the filling occurred in a "natural or artificial water body," or directly into the groundwater. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that in October 2001, the ground next to the filled area had small pockets of standing water measuring no more than a few inches deep. However, when the inspection was made, and the photographs taken, Polk County was experiencing rather heavy rainfall, presumably due to the El Nino phenomenon. Whether these conditions (pockets of standing water) exist on the property only during the rainy season is not of record. Further, prior to the filling, Mr. Stanton contacted both the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the United States Geodetic Survey and he asserted, without contradiction, that neither agency indicated that his property was prone to flooding. In any event, even assuming that the area is subject to "frequent and periodic flooding," the permit requirements or other necessary safeguards, if any, associated with filling clean debris in such an area are not the subject of this proceeding. Investigative Costs A Department representative spent 66 hours investigating this matter for the Department. At a then-hourly rate of $18.54, this totals $1,223.64 in investigative costs. The reasonableness of this amount was not disputed by Respondents.
The Issue Is Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson), entitled to a general permit allowing it to operate a construction and demolition debris facility in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact DEP, in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is responsible for enhancing the beauty and quality of the environment; conservation and recycling of natural resources; prevention of the spread of disease and creation of nuisances; protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and provision for a coordinated statewide solid waste management program. It accomplishes these tasks, in part, by regulatory oversight directed to entities who operate solid waste facilities in Florida. That oversight includes permitting the activities by the facilities subject to compliance with statutory and rule requirements. Watson wishes to operate a solid waste facility in Newberry, Florida. In particular, Watson seeks to operate a C&D facility for off-site disposal of C&D debris to be placed where sand has been mined. Watson would pursue this enterprise by using a general permit, as allowed by DEP. Petitioner, City of Newberry (the City), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It opposes Watson's use of a general permit to conduct business as a C&D facility, based upon the belief that Watson has not demonstrated compliance with regulatory provisions that would allow Watson to use a general permit. Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. (Citizens), is a corporation constituted of persons who oppose the use of the general permit for the same reasons expressed by the City. On July 21, 1994, Watson noticed DEP that it intended to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility. On July 29, 1994, a notice was published in the Gainesville Sun, a local newspaper, concerning the pendency of the use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility in Newberry, Florida. On August 12 and 16, 1994, the Petitioners filed petitions seeking an administrative hearing on the use of a general permit by Watson to operate the C & D facility. On August 19, 1994, DEP issued a Notice of Denial of the permission to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. This permit request was under an arrangement between Watson and a co-applicant, Whitehurst. Following the Notice of Denial, no further action being requested by the applicants, DEP issued an order closing its file. In December 1994, in its name only, Watson resubmitted an application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility in question. The level of consideration at that time was as a pre-application review. This was followed by a formal notice by Watson and application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. The formal application was filed on January 17, 1995. On January 24, 1995, notice was published in the Gainesville Sun concerning the more recent intention to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 6, 1995, Citizens filed a verified petition opposing the use of the general permit contemplated by the January 17, 1995 application. Two days later, the City filed a verified petition in opposition to the most recent request to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 15, 1995, DEP gave notice that it did not object to Watson's use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility. Watson's most recent request to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility was made on a form provided by DEP in accordance with Rule 62- 701.900(3), Florida Administrative Code. The application to use a general permit was sealed by a professional engineer. The legal description of the property in question is described in the application. It is located in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida. The site location for the proposed C&D facility is one and one-eighth mile south of Southwest 46th Avenue on the east side of County Road 337 in Newberry, Florida. Documentation has been provided which identifies the legal authorization to use the property as a C&D facility. The C&D facility has a planned active life of 50 years. It is intended that the sand that is excavated will be replaced by C&D debris at a similar grade. The mailing address and telephone number of the C&D owner and operator is identified. Watson is the owner/operator. There are 158 acres within the proposed site. Approximately 143 acres would be used in the C&D operation by mining sand as a prelude to recontouring the site by placing the C&D debris. It is intended to excavate tan sand and silty sand to a depth of 20-30 feet. Although Watson anticipates excavating sand to a depth of 30 feet, bore hole data reveals the existence of sand below that depth. Watson does not intend to excavate below 62 feet mean sea level (MSL). In any event, it is not the intention to excavate below the interface of the sand and underlying sandy clays. Once the sand has been excavated, it is anticipated that the bottom of the C&D disposal area will be approximately 15 feet above the piezometric water table associated with the Floridan Aquifer, according to the applicant. The proposed site is located in rolling terrain, whose elevations range from approximately 80 feet MSL to 100 feet MSL. To support the use of a general permit, Watson has provided a site plan with a scale not greater than 200 feet to the inch, which identifies the project location, with proposed disposal areas, total acreage of the site and of the proposed disposal area, and other relevant features that exist on or within 500 feet of the site. The property boundaries are identified. The site would be fenced. Access to the facility would be controlled by a locked gate on County Road 337. The gate would be open during daily operations. The site does not contain surface water. There being no surface water, the C&D facility does not require a surface water management permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. The site does not present a problem with stormwater runoff. A potable well is located within 500 feet of the property boundary. However, placement of C&D debris would be offset by a 500-foot buffer from the well. Wetlands are located 2,100 feet from the southern edge of the proposed site in the eastern part of the adjacent Whitehurst parcel. Within 3,000 feet of the proposed site is an old phosphate mining pit on the Whitehurst parcel, and 6,200 feet from the proposed site is the northern-most unnamed pond associated with Watermelon Pond. The site is not susceptible to flooding at present. The sand mined at the proposed site would be used to build roads and for foundations for houses and other buildings. Clay removed from the building sites to make room for the sand would be placed in the C&D facility. The material that is removed from building sites and substituted by sand fill is clay with a high shrink and swell factor. That material, together with flint rocks, tree limbs and stumps, would be transported to the C&D facility by Watson's dump trucks. At present, Watson has 20 dump trucks. The dump trucks hold 20 yards each. In addition to those materials removed from Watson job sites by dump trucks, Watson has approximately 36 roll-off dumpsters which hold 20 yards each. Two Watson trucks are available to transport the roll-off dumpsters to the C&D facility. The roll-off dumpsters are placed on construction sites, not exclusively Watson's, and construction materials not used in the building process would be placed in the roll-off dumpsters for disposal at the C&D facility. Approximately 70 percent of the fill material to be placed in the C&D facility would be unsuitable soils, trees, limbs and stumps. The remaining material would be the C&D debris from construction at sites where the dumpsters have been placed. The dump trucks that hold the clay, limbs and stumps would be loaded by Watson employees, who can control what is placed in the trucks. Watson would not control what is placed in the roll-off dumpsters at other construction sites. The Watson dump trucks from job sites directly related to its activities would arrive at the C&D facility and dump their loads for compaction. Those loads would not be spotted for unsuitable fill materials. By contrast, the roll-off dumpsters would be examined at the construction site by the Watson driver. If the driver discovers excessive amounts of material not classified for C&D fill, contact would be made with the Watson office and the material taken to the Alachua County landfill for disposal. If the driver picks up the dumpster at the construction site and there are limited amounts of material not suitable for disposition at the C&D facility, the dumpster would be taken to the C&D facility. The material would be spread out, and a spotter would segregate materials that are not suitable for C&D fill. The unsuitable material would be placed in temporary containers at the disposal site and transported off-site to a permitted landfill or other appropriate facility. Some material brought to the landfill would be recycled. Woods, such as pine or hardwood would be recycled. The limbs and stumps would be placed in the pit as fill. Copper, aluminum, steel, iron, and any other metal would be recycled. The metals would be sold to a scrap-iron facility. An employee at the landfill would keep the money earned from recycling. Metal embedded in broken concrete would be used as fill. The C&D facility would be operated by two persons: one, a loader/operator who loads the dump trucks with the sand that is being excavated; the second individual, a bulldozer operator who pushes the dump truck loads of clay, limbs, and stumps into the fill area and spreads them. He would also spot the roll-off dumpsters and segregate the fill material from unsuitable material. The sorted construction material to be used as fill would be pushed into the working face of the pit, where the tree limbs, stumps and clay would have also been placed. It is anticipated that six to ten roll-off dumpsters with C&D material would be brought to the C&D facility on a daily basis. The amount of unsuitable material that must be sorted from the dumpsters would vary with the individual loads. Watson operates an existing C&D facility in Alachua County, Florida. The proposed C&D facility would be similar in its operation. Based upon the experience in the existing facility, there is no indication that the proposed C&D facility could not be adequately operated by two employees, taking into account the need to segregate unsuitable material before filling. The spotter would receive verbal training concerning his duties. The training provided the spotter is on-site training. He would be reminded once a week of the need to do an adequate job of looking for unsuitable materials. At present, Alachua County inspects the existing C&D facility on a weekly basis and reminds the spotter at that facility what is appropriate for placement and what is not. The expectation is that the same function would be performed at the proposed facility. If sinkholes are encountered in excavating the sand, the equipment operator would contact the Watson office. In turn, Watson would contact its consulting engineer to address the problem, to include placing a plug or cap to repair the breach caused by the sinkhole. In the event that limerock is encountered in the excavation, a clay cap will be placed to prohibit leachate from flowing into the ground water. Areas where limerock is located at higher elevations and not covered by clay present the greatest risk for sinkhole formation. The period between excavation and fill will be approximately two years, leaving the site exposed at the level of excavation before fill is replaced. When the site is closed, the front-end loader operator and bulldozer operator will spread 24 inches of soil as a cap and grade the site in preparation for planting of pine trees. The soil material would be constituted as six inches of top soil suitable for planting pine trees. The remaining 18 inches would contain clay with high shrink/swell properties. The planting of pine trees would be done through a contract forester. The equipment operated at the facility would employ approved muffler systems. Odor generated by the facility is not anticipated to be a problem, in that household garbage, if found, would only be temporarily maintained, pending placement in an appropriate landfill. The site will be examined on a weekly basis to remove blown "litter". Proper provision is made for maintenance of slopes and compaction of fill material as it is placed. Through the application process noticing DEP that Watson intends to use a general permit to operate its C&D facility, DEP has been informed of the location of the proposed site. DEP would have permission to inspect the site during normal business hours. In response to Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, Watson conducted a geotechnical investigation and prepared a report to support the application for a general permit. In support of the application Kenneth J. Hill, P.E. investigated the subsurface conditions at the proposed site through drilling activities. The drilling was done at the site and adjacent to the site. In May, 1995, Douglas L. Smith, Ph.D., P.G., conducted an electrical resistivity study (ER) at the site to investigate the subsurface conditions. Thomas H. Patton, Ph.D., P.G. and Charles Swallows, P.E. assisted in the investigation of the subsurface conditions at the site. Ralph E. Eng, P.E., signed and sealed the application for general permit for the proposed C&D facility. In rendering a report following his investigation of the subsurface conditions, Mr. Hill signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation. Likewise, Dr. Smith signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation associated with the ER study, together with Anthony F. Randazzo, Ph.D., P.G. The contribution by Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows to the geotechnical investigation did not include signing and sealing a report and documentation. Nonetheless, Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows, when testifying concerning the permit request, as with other professional witnesses, were found qualified to offer testimony consistent with their professional credentials and factual knowledge. 1/ A foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the fill material revealed that the weight of the construction debris was approximately 70 pounds per cubic foot, whereas the weight of the existing sand to be excavated is approximately 100 pounds per cubic foot. Thus, the placement of fill material following excavation would impose less stress on the subsurface than before. No significant settlement of the fill materials is expected to occur, resulting from its weight. The nature and fate of leachate promoted by the placement of fill at the site, in an environmental susceptible to bio-chemical and physical influences in transport through the subsurface, has the potential to adversely impact ground water. Those impacts could possibly cause violations of water- quality standards, ground-water standards, and drinking-water standards. These issues are considered based upon facts associated with the imperatives which must be properly addressed through the geotechnical investigation. That process anticipates gaining an understanding of subsurface conditions, to include the soil stratigraphy and ground-water table conditions. The ground-water table conditions involves estimations of the average and maximum high ground-water table. The geotechnical investigation should also explore the possibility of and address the existence of any sinkholes on the site. No specific testimony was given concerning the degree to which leachate, when present in the ground water at the Floridan Aquifer, might promote water-quality violations. Leachate properties and constituents were described in general terms of water-quality considerations, for example, hardness, nitrates, nitrites, alkalinity, presence of ammonia, chlorides, iron manganese, phenols, barium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, TDS and sulfates, urea formaldehyde, plaster, creosote, glues, and mastic hardeners. The evidence presented concerning the parameters for water quality did include a reference to barium, ranging from .5UG/L to 8UG/L in basically similar circumstances. The fill material can influence the natural PH by creating acidic conditions causing the PH to fall from a neutral 7.0 to 5.5 to 6.5. The process that takes place over time with the fill material also releases gases, such as methane, hydrogensulphide, and carbon dioxide. Rainwater falling on the ground's surface forms the basis for transporting the leachate through the subsurface. Only the Floridan Aquifer is potentially at risk, there being no surface water bodies or surficial aquifer at the site. Taking into account rainfall disposition by evapotranspiration, storm- water runoff, and subsurface infiltration, without certainty as to the amounts in those processes, it can be said that a significant amount of rainfall is available through infiltration to recharge the Floridan Aquifer and to transport leachate promoted by the fill. This is borne out by the absence of surface water bodies and a surficial aquifer on the site. To gain basic information concerning the subsurface conditions, Watson had 14 standard penetration test borings conducted by Mr. Hill and his firm. Those borings were advanced to depths of 35-72 feet. Additionally, three auger borings were performed to a depth of 40-50 feet. The auger borings were at sites A-1, A-2, and A-3, performed on April 17, 1993. In July of 1993, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4. In April of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8. In September of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-14. The borings that were performed at the proposed site were at B-2, B-5, B-6, B-9, B-10, and B-14, for a total of six borings. The other borings were performed on the adjacent parcel. The borings at the proposed site were widely dispersed over the 143 acres contemplated for excavation and fill. The borings on the adjacent parcel, referred to as the Whitehurst parcel, were widely dispersed over 475 acres. Logs of the soil borings were prepared depicting the findings in the subsurface. The soil stratigraphy found in the borings was varied with sand, clayey sand, sandy clay and limerock present in some but not all borings. The sands that have been described are Aeolian. The sands are remnants of an ancient coastal dune system. Soil permeability tests were conducted on a limited basis at boring B- 9 at a 25-foot sample depth. The tan and orange clayey sand described had a co- efficient for permeability of 1x10-6. That sample and others described were obtained through a split-spoon. At B-12, at 35 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 2.6x10-8. At B-13, at 30 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found and tested as 2.0x10-8 for the co- efficient for permeability. At B-14, at 30 feet, tan and orange sandy clay was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 9.6x10-9. In describing the soils, sieve analysis was not performed to more precisely classify the sediments encountered. This description of the strata is by appearance and texture. The clayey sand and sandy clay found in the borings retard discharge of the leachate to the ground water in the Floridan Aquifer based upon the permeability in those soils. Generally stated, the tan sands described have a co-efficient for permeability of 10-1 to 10-4. These sands are highly permeable, presenting an easy opportunity to convey the leachate contained in the infiltrating rainwater. Anomalous findings concerning soil permeability are shown at B-4, an off-site location, which portrays only sand in the boring. Also, B-9, which was drilled four to five feet east of a known sinkhole at the site is noteworthy in that the boring log describes tan and orange sandy clay, with trace limerock below 30 feet. This is in contrast to the field notation by the driller of the "p" for push and drilling rod "free fall" from 38 feet BLS to 42.5 feet BLS before encountering limerock, connoting a possible cavity in the 38-foot BLS to 42.5-foot BLS region. The karst feature that is located in the area where boring B-9 was conducted will be surveyed and marked with fence posts prior to excavation. No excavation will be conducted within 200 feet of that site. In addition to the phenomenon at the B-9 boring area, sinkholes at the surface were observed one-half to three-quarters of a mile northeast of the site. Sinkholes can occur when the placement of fill changes the hydraulics and loading in a karst environment. Finally, at B-6, limerock was encountered above the 46.9 feet MSL regional piezometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer. That limerock is considered part of the aquifer system. The head pressure at that location was not sufficient to force the ground water from the Floridan Aquifer. The more typical experience was as shown in B-5, where the surface of the limerock was lower than the regional piezometric surface. In B-5, ground water was not encountered until the clayey layer was breached and water rose in the drill hole. On occasions, such as the experience in B-5, there was an indication that Artesian conditions existed at those places. At the locations where the Artesian conditions were experienced, the Floridan Aquifer is confined. At B-6, where the limestone rises higher than the regional piezometric surface, the Floridan Aquifer is not confined. The bore hole at B-2 was terminated before breaching the clayey layer, and ground water was not encountered. Watson's consultant Hill considered that the ground-water table was found within the Floridan Aquifer at the site whose regional potentiometric surface was 46.9 MSL. He perceived that the findings showed ground water at 45 feet MSL constituting the average for the site. Watson estimated that the "seasonal high" ground-water table at the site was 48 feet MSL. The term "seasonal high" is equated to maximum high. Watson claims that the fluctuation in the ground-water table would be only a few feet. This would mean that the 45 feet MSL from bore hole data would represent not only the average across the site but the average value at the site at any point in time during the year. Watson makes this assertion notwithstanding that the borings were made over two years during different seasons. The basis for the estimate of maximum high ground-water table is not evident. In Dr. Patton's remarks in the application, there is a reference to the fact that the lowest encountered elevation for the Floridan Aquifer was 45 feet MSL and the highest was 55 feet MSL, making the average 50 feet MSL. This runs contrary to the remarks by Hill in which Hill said the elevation in the region was 46.9, the elevation detected was 45, and that the seasonal high would be 48. The only borings that were made in which the log reflects the MSL elevation and the boring depth are borings that were conducted in April 1994. On that date, the boring depth at which ground water was encountered varied from 37-43 feet and the MSL depth varied from 39-47 feet. If only the information for B-5 and B-6 on the site proper is used, those two data points associated with the borings on April 1994 reveal ground water at an excavation depth of 37 feet and between 45-47 feet MSL, respectively. Overall, without reference to MSL, the depths at which the ground water was encountered in the borings varied from 19-44 feet, if encountered. Although it is not shown in the boring log what the relationship is to MSL, at B-9, water was found at a drilling depth of 38 feet; at B-10, at a depth of 36 and one-half feet; at B-2, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 50 feet; at B-14, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 35 feet; at B-1, water was encountered at a level of 44 feet; at B-3, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-4, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-11, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 31 and one-half feet; at B-12, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 19 feet; at B-13, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 21 and one-half feet. Where elevations were measured for the water table in the bore holes, the holes were left open until the drillings had been concluded. Then the measurements were made. In this project, the consultant did not equilibrate the ground-water table by the traditional method of leaving a piezometer in the bore hole to maintain its integrity for a day before making the measurement. Watson has not provided sufficient information and explanation to determine a proper estimate of the average and maximum high ground-water table across the site. Returning to the ER investigation, it involved 39 soundings, which is roughly equivalent to drilling bore holes. The sounding profiles were determined through Wenner-Array Sounding and Lee-Directional Equipment. This technique involves the passing of an electrical current underground and measuring its resistance to flow. The expectation is that earth materials, for example, clay, sand, limestone, and cavities will resist the flow of electrical current differently. Substantially greater contrast in the degree of resistance, anomalies, is used to identify and locate earth materials, as well as the presence and shape of cavities. The sounding measurements reveal two- dimensional detail below the surface at progressively-greater depths. Lee- Directional measurements determine the direction of higher or lower resistivity along the survey line. While in the field, electrodes are placed in the ground at equal distances from one another. After a measurement, this distance is increased in an orderly fashion. The greater distance between the electrodes, the greater the depth of penetration. The ER equipment's electrical current has the capacity to penetrate through clay and into lower features in the subsurface. Subsurface from depths five to 100 feet were examined in this study. Within the 39 groundings surveyed, various soils were encountered. Generally, a thick cover of unconsolidated sand was found overlying clayey sand, with a clay layer varying in thickness and limestone found in some soundings, but not others. Where limestone was detected, it was at deeper levels in the southwestern part of the site. Because ER cannot distinguish between clayey sand and sandy clay, the area where those soils are found is referred to in the report as a thinner clayey sand layer. Also, in some places the upper surface of limestone has suffered weathering or deterioration and may appear as the lower part of the clay unit in terms of its electrical properties. The general portrayal in the ER study concerning the soil stratigraphy, wherein reference is made to dry sand up to 30 feet in thickness overlying a thinner clayey sand layer, approximately 10 feet in thickness, overlying a relatively thick clay layer from 10-60 feet and then limestone, does not coincide with the complexity in the stratigraphy found in the soil borings. In the ER study, at stations 8 and 10, voids were encountered. The nature of those voids is unexplained by this investigative process. At station 8, the void was found at approximately 100 feet deep. At station 10, the voids were at 50 feet and 100 feet deep. At station 14, anomalous findings were explained as the placement of fill and organic material during land-clearing operations. The suggestion in the written report, which summarizes the findings in the ER investigation, that a water table was encountered at approximately 40 feet deep, coinciding with the top of the clay layer, is contrary to the findings in the soil borings. To the extent that finding is intended to suggest that there is a perched water table or surficial aquifer above the clay layer, that view is contrary to other evidence adduced at hearing and is rejected. Like the soil borings, the ER soundings examined very discreet areas, but revealed less discreet information. This investigative process is not designed by itself to resolve disputes concerning the character of the subsurface, taking into account statutory and rule requirements for issuing a general permit. To portray the subsurface conditions, in June 1995, Petitioners undertook another basic study by employing ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to reveal the subsurface conditions. Again, GPR, like ER, affords limited insight into the conditions in the subsurface. More precise information than is revealed in the results from the GPR study would be needed to understand the subsurface conditions. GPR is comprised of several pieces of equipment that are connected with cables and a power source. This equipment is mobile. It uses a transmitter and receiver antenna that essentially glides along the ground surface. A signal is emitted through the transmitter. It perpetrates into the ground. It is reflected off materials of different electrical properties back to the receiving antenna and charted. The record that is made is continuous. Unlike ER, GPR is capable of detecting small anomalies in the subsurface. In employing the equipment in this investigation, Petitioners' consultant was looking for either stratigraphic or water-table reflectors and anomalous conditions. The experience at this site was comparable to the experience at other sites in gaining an understanding of how geologic materials are deposited. The GPR investigation covered approximately 10 percent of the site. Four lines were traversed east to west. Two lines were traversed north to south, and two other lines were traversed on a diagonal. GPR will not significantly penetrate clay. Its ability to penetrate is dependent in some measure upon the nature of the clay unit encountered. However, GPR reveals contrasts in the conductivity of clay, when compared to the overlying sand. The greater the contrast, the greater the reflection event. In this connection, the presence of moisture can slow or prohibit the electromagnetic energy generated by GPR. The GPR study revealed a substantial number of subsurface anomalies that might be indicative of possible access for leachate generated by the placement of fill to enter the Floridan Aquifer. These anomalies might represent sand columns and cover subsidence sinkholes. Any sinkholes on the site would be expected to be "cover subsidence"- type sinkholes. Those sinkholes occur through a process in which overlying strata slowly subsides into the sub-adjacent karst feature, rather than suddenly collapsing. Sinkholes develop rarely, but pose more risk of development in areas where sinkholes have occurred previously. Sinkholes are not always seen at the land surface. Sinkholes can present a risk to ground water in the aquifer in view of solution cavities found in the limestone which is part of the aquifer, thus allowing leachate to flow through the cavities into the ground water. Some anomalies found in the GPR study were more significant. One that was observed in the third traverse was 100 feet wide by 80-90 feet deep. There is an indication that this area might be filled with sands, creating a more ready access to the lower subsurface than would be expected with other soils. Another anomaly discovered was 200-300 feet long and 400-500 feet wide, approximately 50 feet below the surface. Overall subsurface conditions are not readily understood. Watson, through its consultant, suggests that the site is part of the Newberry Sand Hills region of the Brooksville Ridge system. As such, karst activity has proceeded in a slower manner than other places in Alachua County, with no presently active karst conditions. In opposition, Petitioners assert that the site is part of the Brooksville Ridge System, which is an internally-drained area of karst-dominated highly fractured terrain, according to its consultants. If Petitioners are correct, those circumstances lead to solutioning of the limestone and are not indicative of area of continuous impermeable clay layers found at the site as part of the Hawthorne formation that Watson's consultant surmises. The exact nature of the site concerning factors that must be considered in this permit application have not been adequately resolved in this record. While it is sufficiently evident that the Floridan Aquifer is not confined, it is unclear whether the circumstances at the site present unacceptable risks to the ground water, in view of existing subsurface conditions. From the record, the proper manner to resolve the issue would be to perform more soil borings on the site proper to identify the subsurface conditions concerning soil stratigraphy and ground-water location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Watson the use of a general permit to operate the proposed C&D facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 7th day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the wasteload allocations set forth in respondent's interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constitute a rule subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner, a municipal corporation, applied to the respondent for renewal of its permit to operate a sewage treatment plant. The respondent gave notice of its intent to deny said application on the ground that petitioner had not met the wasteload allocations established for the upper part of the Peace River Basin. A petition for a hearing on this denial was filed by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), and a hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, 1978. At the commencement of this hearing, it became apparent that petitioner was also alleging that the wasteload allocations set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constituted a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore must be adopted pursuant to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent not being prepared to meet this allegation and the petitioner not having filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56, the scheduled hearing was continued and petitioner was granted leave to file a petition pursuant to Section 120.56 challenging the validity of the wasteload allocations as an invalid rule. Petitioner properly filed its petition for an administrative determination of the validity of a rule and the two petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes. The "rule" being challenged herein contains revised wasteload allocations for four municipalities in Polk and Hardee Counties. These four include Bartow, Ft. Meade, Bowling Green and Wauchula, each of which discharges effluent into the Upper Peace River Basin. As noted above, these allocations are set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, and were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Wasteload allocations are derived from mathematical calculations fed into a scientific model. They are based upon information pertaining to the treatment plant, the type of effluent, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving waters and the number and nature of other discharges to the receiving waters. In developing said allocations, the respondent relies upon information received from the applicant, as well as existing water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological data, local programs and university studies. The purpose of developing wasteload allocations is to determine the chemical effect of the discharge upon the receiving body of water and to determine whether a certain volume of effluent treated to a specified degree will depress water quality below the standard established for a particular class of water. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each individual discharger to determine whether a reduction in water quality will occur. When an application for a discharge permit is made to respondent, allocations for several dischargers in close proximity affecting the same portion of a body of water may be calculated at the same time, as was done in the September 8th memorandum. However, the other individual allocations become effective and applicable only when those dischargers seek a permit from the respondent. At that time, the allocation is revisited and recalculated based upon the most recent, available information and data. The wasteload allocations have applicability only when a facility seeks a permit to discharge effluents into surfaced waters. In the State of Florida, there are approximately 1,300 domestic and municipal sewage treatment plants and 230 industrial dischargers. A uniform wasteload allocation for 1,530 dischargers would be impossible and meaningless because each has its own unique characteristics based upon the type and method of discharge and the nature of the receiving body of water. Accordingly, the wasteload allocations are established by respondent on a case by case basis in the permitting process. Approximately 1.6 million dollars in capital expenditures will be necessitated in order for petitioner to comply with the wasteload allocations established by the respondent. There would also be increases in operating and management costs for new capital improvements. Alternative methods of sewage treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a sewage treatment plant in violation of applicable rules and statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Since 1969, Respondent, an active Florida corporation, has owned and operated a relatively small mobile home park (with around 55 mobile homes) at Two Tropic Wind Drive, Port Orange, Florida, known as Double D Mobile Ranch. In conjunction with the mobile home park, Respondent owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant (facility) for its residents. The facility is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department. Respondent's president is John D'Hondt, who is the only certified operator for the facility. On June 8, 2001, a Department representative inspected Respondent's facility and noted that Respondent had violated a number of statutes and rules. In accordance with Department protocol, on September 26, 2001, the Department sent Mr. D'Hondt by certified mail a "Noncompliance Letter" (First Letter), which identified the various violations and requested that Respondent respond within 14 days with a schedule of corrective action. Mr. D'Hondt received the First Letter but did not file a response. On February 27, 2002, a Department representative conducted a routine follow-up inspection of the facility. Mr. D'Hondt was present during the inspection. During the course of the inspection, the representative noted the following violations, some of which were repeat violations from the earlier inspection: Count I. The logbook on-site was not bound with numbered pages, and it did not contain the signature of the operators, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 602.650(4). Count II. A copy of the operation and maintenance manual was not on-site, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.410(4)(f). Count III. A copy of the certified operator's license was not on site, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-620.350(8). Count IV. Respondent failed to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports from May 2001 through January 2002, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-601.300(1)(b). Count V. After effluent samples were collected and tested, the tests revealed that the Total Suspended Solids were 185 milligrams per Liter (mg/L), which exceed the permit limit of 60 mg/L for a single sample, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.740(1)(b)1.d. Count VI. Advisory signs were not posted at the facility indicating the nature of the project area, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-610.418(1) and 62-610.518(1). Count VII. The percolation pond located adjacent to the plant had less than one foot of freeboard, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-610.516. In addition to the foregoing charges, by its Count VIII, the Department seeks to recover investigative costs totaling not less than $750.00, which the Department claims were incurred during the investigation and processing of the Notice. On April 2, 2002, the Department sent Mr. D'Hondt by certified mail a second Noncompliance Letter (Second Letter) outlining the various violations and requesting that he respond within 14 days after receipt of the Second Letter with a schedule of corrective action. Although Mr. D'Hondt received the Second Letter around April 20, 2002, he failed to file a response. On July 1, 2002, the Department sent another letter (Third Letter) by certified mail to Mr. D'Hondt requesting a reply to the Second Letter previously sent in April. The Third Letter advised Mr. D'Hondt that if he wished to avoid an enforcement action, he should file a response within 7 days from receipt of the letter. Mr. D'Hondt received the Third Letter around July 20, 2002, but he failed to respond to either the Second or Third Letters. On January 15, 2003, the Department issued its Notice alleging that Respondent had violated various statutes and rules (as described in Finding of Fact 3) in seven respects. After an informal conference failed to resolve the matter, Respondent eventually filed an Amended Petition on February 18, 2004, contesting the validity of the charges. The Charges Because Respondent has acknowledged that the allegations in Counts I-VI are true, no further proof as to those matters is necessary. Accordingly, it is found that the charges in those Counts have been established. In Count VII, Respondent is charged with having "a freeboard of less than one (1) foot" in its percolation pond, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-610.516. ("Freeboard" refers to the area between the top of the water in the pond and the top of the surrounding berm.) Under that rule, "[p]ercolation ponds . . . shall be provided with an emergency discharge device to prevent water levels from rising closer than one foot from the top of the embankment or berm." This means that a facility operator must maintain at least one foot of separation between the water level in the treatment pond and the top of the berm. The purpose of maintaining this amount of separation is to prevent an overflow of treated liquids in the event of an extremely heavy rainfall or a catastrophic event. This is especially important here since Respondent's percolation pond (which is used to dispose of treated liquids from the facility) appears to be no more than 30 feet or so from several mobile homes. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Testimony by the Department inspector established that when the inspection occurred, there was less than one foot of separation on the right side of the pond, as corroborated by, and reflected in, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, a digital photograph of the pond taken during the inspection. Respondent's contention that a separation of at least one foot existed in the pond at the time of inspection has been considered and rejected in light of the credible contrary evidence. Therefore, the charge in Count VII has been established. The evidence supports a finding that the Department incurred at least $750.00 in investigative costs while conducting the inspection, performing tests, attempting to informally resolve the case, and issuing the Notice. This amount is based on the cost of the field and laboratory tests, the hourly compensation of the inspector, and the hourly compensation of the supervisor who reviewed the inspector's work. It also includes the time expended by Department personnel in attempting to informally resolve the matter and later issuing the NOV. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Therefore, the charges in Count VIII have been sustained. Under the statutory scheme in place, the violations in Counts I through VII call for an administrative penalty in the amount of $5,750.00. The derivation of this amount is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which is a penalty computation worksheet. Mitigating Evidence Although he was given an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence at the final hearing, Mr. D'Hondt failed to present any evidence that the violations were caused by circumstances beyond his control or that they could not have been prevented by due diligence. While Mr. D'Hondt did testify at final hearing that he has reduced the occupancy rate in the mobile home park to 70 percent to satisfy Department flow capacity requirements, this by itself is insufficient to warrant a reduction in the penalty.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File following the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by the Petitioner. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DCA10-GM-056 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this 23-4 day of March, 2010. U.S. Mail: The Honorable D.R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Melvin Wolfe, Esq. Town of Medley 7777 N.W. 72nd Avenue Medley, Florida 33166 Jeffrey S. Bass, Esq. Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 S.W. First Street, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Hand Delivery: Richard Shine, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Paula Ford Agency Clerk Douglas M. Halsey, Esq. White & Case, LLP Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131 Barbara J. Riesberg, Esq. 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether a supplemental site certification should be issued to Lee County for the construction and operation of Unit No. 3 at Lee County's Solid Waste Energy Recovery Facility (Facility), in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Sections 403.501 - .518, Florida Statutes. (All statutory references are to the 2002 codification of the Florida Statutes.)
Findings Of Fact The Applicant The Applicant, Lee County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Lee County owns the existing Facility and will own Unit No. 3. The Facility was designed, built and is operated by a private company, Covanta Lee, Inc. (Covanta), pursuant to a long-term contract with Lee County. It is anticipated that Covanta or another private company will design, construct and operate Unit No. 3 for the County. History of the Project In 1985, the Florida Legislature enacted the Lee County Solid Waste Disposal and Resource Recovery Act (the Act), which authorized Lee County to construct, operate, and maintain a solid waste disposal and resource recovery system for the benefit of Lee County's residents. In 1989, pursuant to the Act, Lee County adopted an Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan (Plan), which established a comprehensive plan for the management, reuse, recycling and/or disposal of the solid waste generated in Lee County. Lee County's Plan was based on the development of: (a) an aggressive recycling program to reduce the quantity of materials requiring disposal; (b) a waste-to-energy facility for waste reduction and energy recovery from those materials that are not recycled; and (c) a landfill for the disposal of ash and by- pass waste (i.e., materials that are not recycled or processed in the waste-to-energy facility). Lee County has implemented its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan with innovative approaches and state of the art technology. Lee County has a comprehensive recycling program that handles a wide array of materials, including: (a) waste from residential, commercial, governmental, and institutional facilities; (b) household hazardous waste; (c) yard waste; (d) recovered materials; (e) construction and demolition debris; and (f) electronic waste. Lee County established a recycling and materials separation goal of 40 percent for its residents, even though the State of Florida's goal is 30 percent. From 1993 through 2000, Lee County exceeded the State's 30 percent goal. In 1998, Lee County's recycling rate was approximately 38 percent, which was higher than that of any other county in Florida. Consistent with its Plan, Lee County built a modern landfill, which is equipped with two synthetic liners, two leachate collection systems, and a network of groundwater monitoring wells to ensure the protection of the environment. Lee County's landfill is located in Hendry County, pursuant to an interlocal agreement between Lee County and Hendry County. Under this agreement, the solid waste from both counties is taken to Lee County's Facility for processing and then the ash and by-pass waste are taken to the landfill for disposal. This cooperative, regional approach to solid waste management issues has enabled Lee County and Hendry County to provide environmentally sound, cost-effective programs for the residents of both counties. In 1992, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, approved the construction and operation of Units No. 1 and No. 2 at the Facility, and certified an ultimate site capacity of 60 megawatts (MW), based on the operation of three municipal waste combustor (MWC) units. Units No. 1 and No. 2 have been in commercial operation since 1994. Despite Lee County's comprehensive recycling program, the amount of solid waste delivered to the Facility has increased each year since the Facility began operation, primarily due to population growth. In 1999, Lee County's solid waste deliveries were equal to the Facility's guaranteed processing capacity (372,300 tons). In 2000, the Facility processed more than 392,000 tons of solid waste, but the County still had to dispose of nearly 44,000 tons of processible waste in its landfill. Current population projections for Lee and Hendry Counties suggest that the amount of processible solid waste will continue to increase, reaching almost 550,000 tons by 2010. Lee County has decided that it should expand the Facility, consistent with Lee County's long-standing Plan, rather than discard processible waste in a landfill. The Facility was designed to readily accommodate the construction of a third MWC unit. If approved and built, the third unit (Unit No. 3) will be operating at or near its design capacity by 2010 (i.e., within five years after it commences commercial operations). For these reasons, on November 18, 2002, Lee County filed its Supplemental Application with DEP for the construction and operation of Unit No. 3. The Site The Facility is located east of the City of Fort Myers, in unincorporated Lee County. The Facility is approximately 2.5 miles east of the intersection of Interstate-75 and State Road 82, on the north side of Buckingham Road. The County owns approximately 300 acres of land at this location, but only 155 acres (which constitutes the Site) was certified under the PPSA for the Facility. The Site currently includes the Facility, a household hazardous waste drop-off area, a waste tire storage facility, a horticultural waste processing area, and a recovered materials processing facility. A solid waste transfer station is under construction at the Site. Even after the Facility is expanded to accommodate Unit No. 3, approximately 63 percent of the Site will be used solely as buffer and conservation areas. The Surrounding Area There are large buffer areas around the Site. A Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) transmission corridor, containing electric transmission lines, is located along the western boundary of the Site. Approximately three-quarters of a mile to the west of the Site is a limerock, fill, and topsoil mining operation. Immediately north of the Site is approximately 145 acres of undeveloped land owned by the County. A 135-acre County-owned park is adjacent to the Site's eastern property line. Scattered single-family homes are located northeast and farther east of the Site. An adjacent parcel southeast of the Site was previously used as a sanitary landfill (which has been closed and covered), and is now owned by the City of Fort Myers and private individuals who use it for livestock grazing. The land immediately south of the Site is undeveloped. The Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill is located three miles directly south of the Site. Site Suitability The Site is well-suited for the addition of Unit No. 3. The Site has sizable buffer areas on all sides. Potable water, reclaimed water, and wastewater services are already provided to the Site through existing pipelines. The Facility is near an existing electrical substation (Florida Power & Light Company's Buckingham Substation). An existing electrical transmission line connects the Facility to the substation. Zoning and Land Use In 1991, the Siting Board determined that the Site and Facility are consistent and in compliance with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances, based on the construction and operation of three MWC units at the Facility. The Site was zoned for an Industrial Planned Development, and was designated as Public Facilities in the future land use map of Lee County's comprehensive land use plan, specifically to allow the Facility to be built and operated on the Site. The Existing Facility The Facility currently consists of Units No. 1 and No. 2, which have been in commercial operation since 1994. Each MWC unit has a nominal capacity of 600 tons per day (tpd) of solid waste (660 tpd using a reference fuel with a higher heating value of 5000 British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb)). The two MWC units generate steam that is used to drive an electric turbine generator, which generates approximately 39 MW of electricity. The Facility also includes an ash management building, cooling tower, stack, stormwater management ponds, water treatment system, electrical switchyard, electrical transmission lines, and related facilities. Solid waste collection trucks enter the Site from Buckingham Road. They follow an access road to the County's scale house, where the trucks are weighed, and then the trucks are directed to the Facility. The trucks drive inside the Facility and dump the garbage into a refuse pit. A crane mixes the garbage in the pit. The crane then places the garbage in a hopper, which feeds into the combustion chamber where the garbage is burned. The air in the combustion chamber passes through the Facility's air pollution control equipment, and then out the stack. Ash from the combustion process is quenched and then is deposited onto an enclosed conveyor, which takes the ash to an ash management building. The ash then is loaded into trucks and taken to the County's existing landfill in Hendry County. As a result of this process, the amount of fill being taken to the existing landfill is reduced by approximately 90 percent. The New Project-MWC Unit No. 3 The Project involves the construction and operation of a new MWC unit (Unit No. 3) at the Facility. The new unit will be substantially the same as the two existing MWC units. The new unit will have the capacity to process 600 tpd (nominal) of solid waste (660 tpd at 5000 Btu/lb). A new electric turbine generator will be installed and it will generate approximately 20 MW of additional electricity. In addition, the cooling tower will be expanded, the ash management building will be expanded, a lime and carbon silo will be installed, and the new unit may be connected with the two existing units. Construction of Unit No. 3 The Facility was originally designed and built to accommodate the addition of a third MWC unit, thus making the construction of Unit No. 3 relatively simple, without disrupting large areas of the Site. Unit No. 3 will be located adjacent to the two existing MWC units. The expansion of the cooling tower will be adjacent to the existing cooling tower. Construction of Unit No. 3 will occur in previously disturbed upland areas on the Site. Construction of Unit No. 3 will not impact any wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas on the Site. No new electrical transmission lines or improvements will need to be built to accommodate the additional electrical power generated by Unit No. 3. No new pipelines or other linear facilities will need to be built for the Project. Operation of Unit No. 3 The basic operation of the Facility will not change when Unit No. 3 becomes operational. Solid waste will be processed at the Facility in the same way it is currently processed. The Facility has been in continuous operation since 1994, and has an excellent record for compliance with all applicable regulations, including regulations concerning noise, dust, and odors. All of the activities involving solid waste or ash occur inside enclosed buildings. The refuse pit is maintained under negative air pressure, thus ensuring that dust and odors are controlled within the building. Because the operations at the Facility will remain the same after Unit No. 3 becomes operational, no problems are anticipated due to noise, dust or odors. The Facility's basic water supply and management system will remain the same after Unit No. 3 becomes operational. Treated wastewater from the City of Ft. Myers' wastewater treatment plan (WWTP) will be used to satisfy the Facility's need for cooling water. Potable water will be provided to the Facility from the City's water supply plant. On-site wells will be available for emergency water supply purposes; however, the wells have not been regularly used as a source of back-up cooling water since the Facility became operational. The County's water supply plan maximizes the use of reclaimed water and minimizes the use of groundwater. To the extent feasible, the Project uses all of the reclaimed water that is available before it relies on groundwater. The Facility also recycles and reuses water to the greatest extent practicable. Unit No. 3 will not discharge any industrial or domestic wastewater to any surface water or groundwater. Most of the wastewater from the cooling tower will be recycled and reused in the Facility. Any excess wastewater will be discharged to the City of Fort Myers' WWTP. Stormwater runoff from the Project will be collected and treated in the existing system of swales and detention/ retention ponds on the Site. Ultimate Site Capacity The construction of Unit No. 3 will not expand the Facility beyond the boundaries of the Site certified by the Siting Board in 1992. The operation of Unit No. 3, together with the operation of Units No. 1 and No. 2, will not increase the electrical generating capacity of the Site beyond the 60 MW certified by the Siting Board in 1992. Air Quality Regulations The County must comply with federal and state New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements, both of which impose strict limits on the Facility's airborne emissions. The County also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) standards, which establish criteria for the protection of ambient air quality. The addition of Unit No. 3 must undergo PSD review because the Project is a new source of air pollution that will emit some air pollutants at rates exceeding the threshold levels established under the PSD program. PSD review for the Project is required for airborne emissions of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), MWC metals, MWC organic compounds, MWC acid gasses, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (Nox), carbon monoxide, mercury, fluorides, and sulfuric acid mist (SAM). Best Available Control Technology A BACT determination is required for each pollutant for which PSD review is required. BACT is a pollutant-specific emission limit that provides the maximum degree of emission reduction, after taking into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. As part of the BACT determination, all available and feasible pollution control technologies being used worldwide are evaluated. As part of its BACT analyses, DEP determined that a fabric filter baghouse will control the Facility's emissions of particulate matter, a scrubber will control acid gases, a selective non-catalytic reduction system (SNCR) will control NOx, an activated carbon injection system (ACI) will control mercury emissions, and proper facility design and operating methods will control other pollutants. These air pollution control technologies are currently used in Units No. 1 and No. 2, and they have performed extremely well. Units No. 1 and No. 2 are among the best operated and controlled MWC units currently operating in the United States. Unit No. 3 will have better, more modern, and more sophisticated air pollution control systems than Units No. 1 and No. 2. In its PSD analysis for the Project, DEP determined the emission limits for the Project that represent BACT. All of the BACT emission limits determined by DEP for Unit No. 3 are as low as the limits established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the NSPS (40 CFR 60, Subpart Eb) for new MWC units, based on the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). Indeed, DEP's BACT emission limits for Unit No. 3 are lower than EPA's MACT emissions limits for: (a) particulate matter; (b) sulfur dioxide; (c) carbon monoxide; (d) nitrogen oxides; and (e) mercury. The BACT emission limits, as determined by DEP, are included in the proposed Conditions of Certification for Unit No. 3. The Facility's proposed air pollution control systems are proven technologies that can achieve the proposed BACT emission limits. The Facility will use an array of continuous emissions monitors to help ensure that the Facility is continuously in compliance with the BACT emission limits. Protection of Ambient Air Quality The EPA has adopted "primary" and "secondary" National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The primary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the health of the general public, including the most susceptible groups (e.g., children, the elderly, and those with respiratory ailments), with an adequate margin of safety. The secondary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the public welfare, including vegetation, soils, visibility, and other factors, from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of pollutants in the ambient air. Florida has adopted EPA's primary and secondary NAAQS, and has adopted some Florida AAQS (FAAQS) that are more stringent than EPA's NAAQS. Lee County and DEP analyzed the Project's potential impacts on ambient air quality, using conservative assumptions that were intended to over-estimate the Project's impacts by a wide margin. These analyses demonstrate that the maximum impacts from Unit No. 3 will be less than one percent of the amount allowed by the ambient air quality standards. The maximum impact from the Facility (i.e., all three units) will be less than or equal to 1.2 percent of the amount allowed by the FAAQS and NAAQS. Unit No. 3 and the Facility will not cause or contribute to any violations of the FAAQS or NAAQS. The maximum impacts of Unit No. 3 and the Facility, when operating under worst case conditions, will be less than the regulatory levels that are deemed "significant" (i.e., less than the numerical thresholds set by EPA as "significant impact levels"). The Facility's impacts on ambient air quality will be immeasurably small and will be indistinguishable from ambient background conditions. Non-criteria pollutants are substances for which there are no AAQS. The Department's Air Toxics Group has established non-enforceable guidelines known as ambient reference concentrations (ARCs) (also known as "No Threat Levels") for the non-criteria pollutants. DEP believes there is no health or environmental threat associated with ambient air impacts less than the ARCs. In this case, the maximum impacts of the Facility (3 MWC units) will be less than 50 percent of any of DEP's ARCs. For most parameters, the Facility's maximum impacts are less than 10 percent of the applicable ARCs. Other PSD Analyses The PSD program provides protection for those areas that have good air quality. Different areas of Florida have been designated as PSD "Class I" or "Class II" areas, depending upon the level of protection that is to be provided under the PSD program. In this case, the Project is located in a PSD Class II area. The nearest PSD Class I area is the Everglades National Park (Everglades), which is approximately 90 kilometers (km) south-southeast of the Site. The analyses performed by Lee County and DEP demonstrate that the Project's impacts on the ambient air quality in the vicinity of the Site will be insignificant. The analyses performed by Lee County and DEP also demonstrate that the Project's impacts on the ambient air quality in the PSD Class I area at the Everglades will be insignificant. The Project will not significantly affect visibility in the Class I area, regional haze, or other air quality-related values. Compliance With Air Standards Lee County has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will comply with all of the applicable state and federal air quality standards and requirements. Among other things, Lee County has provided reasonable assurance that the airborne emissions from the Project, alone and when operating with the two existing MWC units at the Facility, will not: (a) cause or contribute to the violation of any state or federal ambient air quality standard; (b) cause or contribute to a violation of any PSD increment for any PSD Class I or Class II area; (c) cause any adverse impacts on human health or the environment; (d) exceed any ARC guideline established by DEP for non-criteria pollutants; or (e) cause any adverse impacts to soils, vegetation or wildlife. Lee County also has provided reasonable assurance that Unit No. 3 and the Facility will be able to comply with the Conditions of Certification involving air issues. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments As indicated above, the County has performed extensive analyses of the Facility's emissions and impacts to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of state and federal air quality regulations. In addition, the County has taken other measures to address public concerns about the potential impacts associated with the Facility's airborne emissions. In 1992, the County's expert consultants conducted a human health and ecological risk assessment, which evaluated the potential impacts associated with the airborne emissions of mercury and dioxin from the County's Facility. The assessment demonstrated that the operation of the Facility would not adversely affect humans or threatened or endangered species. At the request of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the County conducted a supplementary risk assessment in 1992, to more thoroughly evaluate the potential impact of the Facility's mercury emissions on the Florida panther. Among other things, the supplementary assessment evaluated the panther's exposure to mercury through a complex food chain. The County's supplementary assessment confirmed that the Facility would not cause adverse impacts to the panther. The County also initiated a biomonitoring program, which was designed in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify background concentrations and trends for mercury in key indicator species within the local aquatic environment (i.e., largemouth bass, oysters, and mosquitofish). The County's biomonitoring program was started in 1993, and continued after the County's Facility commenced operations in 1994. The data collected in the biomonitoring program indicate that the mercury concentrations in these key species have not increased as a result of the operation of the Facility. In 2002, the County's consultants completed a new, large-scale, evaluation of the human health and ecological risks associated with the Facility's airborne emissions. The County's 2002 risk assessment evaluated the cumulative impacts of the entire Facility, with all three MWC units in operation. The County's 2002 risk assessment was conducted in compliance with current EPA guidance. The risk assessment considered hypothetical human receptors (e.g., infants, children, and adults) that were engaged in different types of behavior (e.g., a typical resident; a beef farmer; a subsistence fisherman) and were exposed through multiple pathways (e.g., inhalation; ingestion of soil; ingestion of local produce, beef and/or fish) to both acute short-term and chronic long-term impacts from the Facility. The risk assessment was designed to overestimate the potential impacts of the Project, and thus be protective of human health and the environment. The risk assessment relied upon the latest EPA data for mercury, dioxin, and the other chemicals of concern, as set forth in EPA's 1997 Mercury Report to Congress, EPA's 2000 Dioxin Reassessment, and other relevant documents. The County's 2002 risk assessment demonstrates that the Facility's airborne emissions will not measurably increase the typical concentrations of chemicals in the environment. For example, even at the point of maximum impact, the maximum environmental mercury and dioxin concentrations associated with the operation of the Facility will be far below the levels that are typically found in the environment and they will be immeasurably small. The County's 2002 risk assessment also demonstrates that the potential risks associated with the Facility's emissions will not exceed, and in most cases will be much less than, the risks that are deemed acceptable by the EPA and DEP for the protection of human health and the environment. The County's findings are consistent with the findings in environmental monitoring studies and risk assessments that have been performed for other modern waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities in the United States. Indeed, the environmental monitoring studies conducted at similar WTE facilities have shown that risk assessments, like the ones performed for Lee County, overestimate the actual impacts. In light of the evidence presented by the County in this case, the Facility should not have any measurable effect on human health or the environment, even when all three MWC units are operational. Other Potential Environmental Impacts The County's 2002 risk assessment primarily focused on the Facility's maximum impacts under worst case operating conditions. The maximum concentrations in the ambient air and the maximum deposition rates resulting from the Facility's mercury emissions will occur within 2.5 km (approximately 1.5 miles) of the Site. The ambient air concentrations and deposition rates at all other locations beyond the Site will be even lower. EPA studies of similar facilities have shown that mercury deposition rates decrease at least 100 times (i.e., by a factor of 100) within the first 10 km. In this case, the nearest portions of the Everglades are approximately 90 km from the Site. Moreover, the generally prevailing winds at the Site blow toward the Gulf of Mexico, not toward the Everglades. Approximately 90 percent of the time, the wind does not blow from the Site toward the Everglades. For these and other reasons, the Facility's mercury emissions will have an insignificant impact on the Everglades. The Facility's emissions of nitrogen oxides (i.e., NOx) will not cause or contribute to violations of any water quality standards in any surface waterbody. Environmental Benefits of the Project The addition of Unit No. 3 will provide significant environmental benefits to Lee County and Hendry County. The solid waste processed by Unit No. 3 will reduce the volume of processible solid waste by approximately 90 percent. By reducing the volume of processible waste, the Facility will significantly extend the useful life of the Lee County/Hendry County regional landfill, effectively postponing the need to build a new landfill in Lee County or Hendry County. The Project will also provide environmental benefits to the State of Florida. For example, the Facility will produce approximately 1.88 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity from discarded materials during the next 20 years. In this manner, Unit No. 3 will reduce the need to use fossil fuels to generate electricity at traditional power plants. Unit No. 3 will eliminate the need to use approximately 5.54 million barrels of oil, and thus will save approximately $150 million in oil purchases over the next 20 years. In addition, the County will recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals from the Facility's ash, thus recycling resources that otherwise would be buried with the County's solid waste in a landfill. Socioeconomic Benefits of the Project The local economy and labor market will benefit from approximately $70 million that Lee County will spend to construct the Project. A significant amount of construction supplies, such as concrete, structural steel, glass, piping, fittings, and landscape materials, are anticipated to be purchased from local businesses. The Project will provide jobs for over 125 construction workers during the peak of construction activities. The addition of Unit No. 3 will also provide approximately nine new permanent jobs at the Facility, with an increase in the Facility's annual payroll of approximately $400,000. WTE Criteria in Section 403.7061 Section 403.7061, Florida Statutes, establishes several criteria that must be satisfied before an existing waste-to- energy facility may be expanded. Lee County has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will satisfy all of the standards and criteria in Section 403.7061, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the County has demonstrated that Lee County's waste reduction rate will exceed 30 percent when Unit No. 3 begins operation. Compliance with Environmental Standards Lee County has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will comply with all of the nonprocedural land use and environmental statutes, rules, policies, and requirements that apply to the Project, including but not limited to those requirements governing the Project's impacts on air quality, water consumption, stormwater, and wetlands. The location, construction, and operation of the Project will have minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the State's lands and wildlife, and the ecology of the State's waters and aquatic life. The Project will not unduly conflict with any of the goals or other provisions of any applicable local, regional or state comprehensive plan. The Conditions of Certification establish operational safeguards for the Project that are technically sufficient for the protection of the public health and welfare, with a wide margin of safety. Agency Positions and Conditions of Certification On December 11, 2001, the PSC issued an order concluding that the Project was exempt from the PSC's "determination of need" process, pursuant to Section 377.709(6), Florida Statutes. DEP, DOT, DCA, and SFWMD all recommend certification of the Project, subject to the Conditions of Certification. The SWFRPC determined that the Project is "Regionally Significant and Consistent with the Regional Strategy Plan," but did not recommend any conditions of certification for the Project. Lee County has accepted, and has provided reasonable assurance that it will comply with, the Conditions of Certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting a supplemental site certification for the construction and operation of Unit No. 3 at the Lee County Solid Waste Energy Recovery Facility, in accordance with the Conditions of Certification contained in Appendix 1 to DEP Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S _________________________________ RICHARD A. HIXSON 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 19th day of August, 2003.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Orchard View Development, Limited (Orchard View) is an Ontario, Canada corporation. Its president is William T. Lamsom. Orchard View is now, and has been since approximately two to six months prior to the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, the owner of a triangular, three-quarter acre parcel of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Parcel or the Parcel) located on the fringe of a Boca Raton, Florida residential neighborhood. There are children in the neighborhood who pass by the Parcel on their way to and from school. City streets border Orchard View's Parcel on all sides. Across one of these streets is a creek. Orchard View owns an additional 78 acres of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Acreage or the Acreage) to the north of its Parcel. Only a street separates the Acreage from the Parcel. Orchard View first acquired the Acreage in approximately 1975 and sold it about 14 or 15 years later. During this 14 or 15-year period, the Acreage was used by others, without Orchard View's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground. Numerous items, including boats, automobiles, tires, baby carriages, mattresses and landscaping material, were left abandoned on the property. Steps taken by Orchard View (which was well aware of the problem) to deter such dumping, including posting "no trespassing" signs on the property and erecting a 10-foot dirt barrier on one side of the property, were ineffective. Orchard View also complained to the police about the problem, but the making of these complaints did not result in an amelioration of the situation. Orchard View reacquired the Acreage at approximately the same time it acquired the Parcel. Since Orchard View's reacquisition of the Acreage, unauthorized persons have driven their all-terrain vehicles on the property without the approval or authorization of Orchard View, notwithstanding the "no trespassing" signs on the property. Although aware of the dumping problems in the area, Orchard View has not, at any time after its acquisition of the Parcel, posted "no trespassing" signs on the Parcel or erected a fence or other barrier around the Parcel, nor has it taken any other measure designed to discourage or prevent dumping on the Parcel. On June 9, 1997, at 11:10 a.m., the Department was notified by Lieutenant John Johnson of the Boca Raton Fire Department that four drums, which were labelled “poison and toxic,” had been discovered on the Parcel. The drums did not belong to Orchard View. They had been dumped on the Parcel by some person or persons not associated with Orchard View without Orchard View's knowledge, approval or authorization. Catherine Porthouse, an Environmental Specialist II with the Department, promptly responded to the scene (where she met Lieutenant Johnson) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Because the drums were labelled “poison and toxic” and their contents were unknown, Lieutenant Johnson would not allow anyone, including Porthouse, to approach the drums without "Level B" protective clothing and equipment. Porthouse therefore initially viewed the drums from a distance using binoculars. She noted that three of the drums were leaking and that there was stained soil in the area of the drums. She also saw other solid waste materials nearby. Porthouse learned that Orchard View was the owner of the property on which the drums were located. At 12:49 p.m. on June 9, 1997, Porthouse telephoned Lamson and advised him that the drums were on the Parcel and that they needed to be removed by an "emergency response contractor." When informed about the presence of the drums on the Parcel, Lamson was not surprised. He realized (as he testified at hearing) that the area was "a good dumping ground." Lamson told Porthouse that he would ask his son, a general contractor who lived and worked near the Parcel, to remove the drums. Porthouse, however, explained to Lamson that the removal of the drums needed to be done by someone qualified, under state and federal law, to handle and transport hazardous substances. Lamson thereupon asked Porthouse to provide him with a list of "emergency response contractors" qualified to remove the drums. Porthouse gave Lamson her office and cellular phone numbers and asked him to call her back within no more than three hours to update her on his efforts to hire an "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums. Following Porthouse's telephone conversation with Lamson, the Department faxed to Lamson the list of qualified contractors Lamson had requested during the telephone conversation. After speaking with Porthouse, Lamson attempted to telephone his son. Lamson's son was not in, so Lamson left a message on his son's answering machine telling his son about his telephone conversation with Porthouse concerning the abandoned drums on the Parcel. In his message, Lamson asked that his son look into the matter. Neither Lamson, nor his son, made any arrangements for a qualified "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums from the Parcel; nor did either of them contact Porthouse and advise her that such arrangements had been made or would soon be made. Accordingly, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 9, 1997, after having waited over three hours for Lamson to provide her with such information, Porthouse hired Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum), a qualified "emergency response contractor" with whom the Department had a contract, to properly dispose of the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as the stained soil, on the Parcel. Magnum personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene shortly thereafter. By approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. that day (June 9, 1997), Magnum personnel had overpacked, removed from the Parcel and taken to an off-site hazardous waste storage facility the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as a fifth drum which contained the stained soil from the site (which Magnum had excavated). Before it had overpacked the drums and removed them from the Parcel, Magnum had examined and sampled the contents of each drum. The samples that Magnum had collected from the drums were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed the following: drum number 11 contained oil, barium, lead and toluene and had a flashpoint of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 2 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 3 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium and lead, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 4 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of over 200 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 5 contained the soil that had been contaminated by spillage from drum numbers 2, 3 and 4 and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Magnum $6,135.00 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed. In requesting Magnum to perform these services and in paying Magnum $6,135.00 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Magnum was not excessive.2 The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $390.13 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the four drums on the Parcel. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have these abandoned drums properly removed from the Parcel and disposed of was $6,525.13. The Department is requesting that Orchard View reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Orchard View, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $6,525.13 in costs it reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1998.
