Findings Of Fact V.M.P. Corporation operates a facility known as Stud's Pub in Jacksonville, Florida. Vincent M. Paul owns the facility and the corporation. The facility is on lots that were platted prior to 1972. Respondent is the statutory entity with authority for granting variances for onsite sewage disposal systems regulated by Respondent pursuant to provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) specifically provides: The department may grant variances in hardship cases which may be less restrictive than the provisions specified in this section. A variance may not be granted pursuant to this section until the department is satisfied that: The hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; No reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and The discharge from the individual sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. Where soil conditions, water table elevation, and setback provisions are determined by the department to be satisfactory, special consideration shall be given to those lots platted prior to 1972. Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, is the portion of the rule which is the subject of this proceeding and, in pertinent part, reads as follows: Upon consideration of the merits of each application and the recommendations of the review board, the Deputy Secretary for Health or his designee has discretionary authority to either grant a variance as requested, grant a provisional variance or deny the variance request. A variance may be granted to relieve or prevent excessive hardship only in cases involving minor deviation from established standards when it is clearly shown that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, where no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage and where proper use of the onsite sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant, any persons using or living on the property, or other members of the public. An applicant must also show that the granting of a variance will not significantly degrade ground or surface waters. Variances shall only be granted to the permit applicant and are not transferable to other persons unless specifically authorized by the department as a stipulation of the variance approval. . . . (emphasis added). The rule also tracks the language of Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), and requires that "special consideration" be given to those lots platted prior to 1972 in those instances where soil conditions, water table elevation and setback provisions are deemed by Respondent to be "satisfactory." While minor amendments to the rule were made March 17, 1992, the substantive content of Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, has remained virtually unchanged since February 5, 1985. Two adjective modifiers in the rule, the terms "minor" and "excessive" which respectively modify the terms "deviation" and "hardship", have not been formally defined by Respondent in the rule. Respondent's rationale for this failure, as professed in the testimony of Respondent's policy representative at the final hearing, was to permit Respondent's review board maximum freedom to evaluate and consider the merit of each application for variance on an individual basis within the statutory authority of Section 385.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes, i.e., variances may be recommended by the board where the hardship is not intentionally caused by the applicant, where no reasonable alternatives exist and where no evidence of adverse effect upon public health or ground and surface waters is demonstrated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Tract 10, Suwannee Shores Run Subdivision. The property is approximately one acre in size and was purchased in December of 1989. The subdivision is unrecorded, and there was no testimony regarding a platting date thereof. On January 17, 1990, the Petitioner made an application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property. The application was for a new single-family mobile home system. The residence involved will contain two bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of approximately 480 square feet, with an approximate 300-gallon-per-day sewage flow. Upon receiving the application, the Department's local public health official informed the Petitioner that he would have to obtain a benchmark elevation for the surface of his property and also establish the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Petitioner, therefore, obtained the services of a registered land surveyor, who established a benchmark elevation for the subject property of 19.23 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The mark is actually 6 inches above ground level. The actual elevation of the surface grade of the property at the proposed septic tank system installation site is 19 feet above MSL. The ground water level at the time of the evaluation of the site by the Department's personnel was 66 inches below the surface of the lot. The wet season ground water or water table level is 60 inches below the surface of the lot. The property is characterized by slight to moderate limited soils, consisting of fine sand from 6 inches depth down to 60 inches depth. The first 6 inches of soil near the surface of the property is organic in nature. The information, contained in a report promulgated by the Suwannee River Water Management District and submitted to the Department by the Petitioner with the permit application, shows that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 23 feet above MSL. That ten-year flood elevation was not refuted. The property, thus, is located within the ten-year flood plain of the Suwannee River; and it is also located within the "regulatory floodway". There is not a central water system available to the property, and potable water for the subject dwelling will come from a well. In addition to lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River, as mentioned above. This means that if a mounded septic tank and drain-field system were installed, (which would likely result in appropriate treatment of the sewage effluent because of site conditions referenced herein); in order to install such a system, to raise the drain fields above the ten-year flood elevation, a certification by a registered engineer would have to be performed to establish that the installation of the required volume of fill dirt for the mounded system would not cause an elevation of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence was offered in this proceeding, however. Thus, this portion of Rule 10-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, has not been complied with. The OSDS could appropriately be installed from an environmental standpoint, given the depth of appropriate moderate to slightly limited soils prevailing at the site and the depth of the water table. The estimated wet season water table is 60 inches below the existing surface grade, and the normal water table is 66 inches below the surface grade. Although organic soil prevails for the first 6 inches at the site; below the first 6 inches, the soils are characterized as being fine sand. This soil type and condition, as well as the depth of the water table below the location of the drain field and septic tank site establishes that installation and operation of an OSDS in this location would likely be successful. Since the property and the installation site are beneath the ten-year flood elevation, however, a mounded system would have to be installed to raise the bottom of the drain-field trenches or absorption beds above that ten-year flood elevation referenced above. Thus, although a mounded system would appear to be feasible, the appropriate engineering testimony, with regard to its presence in the regulatory floodway, was not offered. Thus, the grant of the permit based upon mounding of the system as a reasonable alternative approach to successful treatment and disposal of the effluent in question has not been established. The Respondent, by letter of April 24, 1990, advised the Petitioner of the denial of the OSDS permit and also advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, rather than file an informal variance application before the Respondent's own variance board. The Respondent took the position that a variance could not be granted from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the property was located within the ten- year flood elevation of the Suwannee River and because of the Respondent's interpretation of the effect of the Governor's Executive Order No. 90-14, which adopted by reference the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that all such OSDS's be prohibited within the ten-year flood elevation. The Respondent thus declined to exercise its discretion, accorded it in the statute and rules cited hereinbelow, to entertain and consider a variance application. It was established that the lot in question is not subject to frequent flooding. However, because the surface grade is beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain-field trenches or absorption beds would also be beneath the ten-year flood elevation, although the property is amenable to the installation of an effective OSDS otherwise because of the depth of the wet season water table and the types of soil prevailing at the site. The Petitioner established a hardship due to the fact that he has paid a substantial sum of money for the property and now is unable to develop it unless entitlement to an OSDS or some reasonable alternative is gained. No substantial proof of a truly-effective, reasonable alternative method of treating the effluent in question was established by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did establish, however, that a mounded system could be made to successfully operate, treat and dispose of the sewage effluent. A mounded system, however, would necessitate the required engineering certification and calculations before installation. No such effort has been made with appropriate engineering personnel and no evidence of such was adduced in this proceeding. The Petitioner has also raised the possibility that an aerobic septic tank and drain-field system might be an effective alternative treatment and disposal method for the property in question. An aerobic system involves the injection of air into the attendant septic tank to support aerobic bacteria, which break down and treat sewage at a faster, more effective rate than does the normal, anaerobic bacteria-based system. The resulting effluent is substantially lower in BOD and suspended solids than is the effluent from the normal, subterranean anaerobic septic tank and drain-field disposal system. The problem with such an aerobic system is that it involves mechanical equipment, especially an external electric motor and pump to force air into the system. This is disadvantageous in that if the equipment suffers a malfunction, the high level of treatment and disposal of the effluent is retarded. When the electric motor and/or pump malfunction and air is no longer injected into the septic tank to support the more active aerobic treatment bacteria, the system then ceases functioning as an aerobic system and becomes a simple anaerobic system using less effective anaerobic bacteria. In other words, it functions as a normal septic tank and drain-field system. If it has been installed in an area with marginal or deficient natural treatment conditions, such as inappropriate soils, high-water tables, or low surface elevations, beneath the ten-year flood elevation, for instance; the sewage, which is no longer being treated aerobically, can pose a threat to public health and the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the site. The untreated or inadequately-treated sewage can rise to the surface of the property, back up in the residential toilets, or otherwise pollute ground or surface waters, if water table levels are too high. Thus, such systems would require inspection periodically to insure that they are in adequate working order, because if the mechanical system malfunctions, the system will continue to put effluent through its drain field, like a normal septic tank drain-field system, but without adequate treatment for a "low elevation" site such as this. In that circumstance, the occupants of the dwelling involved might not notice for long periods of time that the system is inoperative because it can continue to dispose of the effluent without it backing up into the residence. Accordingly, when the motor and air pump system becomes inoperative, there is less incentive for the owner to repair it. Thus, it is likely that if such a system were installed, some means would have to be found to insure that the owner keeps the system in good repair and working order. The means by which such an arrangement for insuring that an aerobic system operates properly at all times was not established in this record, however. The Department does not have the regulatory authority at the present time to conduct such periodic inspections nor the personnel or funds to do so. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to establish that reasonable alternatives to the proposed conventional OSDS exist.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted, but irrelevant. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial and irrelevant. This is not a rule challenge proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 7-11. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Richard Remington 165 Forest View Drive Land O'Lakes, FL 34638 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact This proceeding concerns an application for authority to construct and operate a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and an asbestos municipal solid waste landfill, as well as to close an existing 25.5-acre Class I municipal solid waste landfill located in Holmes County, Florida. This facility would function as a new regional landfill, in part, to replace the existing landfill in Holmes County. The applicant, EPAI, is a Florida corporation formed for the purpose of constructing and operating the proposed facility. EPAI has an option to purchase the site involved from its present owner, which will be accomplished after the facility is permitted, if it is, and all necessary permits for construction and operation have been obtained, then the applicant will sell stock in its corporation to City Management Corporation (City) domiciled in Detroit, Michigan. EPAI will then continue to exist as a wholly-owned subsidiary of City and will proceed to construct and operate the new landfill and initiate and complete all closure operations for the existing landfill. The Department of Environmental Regulation is an agency of the State of Florida subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 701, FAC, as pertinent to this proceeding. It is thus charged with regulating solid waste management facilities, including permitting their construction, operation, and closure. It is charged with reviewing applications for such projects and issuing permits therefor if the statutes and rules it is charged with enforcing are found to have been complied with by a permit applicant. It has performed that function in this case up until the point that jurisdiction of the permit application dispute engendered by the filing of the subject petition resulted in transfer of the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, CVA, is a group of Holmes County citizens opposing issuance of the landfill permit at issue. Based upon rulings on the motions to dismiss and extant law, CVA was required to present proof of its standing at the final hearing held in this cause. CVA called two witnesses, neither of whom presented evidence relevant to the issue of standing. CVA did not present any evidence, either through testimony or exhibits, to identify its members, to establish that a substantial number of its members would be affected by the issuance of the permit and the construction and operation of the landfill nor evidence which would identify members whose substantial interests will be affected by the construction and operation in a way different from any effect on the interests of the public at large. Project Background Holmes County currently leases a site on which its existing landfill is located. The site consists of 84 acres owned by Stone Container Corporation, the successor in interest to International Paper Company. The existing landfill itself covers approximately 25.5 acres. The proposed facility to be located on the same tract would serve as a new regional landfill to meet the solid waste disposal needs of Holmes County, as well as surrounding counties. The proposed facility would consist of approximately 20 acres divided into Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill facilities. The project will be located on To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, lying approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the City of Bonifay in Holmes County. The northern portion of the present landfill is an unlined cell operated by the county which began receiving waste in 1979 and ceased depositing waste sometime in 1987. The southside cell of the landfill is clay lined with a leachate collection system. That portion of the county facility ceased accepting waste sometime in 1990. Holmes County is unable to properly operate or to close the existing landfill. Consequently, in June of 1989, the county and the Department entered into a consent order whereby the county agreed to meet certain operational, groundwater monitoring, landfill cell design, administrative and other requirements within certain time periods. The county attempted to meet the terms of that consent order but was unable to do so, primarily for financial reasons. In 1990, the county applied to the Department for a permit to close the existing landfill in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The closure permit application was denied by Department order of May 22, 1991. Waste disposal at the Holmes County landfill had ceased in 1990, but it has not been properly closed pursuant to law and Department rules. Currently, it only has a temporary cover of soil and seeded grass in order to stabilize its slopes on the portion of the landfill commonly known as the "highrise". The closure costs for the existing landfill were estimated at approximately $700,000.00, which is beyond the resources of the county. Residents of unincorporated Holmes County currently are disposing of their solid waste by hauling it to the regional landfill in Campbellton in Jackson County nearby or by dumping it in unauthorized disposal areas, such as streams or roadsides. The City of Bonifay disposes its solid waste in the Campbellton landfill, as well. The Campbellton landfill, however, does not accept several solid waste components, such as yard trash. Since the county was unable to obtain the necessary permits to either operate or to close the existing landfill and was unable to meet State-mandated solid waste disposal and recycling requirements, it entered into an agreement with EPAI in May of 1990, whereby that entity assumed financial and legal responsibility for closure of the existing landfill, including obtaining the necessary permits from DER to close it, upon issuance of DER permits necessary to construct and operate a new Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill at the same general site. The May 21, 1990 agreement between EPAI and the county authorized EPAI to so proceed before DER. Once EPAI obtained the permits necessary, the agreement provided that the county would surrender all right, title and interest in the 84-acre site to EPAI, convey all structures, equipment and appurtenances theretofore used by the county for its landfill operation to the corporation and to assign EPAI any legally assignable benefits which the county would receive under the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act, including recycling grants, if applicable. EPAI, the applicant, has an option to purchase the 84-acre site from Stone Container Corporation. After the issuance of any permits for closure and for construction and operation of the new facilities, the option would be exercised and the property would be conveyed by Stone Container Corporation to EPAI. Once it has purchased that property and the county has abandoned its lease on the property, pursuant to the May 21, 1990 agreement, EPAI would then hold fee title ownership and possession rights to the site. Once it obtained the necessary permits for construction and operation of the new landfill, EPAI will sell its stock to City. EPAI would then continue to exist as a wholly- owned subsidiary of City and will construct and operate the new landfill and close the existing landfill. City is a wholly-integrated waste management corporation based in Detroit, Michigan. It has been operating in the solid waste management field since 1961 and has extensive experience in landfill construction, operation and closure. It operates seven regional landfills, approximately ten transfer stations, and 30-40 residential and commercial solid waste collection companies in Michigan. It also operates hazardous waste facilities in Michigan and in Tampa, Florida. Through construction and operation of its regional landfill and hazardous waste facilities, it is familiar with and accustomed to compliance with all pertinent state and federal regulations applicable to such facilities. City holds a DER permit for its hazardous waste facility in the Tampa, Florida, area and has had a history of no major violations of applicable laws and rules. The corporation was shown to be financially sound. EPAI will operate the proposed facility, should it be permitted, as a regional landfill serving neighboring counties between Okaloosa and Jackson Counties, south to the Gulf of Mexico, and north to the Alabama border. The economic feasibility, however, was not shown to depend on interstate transport or disposal of out-of-state wastes in the landfill. Section 17-701.030, FAC, sets forth the permit submittal requirements for solid waste management facilities. CVA stipulated that EPAI met all applicable permit application submittal requirements in this section, except those in Sections 17-701.030(5)(h) & (i) and 17-701.030(7), FAC. EPAI has an option to purchase the landfill site from Stone Container Corporation, the current owner. EPAI has met the ownership requirement in Section 17-701.030(5)(h), FAC. The applicant will establish an escrow account to insure financial responsibility for closing and long-term care and maintenance of the landfill. A specific condition has been agreed to be placed in the permit requiring the applicant to submit written proof of having established financial assurance for closure and long-term care of the entire site 60 days prior to the acceptance of any solid waste at the facility and within 30 days after permit issuance for operations at the existing landfill. City has the financial ability to establish the escrow account and to provide the necessary financial assurance within 30 days after permit issuance. The applicant has thus satisfied the requirements of 17-701.030(5)(i), FAC, with regard to financial responsibility. Section 17-701.030(7), FAC, requires DER to forward a copy of the permit application to the Water Management District within seven days of receipt of the application. The Water Management District would then prepare an advisory report for DER on the landfill's potential impact on water resources with recommendations regarding disposition of the application. The Department sent the application to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, but the District did not prepare an advisory report. The administrator for the waste management program for the Department's northwest district office, who oversees solid waste facility permitting, testified that, as a matter of course, the District does not prepare an advisory report. Moreover, because the reports are advisory only, DER is not required to respond to any comments or follow any recommendations which may be made by the District in such a report. The Department normally issues solid waste facility permits as a matter of policy without having received a water management district report. 1/ Location and Site Requirements An aerial photograph of this area was prepared, as required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC. It shows the land uses, zoning, dwellings, wells, roads, and other significant features within one mile of the proposed landfill. This map shows several dwellings located within a mile of the site. The closest dwelling, as determined by aerial photograph and performance of a "windshield" survey, is approximately 2,400 feet from the site. The closest potable water well is at the dwelling located approximately 2,400 feet from the site. There are no existing or approved shallow wells within 500 feet of the proposed waste disposal areas at the landfill. Accordingly, the proposed landfill satisfies the condition in Section 17-701.040(2)(c), FAC, that solid waste not be disposed of within 500 feet of an existing or approved shallow water well. The surficial aquifer is located approximately 30 feet from the ground surface at the landfill site. The sediments in the area in which waste is to be disposed of consists of layers of clay and sandy clay having a very low vertical conductivity. The waste disposal cells will not be excavated down to the surficial aquifer. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in ground water. Waste will not be disposed of in a sinkhole or in a limestone or gravel pit, as prohibited by Sections 17-701.030(2)(a) and 17-701.040(2)(b), FAC. The 100-year flood zone is located at approximately 120 feet national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD). The proposed landfill will be located at approximately 125 feet NGVD elevation and within a perimeter berm system. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in an area subject to periodic and frequent flooding, as prohibited by Section 17-701.040(2)(e), FAC. The waste disposal areas are over 200 feet from Long Round Bay, the closest water body. Therefore, the 200-foot setback requirement is met. See, Section 17-701.040(2)(g), FAC. To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, on which the landfill is located, is not a major thoroughfare. There are no other major thoroughfares in the vicinity from which the landfill is visible. Accordingly, waste will not be disposed of in an area open to public view from a major thoroughfare. See, Section 17- 701.040(2)(h), FAC. The landfill site is not located on the right-of-way of a public highway, road or alley, and is not located within the bounds of any airport property. The landfill will not be located within a prohibited distance from airports, as proscribed by Section 17-701.040(2)(k), FAC. See also, Sections 17-701.040(2)(j) and (2)(i), FAC. There are no Class I surface waters within 3,000 feet of the landfill site so the setback provisions in Section 17-701.040(7), FAC, are satisfied. No lead-acid batteries, used oil, yard trash, white goods, or whole waste tires will be accepted at the Class I landfill cell. Only trash and yard trash will be accepted at the Class III cell. Therefore, the prohibitions in Section 17- 701.040(8), FAC, are not violated. A ground water monitoring plan has been developed for the landfill site, pursuant to Section 17-28.700(6), FAC, as required by Section 17- 701.050(3)(a), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. and submitted as part of the initial permit application. This plan addresses monitoring well placement, monitoring, and monitoring plan requirements. It proposes corrective action, as required by Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. Subsequent modifications to that plan were developed by Dr. Thomas Herbert, an expert in geology, hydrogeology, well installation and water quality monitoring. These modifications particularly address monitoring well location and provide additional assurances that the ground water monitoring plan complies with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. These proposed modifications were submitted to DER prior to hearing. A site foundation analysis using appropriate ASTM methods to determine stability for disposal of waste, cover material, and structures constructed on site was performed and the results were submitted to DER as part of the initial application. Additional foundation stability information and the results of another field investigation regarding sinkhole development potential at the site was submitted to the Department. The field investigations and reports in evidence provide assurance that the disposal site location will provide adequate support for the landfill, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC. The landfill site is easily accessible by collection vehicles and other types of vehicles required to use the site. The site design provides for all weather roadways to be located throughout the site for ready ingress, egress, and movement around the site. The proposed landfill is located to safeguard against water pollution originating from disposal of solid waste. See Section 17-701.050(3)(c)2., FAC. The bottom of the waste disposal cells will be located at least six feet above the top of the surficial aquifer. To ensure that ground water is not polluted by waste disposal, the Class I cell will be lined with a composite liner system comprised of a lower unit consisting of 24 inches of compacted clay having a maximum permeability of 1 X 10-7 centimeters per second, and an upper synthetic liner unit consisting of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) of 80 mil thickness. Leachate generated by the waste in the landfill will be collected by a leachate collection and removal system. The leachate control system consists of a two- foot thick layer of sand having a minimum permeability of 1 X 10-3 centimeters per second, with a permeable geotextile filter cloth layer and a highly permeable geonet layer to collect and direct the leachate into a drainage system consisting of a collection pipe system to transfer the leachate to a containment lagoon. Once in the leachate lagoon, the leachate will be evaporated, recirculated over the working face of the landfill, or transported off site for treatment at a waste water treatment plant. The waste disposal areas are located at approximately 125 foot NGVD elevation. This is well above the 100- year flood plain and they are not located in water bodies or wetlands. An adequate quantity of acceptable earth cover is available on site. See, Section 17-701.050(3)(c)3., FAC. The soil for cover will be obtained from the northeast portion of the site located across To Shoo Fly Bridge Road from the landfill site. The landfill site was shown to conform to proper zoning, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(c)4., FAC. The 1991 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element for Holmes County designates this site for "public/semi- public/educational" land uses. The "public facilities land uses" designation includes "utilities and other service facilities" of which municipal solid waste landfills are an example. No other land use designation in the Holmes County 1991 Comprehensive Plan expressly includes landfill uses. CVA adduced testimony from Hilton Meadows, its expert witness, as to plant species he observed in the vicinity of the site. He observed plants that he identified as being species that grow on the edge of or in wetlands, but none of these species were shown to exist on the landfill site itself. Mr. Meadows observed them in locations outside the perimeter berms of the landfill site but did not identify their specific locations other than a general direction from the perimeter berms outside of which he observed the plants. He did not quantify the wetland species he observed so as to establish their dominance and did not conduct a jurisdictional wetland survey, as envisioned by Chapter 17- 301, FAC. Landfill Design Requirements As required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC, an aerial photograph was submitted with the permit drawings. Plot plans were submitted with the permit application, in evidence as EPAI exhibit 1, showing dimensions of the site, location of soil borings, proposed trenching or disposal areas, original elevations, proposed final contours, and previously-filled waste disposal areas. Topographic maps were also submitted with the correct scale and contour intervals required by Section 17-701.050(4)(c), FAC, which show numerous details such as proposed fill areas, borrow areas, access roads, grading, and other details of the design and the site. The design plans also include a report on the current and projected population for the area, the geographic area to be served by the landfill, the anticipated type, quantity and source of the solid waste, the anticipated useful life of the site, and the source and characteristics of cover materials. The landfill will be a regional facility serving the residents of Holmes and surrounding counties. The current population of the area to be served is approximately 63,183 with the projected population for the year 2000 being 76,792. The landfill will receive municipal sanitary solid waste, asbestos, petroleum-contaminated soils, and yard trash. It will not receive used oil, lead-acid batteries, biomedical wastes, hazardous wastes, or septic sludge. The permit application was shown to satisfy all design requirements of Section 17-701.050(4), FAC. Geology, Hydrogeology, and Foundation Stability Dr. Thomas Herbert, a registered professional geologist and licensed well driller in Florida testified of geologic and hydrogeologic investigations and analyses he performed. Mr. Herbert has over 25 years experience in the fields of geology and hydrogeology and was tendered and accepted as an expert in those fields. Dr. Herbert drilled shallow and deep core borings, which were converted into monitor wells to monitor ground water in the surficial and deep aquifers under the landfill site. In addition, he drilled several medium-depth borings along the western boundary of the site to analyze geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in this area, which is the portion of the site closest to Long Round Bay. Dr. Herbert used a hollow stem auger to take the soil borings and install the monitoring wells. This is a device which allows sampling tools to be placed down a hollow drill barrel for more accurate sediment sampling. Dr. Herbert used a continuous sampling system wherein a five-foot core barrel sampled the soil conditions ahead of the turning drill auger. Continuous sampling is preferable to other types of soil sampling equipment because it provides a detailed representative sample of the soil on the site and enables the sampler to precisely determine whether soil materials occur in small thin layers or bands on the site or whether there is a massive deposit of relatively uniform soils. The continuous sampling method also minimizes mixing of soils and creates an undisturbed profile that can be examined once the core barrel is opened. This type of sampling yields a very accurate picture of soil conditions on the site. In addition to the borings taken on the site by Dr. Herbert, other core borings were taken on site by Ardaman & Associates, a geotechnical engineering firm, for the purpose of analyzing the site foundation to determine the site's stability and potential for developing sinkholes. These core boring profiles were analyzed, along with those performed by Dr. Herbert, in determining the site geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. In addition to the core borings, Dr. Herbert reviewed studies on the geology and hydrogeology of the area, as well as the field investigations reported by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, as part of the original permit application submittal. In order to gather additional information on the geology and hydrogeology of the site, gamma ray logging was performed on the wells installed by Dr. Herbert, as well as on the existing wells at the site. Gamma ray logging measures natural gamma radiation from the sediments and permits identification of soil type based on the amount of gamma radiation coming through the soils. Generally, the higher the clay content, the higher the gamma ray count. Gamma ray logging provides an accurate means for determining clay, sand, or sandy clay soils. By examining gamma ray logs of wells he installed and sampled, as well as for wells already existing on the site, Dr. Herbert was able to obtain extensive information about the subsurface soil conditions at the site. Based on these information sources, the geology of the site was determined. The sediments ranging from the surface of the site down to more than 100 feet below the surface are part of the citronelle formation, which consists of consolidated to partially cemented sand, silt, and clay sediments, called clastics, deposited in the Plio-Pleistocene age, between one and four million years ago. The citronelle formation at the site is predominantly clay, with some thin sand lenses running through the clays. The sand lenses or "stringers" grade laterally into the clays or silts. A surficial aquifer is located between 30 and 40 feet below the land surface at the site and is confined immediately above and below by dense, dry clay layers. The top confining unit is estimated to be approximately 10 feet thick. The lower clay confining unit, down to approximately 100 feet below the land surface, consists of dense, dry clays with thin units of sandy or silty clays or clayey sands. Below the citronelle foundation, at approximately 100 feet below land surface, there is a sequence of weathered carbonate rock or mud, termed "residuum". This material is too fine-grained to yield water in usable quantities. Competent limestone is first encountered below the carbonate "residuum" at approximately 262 feet below the surface. This limestone is likely part of the lisbon- tallahatta formation, which is part of the Claiborne Aquifer. In order to investigate an area in the western portion of the site depicted in the Post, Buckley report as being sandy, Dr. Herbert installed a deep core boring and analyzed the soils in that area. He thus determined that rather than being solid sand, as depicted in the Post, Buckley report, the sediments in this area are actually sands interbedded with clay and silt stringers, which decrease the sediments' horizontal and vertical conductivity. He determined that the area is a sandy channel bounded laterally and below by dense clays. As with the rest of the site, the surficial aquifer also is confined in this area. As part of his ground water monitoring plan recommendations, Dr. Herbert recommended installation of an additional monitor well in this area. The core borings and gamma ray logging allowed accurate determination of the site hydrogeology. Transient surface water, termed "vadose" water, percolates down from the land surface through layers of clay, sand, and silt. Within these sediment layers, there are lenses of clay ranging from a few inches to a foot thick. Vadose water is trapped on top of the clay layers, creating shallow saturated zones called "perched" zones, ranging from one to a few inches thick. The vadose water and perched zones are not connected to any ground water systems. Below these perched zones, dense, dry clay layers create a confining layer above the surficial aquifer. The surficial aquifer occurs in discontinuous sandy layers 30 to 40 feet below the land surface. Beneath the surficial aquifer, dense, dry clay layers form a lower confining unit. These confining clay layers overlying and underlying the surficial aquifer create pressure or hydraulic "head", on the water in the surficial aquifer. When a core boring or well penetrates through the upper clay confining layer, the water in the surficial aquifer rises up the well or core casing, due to the hydraulic head, to a level called the potentiometric surface, which is at a higher elevation than the elevation at which the surficial acquifer is actually located. Based on the confined nature of the surficial aquifer, it was determined that water table elevations reported in the hydrogeologic report initially submitted as part of the application are actually potentiometric surface elevations. This is consistent with the information provided in the additional information submittal as part of the permit application which indicates that the potentiometric surface at the landfill site may be five to seven feet below the bottom of the liner. This was confirmed at hearing by Mike Markey, a professional geologist with the Department, who reviewed the permit application and hydrogeologic report submitted by Dr. Herbert and prepared a memorandum dated September 2, 1992, stating that his "previous concern regarding separation of the 'water table' aquifer and HDPE liner is no longer an issue because the 'water table' aquifer was not found" by Dr. Herbert. The surficial aquifer on the landfill site cannot yield enough water to support long-term use as a potable water source. Due to the high clay content in the aquifer, the water has a high sediment content and low water quality, rendering it unusable for domestic purposes. The overall horizontal conductivity for the surficial aquifer on a site-wide basis is estimated to be low due to the discontinuous sand layers comprising the surficial aquifer on the site. While some zones within the aquifer may have high horizontal conductivity, these zones have limited lateral extent and change rapidly into zones of low horizontal conductivity. The steep hydraulic gradient from the highest to lowest areas of the site further indicates that the surficial aquifer has low horizontal conductivity. If water were rapidly moving through the surficial aquifer across the site, the hydraulic gradient would be much less steep. The presence of the hydraulic gradient across the site indicates that the clay in the surficial aquifer system is so pervasive that the water in that system essentially is stagnant. Based upon his extensive experience and familiarity with the clastic sediments like those found at the landfill site, Dr. Herbert estimated the vertical permeability of the sediments comprising the upper and lower confining layers of the surficial aquifer to be in the range of 1 X 10-6 to 1 X 10-8 centimeters per second. These projected permeability values are very low, thus, very little water is moving vertically through the surficial aquifer to deeper depths. The original hydrogeology report on the site submitted as part of the application indicated that the ground water flow is to the west, southwest, and northwest based upon monitoring well and piezometric data. Dr. Herbert's subsequent field investigations confirmed the ground water flow direction as reported in the permit application. Dr. Herbert estimated that the surficial aquifer will be located between 8 and 15 feet below the finished bottom elevation of the Class I waste disposal cell. The intermediate aquifer system is located beginning 80 or 90 feet below the landfill site and is defined as all strata that lie between and retard the exchange of water between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer, including the lower clay confining unit directly underlying the surficial aquifer. In this part of west Florida, the intermediate system is estimated to be 50 to 60 feet thick and acts as an "aquatard", which means that it retards the passage of water from the surficial aquifer to lower levels. The standard penetration test (SPT), which is an engineering test of soil density, yielded values of 40 to 50 blows per inch for soils sampled in the top 20 feet of the intermediate system throughout the site. These SPT values indicate the soils in the intermediate system are extremely dense, over-compacted clay materials. Below the clays, the lower portion of the intermediate system consists of a weathered limestone residuum. Due to the extremely fine grain size of the residuum, it will not yield water in quantities sufficient to support a well. The deep core borings taken at the site indicate that the Floridan aquifer limestone underlying the landfill site has undergone paleokarst evolution. The underlying limestone has been dissolved away over a long period of time, creating the limestone residuum detected in the deep core borings. Based on the deep core borings taken at the site, Dr. Herbert concluded there is no competent Floridan aquifer limestone capable of supporting wells underlying the landfill site, and the Floridan aquifer either is not present under the site or exists only as a relict or remnant of the limestone formations that make up the Floridan aquifer system in other parts of Florida. The core borings taken on site indicate that the paleokarst terrain underlying the landfill contains no cavities, large openings, sinkholes or other features in the rock that could cause the landfill foundation to collapse. All karst features in this area are filled in and "healed" by the carbonate residuum overlying the limestone under the landfill. Dr. Herbert also investigated the geologic nature of Long Round Bay. In addition to reviewing literature regarding the geology of west Florida in the vicinity of Holmes County and topographic maps depicting the site, Dr. Herbert took at least one sediment core boring in Long Round Bay and also circumnavigated the perimeter of the Bay. Based on information from these sources, Dr. Herbert opined that Long Round Bay, like many other drainage basins in the area north of Bonifay, is a collapse feature of the paleokarst sequence in the vicinity, and is a topographic depression caused by weathering away of the limestone over time. The sediments underlying Long Round Bay consist of deep citronelle clays washed into the collapse feature. Long Round Bay is relatively flat with poorly defined outlets and receives surface drainage from the surrounding area. Because there are no defined channels connecting Long Round Bay to Wright's Creek, water movement from Long Round Bay into Wright's Creek is extremely slow. Long Round Bay is likely not an aquifer recharge area because there is no direct karst connection between Long Round Bay and any aquifer. Clays have run off the surrounding area and accumulated in Long Round Bay for thousands of years sealing off any connections between it and any underlying aquifer. In addition to Dr. Herbert's determination of the potential for active karst formation under the landfill site, Ardaman & Associates performed the foundation analysis of the site, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC. The foundation analysis was supervised by William Jordan, a registered professional engineer. He has an extensive education in geotechnical engineering, as well as 11 years of experience in that field. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in geotechnical engineering and materials testing. As part of the foundation analysis, Ardaman & Associates performed two deep core borings to determine the potential for development of sinkholes at the site. Both borings were taken on the western side of the landfill site, closest to Long Round Bay. One of the borings was performed in an area having a relatively high sand content in the soil, as identified in the hydrogeology report submitted in the permit application. The borings were drilled down to approximately 160 feet below the surface, to the top of the weathered limestone horizon. In Mr. Jordan's extensive experience in foundation testing and analysis, presence or potential for sinkhole development is usually evident at the horizon of the limestone or within the top 15 feet of the limestone. The core borings did not reveal any joints, open seams, cavities, or very loose or soft zones at the horizon or on top of the limestone. In addition, the sediments overlying the limestone horizon were determined to consist of medium dense to dense and medium stiff to stiff sediments, which indicate lack of sinkhole activity or potential. No indication of active or imminent sinkhole conditions were found on the site, either through the core borings or from surficial observation. In addition to the deep core borings, Ardaman & Associates, under Mr. Jordan's supervision, also performed four other core borings to a depth of 60 feet below the land surface. These borings indicated the sediments at the site are composed of clayey sands, very clayey sands, "lean" sandy clays, and sandy "fat" clays. The SPT tests performed on the soils indicate the site soils range from medium to high density and are stiff to very stiff and hard. Mr. Jordan performed a settlement analysis of the landfill based on the types of sediments present on site and assuming a compacted unit weight of 37 pounds per cubic foot for the landfill waste. This unit weight is a typical weight value for compacted municipal waste. For settlement analysis, Mr. Jordan used the SMRF elastic compression and consolidation methods, both of which are professionally accepted standard methods for determining settlement of large structures, including landfills. Using these methods, he determined that the total settlement for the landfill over its total life would be between three and five and one-half inches. Based on the uniformity of the subsurface conditions and density of the soils on the site, any settlement would be uniform and thus would not result in tearing or other failure of the landfill liner. Mr. Jordan performed a bearing capacity analysis of the site. Based on the sediments on site, he estimated the safety factor against bearing capacity to be in excess of 10. The minimum acceptable safety factor for large habitable structures, such as buildings, is in the neighborhood of two to three. Thus, the safety factor determined for the landfill site far exceeds the minimum standard for bearing capacity. Mr. Jordan performed an embankment slope stability analysis for the perimeter berm of the landfill. The inside slope of the perimeter berm has a 3:1 slope and the outside slope has a 4:1 slope. Mr. Jordan's stability analysis was performed on the inside slope of the berm which is steeper and, therefore, less stable. Due to the stability of the clay sediments composing the subgrade of the perimeter berm, and based on his extensive experience in slope stability analysis, Mr. Jordan determined there is no danger of deep circular arc failure of the landfill berm. He used a professionally accepted standard slope stability evaluation method called the "infinite slope" method, to analyze the probability for shallow circular arc failure of the berm. He determined a safety factor of 2.0 to 2.4 for the embankment slope, which is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the minimum accepted safety factor of between 1.3 and 1.5 for embankment slopes. Mr. Jordan also performed an analysis of the site subgrade stability for compaction. Mr. Jordan's analysis showed that the stiff or medium dense silty to clayey sands and clays on the site provide a stable base against which compaction over the life of the landfill can safely occur. Based on the foundation analysis performed by Mr. Jordan on the landfill site, it is evident that the landfill will not be located in an open sinkhole or in an area where geologic foundations or subterranean features will not provide adequate support for the landfill. (See Section 17-701.040(2)(a), FAC). The foundation analysis indicates the landfill will be installed upon a base or in a hydrogeologic setting capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement compression, as required by Section 17- 701.050(5)(b)2., FAC. The foundation analysis further indicates the site will provide support for the landfill, including the waste, cover and structures built on the site (See Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC). Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a, FAC, requires the lower component of the landfill liner to consist of a compacted soil layer having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 centimeters per second. Mr. Jordan analyzed nine additional core borings to determine if the native soils on the site meet the conductivity standard in the rule or if off-site soils must be blended with on- site soils to achieve the standard. To test whether the on-site soil will meet the conductivity standard, soils were compacted to approximately 95% of the standard maximum for density, which is the industry standard compaction for soil permeability testing. The soils from eight of the nine borings taken at the site exhibited conductivity values of approximately 4.8 X 10-8 centimeters per second. This value is five times less conductive than the value required by the above-cited rule. Only one boring exhibited a conductivity value in excess of the maximum value established in the rule. Based on the conductivity values determined at the site, it is likely the native soils on the landfill site will meet or exceed the maximum conductivity value mandated in the above-cited rule. If the on-site soils do not meet this standard, then bentonite or another material from off site will be blended with the on-site soils to achieve the conductivity standard mandated by the rule. Ground Water Monitoring and Water Quality As required by Section 17-701.050(3)(a), FAC, a ground water monitoring plan for the landfill site was completed in accordance with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was submitted as part of the application. This plan was incorporated into the notice of intent and the attached draft permit for the landfill, as part of specific condition The ground water monitoring plan subsequently was modified and supplemented by Dr. Herbert to include monitor wells required to be installed by Holmes County on the site, pursuant to the consent order entered into by the county and DER on June 26, 1989, as well as the wells installed by Dr. Herbert as part of his hydrogeologic investigation. DER established a zone of discharge for the landfill site, as required by Rule 17-28.700(4), FAC. The horizontal boundary of the zone of discharge extends to the ground water monitoring compliance wells located at the western, northern, and southern portions of the site and to a line coextensive with the eastern property line for the southeastern portion of the property. The horizontal zone of discharge boundary is located inside the western, northern, and southern property boundaries. The vertical zone of discharge extends from the land surface down to the top of the clay layer underlying the site at approximately +50 to +60 feet NGVD. These zones are established in compliance with Section 17-28.700(4), FAC. The groundwater monitoring plan provides for 15 monitor wells to be located in close proximity to the waste disposal areas and the site boundaries to monitor compliance with all applicable ground water quality standards in Sections 17-3.402, 17-3.404, and 17-550.310, FAC. Four of these wells will be located near the western property boundary to closely monitor water quality to insure contaminants do not seep into Long Round Bay. To detect contamination that may violate applicable surface water quality standards in Sections 17-302.500, 17-302.510, and 17-302.560, FAC, at the edge of and beyond the zone of discharge, the ground water monitoring plan provides for several surface water sampling points on the landfill site near the edge of the zone of discharge. If contaminants are detected in the surface water monitoring system, remediation activities can be implemented to insure the surface water quality standards set forth in the above-cited rules are not violated outside the zone of discharge. As required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)1., FAC, the ground water monitoring plan provides for a well to be located to detect natural, unaffected background quality of the ground water. The monitoring plan also provides for a well to be installed at the edge of the zone of discharge downgradient from the discharge site, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)2., FAC, and for installation of two intermediate wells downgradient from the site within the zone of discharge to detect chemical, physical, and microbial characteristics of the discharge plume, in excess of the requirement for one such well contained in Section 17-701.050(6)(g)3., FAC. The location of the other wells in the ground water monitoring plan was determined according to the hydrogeologic complexity of the site to insure adequate reliable monitoring data in generally accepted engineering or hydrogeologic practice, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)4., FAC. Due to the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer system, and given the location of the intermediate monitoring wells, any contamination detected at the site can be remediated through recovery wells before it reaches the edge of the zone of discharge. Moreover, due to the confined nature of the surficial aquifer system, there is very little free water in the aquifer. Accordingly, any contamination could be quickly removed by recovery of ground water and de-watering of the area in which the contamination is detected through remediation wells. Also, given the location of the monitoring wells on the site, the northerly direction of the surficial aquifer ground water flow on the northern portion of the site near the existing landfill, and the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer, contamination emanating from the existing cell could be discerned from that emanating from the new cell and recovery and remediation operations directed accordingly. The DER intent to issue and draft permit specify an extensive list of parameters which must be sampled at the ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling points on the landfill site, as required by Sections 17- 3.402, 17-302.510, 17-302.560, and 17-550.310, FAC. These parameters must be sampled and reported to DER on a quarterly basis. In addition, annual water quality reports must be submitted to DER for the site. Based on the large amounts of clay content and the low horizontal and vertical conductivity values of the on-site sediments, the stagnant nature of the surficial aquifer system, the virtual absence of the Floridan aquifer under the site, and the location of the monitoring wells, the ground and surface water monitoring program provides reasonable assurance that the applicable water quality standards in the rules cited above will not be violated within and outside the zone of discharge. Liner Design, Performance, Quality Control, and Installation Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1., FAC, requires that a composite liner and leachate collection and removal system be installed in a landfill such as that proposed. Mr. Leo Overmann, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill engineering. He has over 10 years experience in landfill engineering, design, and construction and has worked on the design and construction of over 50 landfill facilities and 250 landfill disposal cells. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in liner design, quality control plans, and leachate control systems design and performance. It is thus established that the composite liner will have an initial 24-inch layer of compacted clay having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 cm/sec. The 24-inch clay layer proposed by the applicant exceeds the 18- inch minimum thickness provided in the above-cited rule and will be placed in the field in layers or lifts of six inches or less. Each lift will then be treated and compacted to proper specifications in accordance with sound engineering practice in order to insure a tight bond between the clay layers. In the process of placing the clay lifts on the site, any roots, holes, channels, lenses, cracks, pipes, or organic matter in the clay will be broken up and removed, as required by the above-cited rule. In order to insure conductivity of the clay liner component does not exceed the above figure, testing will be done at the site or off-site by constructing a "test pad". A test pad is a site at which the liner construction techniques are tested using the clay material that will comprise the lower liner unit. Once the pad is constructed, the hydraulic conductivity of the clay can be tested to determine the most suitable construction methods in order to meet the above-mentioned conductivity standard and the other design and performance standards in the rule section cited last above. The applicant's liner quality control plan provides for testing of the clay liner hydraulic conductivity and compliance with the other liner design and performance standards in the rule (See Section 17- 701.050(5)(c), FAC). A synthetic geomembrane liner consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE) will be placed directly on top of and in contact with the clay liner. If the geomembrane should leak, the clay will then retard leachate migration. Although Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC, only requires a 60-mil thickness liner, the applicant has proposed to use a 80-mil liner. The thicker HDPE liner is less susceptible to stress and wear and tear in the daily landfill operation than is the thinner 60-mil liner required by the rule. The water vapor transmission rate of the 80-mil liner will be approximately 1 X 10-12 cm/sec, which is 10 times less transmissive than the maximum water vapor transmission standard of 1 X 10-11 cm/sec established in Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC. The design also provides for a drainage layer and primary leachate collection and removal system to be installed above the HDPE liner, as required by the above-cited rule. The drainage layer above the liner consists in ascending order, of a layer of geonet material having an equivalent permeability of approximately three cm/sec; a layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile cloth, and a two-foot thick layer of sand. The sand provides a permeable layer which allows liquid to pass through it while protecting the underlying synthetic components of the drainage system and liner. The geotextile cloth component of the drainage layer filters fine particles while allowing liquid to pass through it to the geonet layer. The geonet layer is approximately 3,000 times more conductive than required by Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC, so as to allow rapid drainage of leachate off of the HDPE liner. The drainage layer is designed to reduce the leachate head or hydraulic pressure on the liner to one inch within one week following a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. This was determined by use of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. This model is the standard computer model used in the landfill design and construction industry to determine leachate depth over the synthetic liner in lined landfills. The HELP model calculations submitted in the permit application were prepared by Pearce Barrett, the EPAI landfill design engineer, an expert witness. The HELP model analyzes water and rainfall that falls on active waste disposal cells and percolates through the waste, and the model helps determine the amount of leachate that will accumulate on top of the liner. To determine this amount, the HELP model uses several parameters, including rainfall amount, landfill size, and the number of waste and protective cover layers. The HELP model in this instance involved employment of Tallahassee-collected rainfall data because long-term, site-specific data for the landfill site was not available. The Tallahassee rainfall average is greater than the rainfall average for Chipley, which is closer to the landfill site and, therefore, provides a more conservative, "worst-case" rainfall figure for employment in the HELP model calculations. The HELP is itself a very conservative model, generating a worst-case determination of the amount of leachate that will end up on top of the landfill liner. The model's analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate will be reduced to a one-inch depth on the liner within one week after a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The landfill project design specifications, in the permit application, provide that all materials in direct contact with the liner shall be free of rocks, roots, sharps, or particles larger than 3/8 of an inch. The geonet and geotextile material are in direct contact with the top of the HDPE liner and the clay liner is located directly below the HDPE liner. The project design specifically provides that the clay material comprising the clay liner component will not contain roots, rocks, or other particles in excess of 3/8 of an inch. No waste materials thus will come into contact with the clay liner. The design specifications also provide additional protection for the liner by requiring that the initial waste placed in the landfill be select waste that is monitored and screened for such things as metal objects, wooden posts, automobile frames and parts, and other sharp, heavy objects which could tear the liner. The liner design contained in the application meets the design requirements of Rule 17-701.050(5)(d), FAC. Section 17-701.050(5)(b), FAC, requires that the liner be constructed of materials having appropriate chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients, physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed, climatic conditions, stress of installation, and daily operations. The liner is constructed of HDPE, which is superior to other types of plastic for use as municipal and hazardous waste landfill liners due to its physical and chemical properties. It is a material composed of long polymeric chain molecules, which are highly resistant to physical failure and to chemical weakening or alteration. The liner is of sufficient strength and thickness to resist punctures, tearing, and bursting. The liner has a safety factor of over seven, which is three and one-half times greater than the minimum acceptable safety factor of two, required in the Department's rules for landfill liners. The liner proposed in this instance will not fail due to pressure gradients, including static head or external hydrogeologic forces. Mr. Overmann evaluated the effects of a hydrologic head of one foot over the HDPE liner and the clay liner component and determined that the protective sand layer will insure the HDPE liner does not fail. Mr. Overmann relied on the testimony of Dr. Herbert with respect to hydrogeologic site characteristics in concluding that hydrogeologic forces will not cause liner failure. The 80-mil liner proposed by EPAI will be more resistant to the stresses of installation and daily operation than will a 60-mil liner. The two-foot sand layer above the drainage layer and the HDPE liner will also help protect the liner from stresses of daily operation. Mr. Overmann analyzed the liner's potential for failure between the point at which it is anchored on the edge of the landfill and the base of the landfill where settlement is greatest due to waste deposition. He determined that the HDPE liner would elongate on the order of one percent of its length. This is far less than 700 to 800 percent elongation required to break the liner material. Based on the site foundation analysis and the proposed liner design for the landfill, the liner will not fail due to hydrogeologic or foundation conditions at the site. The liner meets the performance requirements set forth in Rule 17-701.050(5)(b)2., FAC. The liner meets requirements that it cover all of the earth likely to be in contact with waste or leachate. The liner extends beyond the limits of the waste disposal cells to an anchor trench where the HDPE liner is anchored by soils and other materials to hold it in place during installation and operation. The liner design provides reasonable assurance that the liner performance standards contained in the above rule will be satisfied. There are no site- specific conditions at the Holmes County landfill site that would require extraordinary design measures beyond those specified in the rule cited above. The permit application includes a quality control and assurance plan for the soil and HDPE liner components and for the sand, geotextile, and geonet components of the drainage layer. A quality control plan is one in which the manufacturer or contractor monitors the quality of the product or services; a quality assurance plan is one in which an independent third party monitors the construction methods, procedures, processes, and results to insure they meet project specifications. The quality control/quality assurance plan requires the subgrade below the clay liner to be prepared to insure that it provides a dry, level, firm base on which to place the clay liner. The plan provides that low- permeability clay comprising the liner will be placed in lifts of specified thickness and kneaded with a sheepsfoot roller or other equipment. Low- permeability soil panels will be placed adjacent to the clay liner and scarified and overlapped at the end to achieve a tight bond. Each clay lift will be compacted and tested to insure it meets the specified density requirements and moisture specifications before a subsequent lift is placed. Lined surfaces will be graded and rolled to provide a smooth surface. The surface of the final low- permeability soil layer will be free of rocks, stones, sticks, sharp objects, debris, and other harmful materials. If any cracks should develop in the clay liner, the contractor must re-homogenize, knead, and recompact the liner to the depth of the deepest crack. The liner will be protected from the elements by a temporary protective cover used over areas of the clay liner exposed for more than 24 hours. The plan also provides specifications for visual inspection of the liner, measurement of in-place dry density of the soil, and measurement of hydraulic conductivity on undisturbed samples of the completed liner. These tests will be performed under the supervision of the professional engineer in charge of liner installation to insure that performance standards are met. There will be a quality control plan for installation of the HDPE liner in accordance with the DER approved quality control plan that incorporates the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. The quality assurance and quality control plan calls for the use of numbered or identified rolls of the HDPE liner. The numbering system allows for identification of the manufacturing date and machine location, so that the liner quality can be traced to insure that there are no manufacturing anomalies, such as improper manufactured thickness of the liner. The plan also addresses in detail the installation of the HDPE liner. The liner is installed by unrolling it off spools in sections over the clay liner. As it is unrolled, it is tested for thickness with a micrometer and is visually inspected for flaws or potential flaws along the length of the roll. Flaws detected are marked, coded, and repaired. Records are prepared documenting each flaw. If flaws appear frequently, the HDPE is rejected and removed from the site. As the sheets are installed, they are overlapped and bonded together by heat fusing to create a watertight seam. As the sheets are seamed, they are tested in place by nondestructive testing methods to insure seam continuity and detect any leaks or flaws. If flaws are detected, they are documented and the seam is repaired. The seams are also subject to destructive testing, in which a sample of the seam is removed in the field and tested in the laboratory for shearing or peeling apart of the sheets. If destructive testing reveals seam flaws, additional field and laboratory testing is performed and necessary repairs are made. All tests, repairs, and retests are carefully documented, and a map depicting the location of all repairs is prepared for quality control and performance monitoring. The plan for the installation of the geonet, geotextile, and sand layers provides specifications for storage, installation, inspection, testing, and repair of the geonet and geotextile layers. The liner construction and installation will be in conformance with the methods and procedures contained in EPA publication EPA/600/2-88/052, Lining of Waste Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities, as required by Section 17-701.050(5)(a), FAC. The quality assurance and quality control plan proposed exceeds the requirements contained in Section 17-701.050(5)(c), FAC. Leachate Collection and Removal System The landfill design includes a leachate collection and removal system. See Section 17-701.050(5)(e)&(f), FAC. The leachate collection and removal system meets the requirements in the above rule by providing that the design incorporate at least a 12-inch drainage layer above the liner with a hydraulic conductivity of not less than 1 X 10-3 cm/sec at a slope to promote drainage. The drainage layer consists of a geonet layer, a geotextile layer, and a two- foot sand layer. The geonet has a hydraulic conductivity of two to three cm/sec, many times more permeable than required by the rule; and the sand layer will have a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1 X 10-3 cm/sec. The leachate collection and removal system meets regulatory requirements contained in the above-cited rule that the design include a drainage tile or pipe collection system of appropriate size and spacing, with sumps and pumps or other means to efficiently remove the leachate. The design provides that the Class I cell will be divided into operating disposal cells. The design includes a piping system consisting of a 6-inch diameter pipe to be placed down the center of each of the operating cells and encased in a granular river rock medium. The HELP model calculations included in the permit application and evidence indicate that the leachate will be removed efficiently and effectively and that the leachate head will be maintained in compliance with the performance standards in the rule. The piping system is on a slope that drains to a central location or sump. Based on a design preference of City, the piping design will be slightly modified in the construction drawings to provide that rather than going through the HDPE liner, the leachate piping will run up the side of the cell wall and leachate will be pumped out of the cell into the leachate lagoon. The leachate collection and removal system design provides for a granular material or synthetic fabric filter overlying or surrounding the leachate collection and removal system to prevent clogging of the system by infiltration of fine sediments from the waste or drainage layer. A layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile will be wrapped around the granular river rock material surrounding the piping system to filter out fine particles. The design also provides a method for testing whether the system is clogged and for cleaning the system if it becomes clogged. A clean-out tool can be run through the openings in the leachate collection piping system to monitor and pressure clean the pipes if they become clogged. Thus, the leachate collection and removal system will satisfy the leachate system design requirements of Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC. The leachate collection and removal system will meet the performance standards in paragraph (e) of that rule, as well. The leachate collection and removal system will be located immediately above the liner and will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to collect and remove leachate from the landfill. The HELP model analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate depth will not exceed one foot on top of the liner. The leachate collection and removal system will be constructed of materials which are chemically resistant to the waste disposed of in the landfill and leachate expected to be generated. The geonet will be comprised of HDPE, which is chemically resistant to waste and leachate due to its molecular structure. The collection piping system also will be composed of HDPE. The geotextile layer will be composed of a non-woven polyester or polypropylene fabric, which has been determined to be resistant to and compatible with municipal solid waste leachates. The sand layer will consist of non-carbonate materials that are chemically resistant to or compatible with leachate. The evidence shows that the system will be of sufficient strength and thickness to prevent collapse under the pressures exerted by overlying waste, cover materials, and equipment used at the landfill. Geonet drainage layers, HDPE piping, geotextile fabric, and sand layers such as those proposed are routinely and effectively used in landfills, including those that are deeper than the landfill proposed in the instant situation. The leachate collection and removal system meets requirements in paragraph (e) of the above rule, as well, that the system be designed and operated to function without clogging through the active life and closure period of the landfill. The geonet and geotextile layers will prevent the piping system from clogging. If clogging occurs, the system is designed to allow cleaning of the pipes. The collection and removal system will be designed and constructed to provide for removal of the leachate within the drainage system to a central collection point for treatment and disposal. The leachate will drain by gravity from the sump into the leachate lagoon, but will be altered during construction to provide for pumping of leachate out of the system into the lagoon in order to prevent having to penetrate the HDPE liner with piping. Once the leachate is pumped into the lagoon, it will be recirculated over the landfill face, evaporated from the lagoon, or removed off site for treatment and disposal at a waste disposal and treatment plant. Surface Water and Storm Water Management System The storm water management system for the landfill is designed and sized according to local drainage patterns, soil permeability, annual precipitation calculations, area land use, and other characteristics of the surrounding watershed. (See Rule 17-701.050(5)(h), FAC). The engineering expert for the applicant, Mr. Barrett, designed the storm water management system. He considered the presence of dense clay soils on the site which do not provide good percolation because of low permeability, with regard to storm water falling on the site. He also took into account existing drainage patterns, as well as the annual precipitation. The retention and detention ponds and drainage ways designed into the system consist of three detention basins located at the north, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the site and one retention basin located on the western portion of the site. The site is divided into watersheds and is drained by an on-site gravity system consisting of runoff collection pipes to intercept the overland flow and convey the runoff into the retention and detention facilities. Runoff from the northern watershed is treated in detention basin 1, that from the southeast watershed in basin 3, and runoff from the southwest watershed area in detention basin 4. Runoff from the western area or watershed is treated in retention basin 2. A computer model was used by Mr. Barrett in determining the appropriate design for the storm water management system. The model is called the hydrologic engineering center-1 model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is a model routinely and widely accepted in the storm water engineering design profession and discipline for designing such systems. It has historically been accepted by the Florida Department of Transportation, DER, the Corps of Engineers, and a number of counties and municipalities. A number of parameters, such as total runoff area, watershed characteristics, rainfall amount, time of concentration, lag time, and route description, were put into the model to develop the storm water management system design. Because no actual runoff data was available to calibrate the model, the model was run using data for two hypothetical storm events, the 25-year, 24-hour storm and the 10- year, 24-hour storm. Total rainfall amounts for these events were obtained from rainfall intensity duration-frequency curves developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for this geographical area. The detention basins are wet treatment facilities having permanent pools of water. Wetlands vegetation grows on the littoral slopes of the detention basins and removes pollutants from the storm water by natural uptake of pollutants contained in the water through the roots, stems, and leaves of the plants. Based on the HEC-1 model, the detention basins are designed to store one inch of runoff over the permanent pool control elevation and to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall, as required by Section 17-25.040(5), FAC, for projects having drainage areas of less than 100 acres. Each basin has several pipes to allow outflow when the water level exceeds the one-half retention level. As water rises to the outflow pipe level, it flows out of the basin and eventually discharges off site. The outflow pipes are two to three inches in diameter, allowing discharge of a controlled volume of water at a controlled rate. The discharge structures will be constructed in accordance with construction drawings that will include erosion control devices, such as rip- rap. The basins also have vertical riser pipes that discharge if water reaches a higher set elevation, specified in the permit application. Only if the water level rises to an elevation exceeding the 25-year, 24-hour storm elevation would the water flow over the berm. As required by Section 17-25.025(8), FAC, the storm water management system design provides for skimmers to be installed on discharge structures to skim oil, grease, and debris off water discharged from the basins. No more than one-half of the volume will be discharged in the first 60 hours following a storm event. The detention basin slopes that exceed a four to one slope down to a depth of two feet below control elevation will be fenced for safety purposes. See Rule 17-25.025(6), FAC. The retention basin is designed to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall with filtration of the first one-half inch through a sand filter bed in the bottom of the basin within 72 hours following the storm event. The sand filter bed will consist of clean well-graded sand having a minimum horizontal and vertical conductivity or percolation rate of six inches per hour. The retention basin has vertical risers, as provided in the application. Erosion and sediment control "best management practices" will be used during construction to retain sediment on site, as referenced in Rule 17-25.025(7), FAC. Other best management practices, such as sodding embankments or stabilizing slopes with geomats or sand bags will be used. The system is designed to minimize mixing of the storm water with the leachate. (Rule 17-701.050(5)(h)3., FAC). As waste is placed in the landfill, berms are constructed laterally across the cell face to segregate the waste disposal areas from other areas in the cell not yet receiving waste. Storm water coming into contact with waste flows down through it and eventually is collected and removed from that cell by the leachate collection and removal system described above. Storm water falling in a portion of a cell in which waste has not been deposited is collected by piping and pumped to the storm water management system for treatment of storm water because it does not constitute leachate, not having traversed on or through waste. Storm water will not come into contact with the waste within the system as designed. There are not any pipes connecting the waste disposal cells to the storm water system or basins. The storm water system in the permit application was designed in accordance with the criteria enunciated in the above-cited rule. This fact was established by the unrefuted expert testimony of Mr. Barrett and was independently confirmed by three other engineers, including the storm water program engineer of DER, each of whom reviewed the storm water system design. The storm water program engineer inspected the site and determined that the proposed management system will not pose any risk to downstream property, as required by the statute and rules enforced by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD). CVA adduced the testimony of Mr. Hilton Meadows in an effort to demonstrate that the storm water management system design in EPAI's application, and case-in-chief, does not meet applicable criteria in Chapters 17-701 and 17- 25, FAC, referenced above. Mr. Meadows attempted to demonstrate, by calculations determined using the "rational formula", that storm water will be discharged off the landfill site at a rate of 16.11 acre feet per minute during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. An acre foot of water is a depth of one foot of water covering a surface acre in area. According to Mr. Meadows, all storm water would be thus discharged off site at a single discharge point creating a "blowout" of the storm water management system structure at that point which would flood and erode Long Round Bay off the site. In rebuttal, however, Mr. Barrett explained that Mr. Meadows' calculations merely determined the total amount of water that would fall on the landfill site during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and failed to consider the time-volume reduction of storm water off the site over a 24-hour time period. Mr. Barrett clearly established that 16.11 acre feet of water would not be discharged per minute off the site during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. It was further demonstrated that Mr. Meadows did not perform any computer modeling in analyzing site-specific compliance of the proposed storm water management system design against the framework of the applicable design and performance standards in Chapters 17-25 and 17-701, FAC. CVA did not adduce any preponderant evidence which would demonstrate that the storm water management system proposed will not meet the design performance standards contained in the rules and rule chapters referenced above. In view of the more extensive background, education, knowledge, and training acquired both through education and experience; in view of the more extensive and detailed investigation and calculations underlying his design, including the computer modeling effort referenced above; and in view of his corroboration by three other witnesses within the storm water engineering discipline, the opinions of Mr. Barrett, and the witnesses corroborating his testimony, are accepted over that of Mr. Meadows. Gas Control System The gas control system for the landfill will meet the design requirements contained in Rule 17-701.050(5)(j), FAC. It will be a passive system, meaning that no mechanical methods are necessary to withdraw gas from the landfill. A ventilation system will be installed as the final cap is placed on the landfill and will consist of perforated PVC pipes placed vertically down through the soil cover layers, to reach the solid waste disposal areas. The pipes are wrapped in geotextile fabric in order to prevent them from being infiltrated by fine soil particles which could cause clogging of the system. The pipes will run laterally across the top of the waste disposal areas to transfer gas to the vertical vents which vent the gases to the atmosphere. If gas production should exceed the capacity of the passive ventilation system, vegetation will be damaged and odor will become objectionable. If that occurs, a pump can be connected to the system to extract gases mechanically and vent them into the atmosphere or flame them off as a more positive control method. The proposed gas system is typical for landfills of this size and has been well tested for efficiency at other such facilities. The gas control system will not interfere with or cause failure of the liner or the leachate control systems. The gas control system is designed to prevent explosion and fires due to methane accumulation, damage to vegetation on the final cover of the closed portions of the landfill or vegetation beyond the perimeter of the property. It will control any objectionable odors migrating off site. The system, as proposed and proven in this case, meets the design requirements contained in the above-cited rule. Landfill Operation Paul Sgriccia, vice president of City, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill design, operation, and management. He has extensive professional experience in (and supervises a 20-person staff) designing landfills, obtaining permitting, and overseeing daily operation, environmental regulation compliance, compliance monitoring, hydrogeology, and groundwater monitoring with regard to landfill projects proposed, being constructed, or operated by City. Additionally, he is trained as an engineer. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in the fields of landfill operations and landfill management. The above-cited rule chapter requires landfills to have a ground water monitoring system that complies with monitor well location, construction, and sampling requirements of Sections 17-3.401, 17-4.26, and 17-28.700, FAC, and ground water sampling and testing in accordance with those sections, as well as Section 17-22, Parts III and IV, FAC. Mr. Sgriccia's testimony shows that the ground water monitoring plan proposed and considered in conjunction with the hydrogeologic investigation and ground water monitoring recommendations made by Dr. Herbert will meet these regulatory requirements. The recommendations made by Dr. Herbert concerning ground water monitoring should be incorporated as conditions on issuance of the permit. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to notify DER one year in advance of its ground water monitoring schedule so that DER can be present to collect "split samples", as referenced in Rule 17- 701.050(6)(a)3., FAC. Any grant of a permit should also be conditioned on this policy being strictly followed. The application also contains an operation plan, as required by the above-cited rule at paragraph (6)(b). The operation plan provides that EPAI will be the entity responsible for the operation and maintenance of the landfill. The plan provides that in the event of a natural disaster or equipment failure that would prevent waste from being deposited at the landfill, the waste will be disposed of at the Springhill landfill in adjacent Jackson County, pursuant to an agreement between EPAI and Waste Management, Inc., the operator of that landfill. The operation plan contains detailed procedures to control the type of waste received at the facility. Hazardous waste, biomedical waste, lead-acid batteries, white goods, used oil, and waste tires will not be accepted for disposal at the proposed landfill. Asbestos will only be accepted if it is in the proper regulatory approved containers. The operation plan specifies inspection procedures and procedures to be followed if prohibited wastes are discovered. All vehicles hauling waste to the landfill will be weighed and inspected by the operator or appointed attendants at the entry to the landfill. A load inspection will be performed to determine if the waste conforms to the approved waste description before the waste can be disposed. Paperwork, checks, controls, and records maintenance will be performed, as well as random load inspections for municipal solid waste generated by households. Spotters will observe the actual unloading of each vehicle at the active cells. Unacceptable waste will be rejected and cannot be disposed of at the site. Unacceptable waste that is already unloaded inadvertently at the site will be required to be removed immediately. DER will be notified of attempts to dispose of unacceptable waste at the landfill site. The operation plan provides for weighing and measuring of incoming waste and vehicle traffic control and unloading control. All these vehicles will be weighed and inspected before proceeding to disposal cells. The operation plan provides a method and sequence for filling waste into the disposal cells. Waste disposal will begin in the southwest corner of cell one and waste will be disposed in that cell up to an established final grade and the final capping process will be commenced before beginning disposal in another cell. Waste will be compacted on a daily basis when a load is received. Compaction equipment operates continuously over disposed waste loads to obtain maximum compaction. A daily cover of six inches of clean soil will be applied at the end of the day unless more waste will be disposed on the working face within 18 hours. Daily cover helps reduce disease-vectors, such as flies and rodents, as well as to reduce windborne litter. The gas control system will be maintained to insure that riser pipe vents are not dislodged and will be monitored to insure that explosive limits of methane are not reached. When leachate levels in the lagoon reach a certain level, the leachate will be withdrawn and recirculated back over the working face of the disposal area or else hauled off site to a waste water treatment facility for treatment and disposal. Leachate recirculation is becoming an accepted treatment method by regulatory agencies and is considered an effective industry standard treatment method. Leachate is recirculated by application to the active working face of the disposal cell by a watering truck and is dropped on the cell through a distribution bar or open valve pipe at the back of the truck. Leachate will not be applied during rainfall nor will it be aerially sprayed on the cell. Municipal solid waste has significant absorption capacity, so that large quantities of recirculated leachate are absorbed by the waste. The leachate that does eventually run through the waste is collected in the leachate collection and removal system and does not mix with runoff going into the storm water management system. The leachate lagoon is surrounded by a containment dike area with a loading station inside the dike for removal of leachate by truck for off-site treatment at a waste water treatment plant. A hose is hooked to a tank truck and leachate is pumped into the truck. Any spills during the loading process will be contained by the dike and will flow back into the leachate lagoon. The storm water management system will be operated to insure that there is no mingling of leachate with storm water runoff. The design provides for three diversion berms running the length of the Class I disposal cell which divide the cell into four smaller working cells. Any rainwater falling in the clean, unused cells will be removed to the storm water management system. The rain coming into contact with the working face is leachate and is collected and removed from the cell by the leachate control system. The operation plan addresses and satisfies each requirement of Section 17-701.050(6)(b), FAC. Rule 17-701.050(6)(c), FAC, requires certain operational design features to be incorporated in the landfill. Thus, the entire site will be enclosed by a minimum four-foot high fence with a gate that will be locked during off hours. To Shoo Fly Bridge Road is a county-maintained, all-weather road that provides main access to the landfill site. In addition, the roads on the site will be stabilized, all-weather roads. The operation plan provides for signs indicating the name of the operating authority, traffic flow, hours of operation, and any disposal charges, as well as scales for weighing the waste loads received at the site. Dust will be controlled by water spraying to avoid contaminated runoff due to chemical sprays and oils. Dust will be further minimized by use of paved roads, minimizing the areas of disturbed soil, vegetating stockpiles as soon as possible, and vegetating final and intermediate cover areas. Daily cover, use of portable fences, and cleaning operations by operating personnel will provide litter control. Firefighting equipment and facilities adequate to insure the safety of employees will be located on site. Daily cover will be used to minimize the potential for fire and fire extinguishers and water will be used to fight fires. If a fire is too large to effectively fight with on-site equipment, the Holmes County Fire Department will be called to assist. The operation plan for the landfill meets the requirements depicted in the above-cited rule at paragraph (d) in terms of personnel and facilities requirements. A certified attendant will be on site during all hours of operation and a telephone will be located on site. Equipment requirements are contained in the above-cited rule at paragraph (e). The applicant will thus maintain and operate a large bulldozer, soil scraper, front-end loader, water truck, motor-grader for cleaning roads, and portable pumps for storm water management and leachate management. In the event of an equipment breakdown, the plan provides for an agreement between the operator and a local heavy-equipment company to provide a compactor and other essential equipment within 24 hours. The equipment will have protective roll bars or roll cages, fire extinguishers on board, and windshields. The operation plan otherwise provides for protective devices and gear for heavy equipment and for personnel themselves, such as dust masks and hearing protection devices, hygienic facilities in the maintenance building and office, potable water, electric power, emergency first aid facilities and the like. Employees will be hired locally and trained in appropriate safety procedures and practices. In accordance with the provisions of Section 17-701.050(6)(j), FAC, the operation plan calls for solid waste in the Class I cell to be spread in layers of approximately two-feet in thickness and compacted to approximately one-foot thickness before the next layer is applied. Weekly compaction of the waste will be accomplished by heavy equipment at the Class III cell. The compostible materials and the yard trash at the Class III cell will be removed and composted on site. Bulky materials that are not easily compacted will be worked into the other waste materials to the extent practicable. As required by paragraph (k) of the above-cited rule, the compacted solid waste material will be formed into cells with the working face and side grades above surface at a slope of no greater than 30 degrees. The cell depth will be determined by the area in operation, daily volume of waste, width of the working face, and good safety practices. Waste will be placed into the cell beginning at the southwest corner and spread northward, eventually reaching grade level. As elevation of the cell approaches final grade, intermediate and final cover is applied to the cell. The final slope grade will be approximately 4:1 and will be terraced. The operation plan meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(1) of the above-cited rule that the cell working face be only wide enough to accommodate vehicles discharging waste and to minimize the exposed area and use of unnecessary cover material. The waste will not be spread across the entire cell immediately but instead will be spread on a small working face. The typical working area may be 50 feet by 50 feet or slightly larger, and will become larger as more loads of waste are received. Waste is deposited on the working face and compacted until final grade is reached, working across the face of the active cell in a terraced effect. Intermediate and final cover are applied to the portions of the cell that have reached design dimensions. The working face is kept as small as possible to minimize leachate generation, disease-vector problems, and the need for daily cover. The landfill operation meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(m) of the above-cited rule to the effect that initial cover will be applied to enclose each working cell except the working face, which may be left uncovered if solid waste will be placed on the working face within 18 hours. If there are adverse environmental impacts or problems with disease-vectors, initial cover will be placed on the working face at the end of each day for the Class I landfill cell and once a week for the Class III cell. The operation plan provides that an intermediate cover of one foot of compacted soil will be applied in addition to the six-inch daily cover within seven days of completion of the cell if final cover or an additional lift is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion, as required by paragraph (6)(n) of the above-cited rule. The landfill will be closed in accordance with Sections 17-701.050(4) and 17-701.070-.076, FAC. The operation plan further provides that daily cover will control disease-vectors, such as flies, rather than employing use of pesticides. Uncontrolled or unauthorized scavenging will not be permitted at the landfill and will be controlled by fences and on-site personnel. Class III Cell The proposed Class III cell will be located over the old Class I cell last used by Holmes County. This area has a recompacted clay liner and a leachate collection system in place. Only yard trash will be deposited in the Class III cell, however. Based upon the Class III cell design and operating plan that will permit only yard trash disposal in it, any leachate generated from the Class III cell will not pose any threat to or violate applicable water quality standards in or outside the zone of discharge. Asbestos disposal is proposed at the landfill site. A separate asbestos disposal cell is proposed. The operation plan will provide that the asbestos be covered daily with a proper dust suppressant or six inches of non- asbestos material or will be disposed of in an area where proper warning signs, fences and barriers are present. Asbestos accepted for disposal at the landfill will be bagged and accompanied by shipping documents as required by EPA rules appearing in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation. Persons working around asbestos will be specifically trained in its handling and must use appropriate protective equipment, as required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants set forth at 40 CFR 61.25 and other applicable federal regulations. The applicant proposes to dispose of petroleum contaminated soils at the landfill, as well. These soils will be mixed in with the waste on the working face. The soils will not be used as an intermediate cover or come into contact with surface water that will be conveyed to and treated in the storm water management system. Landfill Closure The application includes general plans and schedules for closure of the new and existing landfills. Once final grade is reached, an intermediate cover is applied over the daily cover if the working face will not receive any more waste or will receive final cover within 180 days. The gas control system will then be installed and the final cover consisting of an impermeable synthetic cap will be applied. The final cover will be a plastic cap constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), HDPE, or some other synthetic material and covered by one foot of protective soil, topped by six inches of topsoil to promote vegetation growth. Soils for the closure effort will be obtained on site and will not be obtained by dredging in any jurisdictional wetlands. The final design provides for a terraced landfill profile for the new Class I cell. The waste levels will not exceed 10 feet in height and will be terraced at a 4:1 slope. The terraces will slope back against the cell wall and will be underlain by a subdrain to collect runoff and convey it to the storm water management system. This will prevent erosion of the final cover, waste exposure, and thus, additional leachate generation. The application contains a closure plan containing a general landfill information report and various other plans, investigations, and reports addressing all criteria and factors required to be addressed by Section 17- 701.073(6)(a)-(i), FAC. All such plans, reports and investigations were certified by Pearce Barrett, a registered professional engineer, expert witness and landfill designer for the applicant. The application contains a detailed estimate of closure costs and a monitoring and long-term care plan for the landfill meeting the requirements of Sections 17-701.075 and 17-701.076, FAC. An interest-bearing escrow account will be established for the landfill within 30 days of permanent issuance to cover the closure costs. Funds for closure, monitoring and long-term care of the landfill will be set aside as tipping fees are paid. As portions of the landfill are closed, funds in the escrow account will be available to pay for closure. This type of landfill closure and closure funding is termed "close as you go". This insures that available funds to close the landfill will be present so that funding problems such as those associated with the existing landfill will not arise. The long-term care plan provided for in the permit application and in the applicant's evidence provides for monitoring and maintenance of the landfill for a 20-year period after closure is complete. The storm water management system will be maintained and ground water monitored as part of this long-term care plan.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation dismissing the petition filed in opposition to the permit application and approving EPAI's application for the permit at issue, authorizing construction and operation of a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill, as well as authority to close the existing 25.5-acre Class I landfill in Holmes County, Florida, in the manner and under the conditions delineated in the application, as amended, the Intent to Issue and draft permit and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is further RECOMMENDED that the motion for attorney's fees and cost be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent's witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Sometime prior to May 7, 1980, Petitioner, Wyatt S. Odom, applied for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs Lake in Orange Park, Clay County Florida. By letter dated May 7, 1980, Ronald E. Bray, Sanitarian Supervisor for the Clay County Health Department, advised Petitioner that his permit application to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat was being denied since the area of Petitioner's property was approximately 26,250 square feet2 A survey of the subject property revealed that the area is 19,890 square feet, which is of course less than one-half acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) (0.60 acre) with three individual sewage disposal systems already existing on the property; the land was not suitable for the installation that would allow the proper and required drainfield absorption area and setback requirement could not be maintained due to the existence of buildings, waterlines, wells, a lake and existing sewage disposal facilities which, if permitted, would be in contravention of Chapters 10D-6.23(2) and 10D-6.24(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Supervisor Bray and Sanitarian Thomas Haley, observed the subject property and the survey, and concluded that based on the size of Petitioner's property and the existing wells and septic tanks thereon, it was unsuitable for and could not satisfy the setback requirements and the required drainfield absorption area. (Testimony of Ronald E. Bray.) As stated, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his permit application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs. Lake in Orange Park, Florida, be UPHELD. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Odom P. O. Box 14735 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Assistant District IV Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether a permit to convert previously permitted percolation ponds to a land application, reclaimed water, spray and drip irrigation system should be granted to Respondent, Destin Water Users, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The City of Destin, Florida is located on a sandy strip of land which lies between the Gulf of Mexico to the south and the Choctawhatchee Bay to the north. This strip of land generally consists of rapidly percolating soil. Importantly, the strip of land has a breakline running through it which functions similar to the Continental Divide of North America in determining the direction of flow of any water located on either side of the divide. In this case, the breakline causes water to flow either north or south depending on which side of the breakline the water is located. DWU provides water and sewer treatment to residents and businesses located in the City of Destin, Florida. In order to provide its sewer service, DWU operates a waste water treatment plant along with several wastewater percolation ponds and wastewater spray and drip irrigation systems. Sometime in 1991, DWU entered into a lease agreement with a third party in which DWU would permit the third party to construct a golf course on a thirty acre site which currently contains four of DWU's percolation ponds. The four percolation ponds, which are the subject of this proceeding are located off U.S. Highway 98 in Destin, Florida. The northern boundary of the subject site is the southern boundary of the property in which Petitioners' have an interest. After construction of the golf course, DWU plans to continue to dispose of treated wastewater at the site by using a dual irrigation system consisting of a sprinkler system for spray irrigation and a series of underground plastic pipes for slow drip irrigation. DWU desired to create a dual use for the 30 acre site in order to generate more income from the property and still be able to dispose of wastewater on the property. In order to accomplish its goal, DWU was required to obtain a permit for the planned conversion of the percolation ponds to a land application, reclaimed water, spray and drip irrigation system. Because a spray and drip irrigation system would be put into place, DWU would be required to provide additional nutrient and BOD removal before water is put on the property. DWU clearly has the capability and experience required to provide additional nutrient and BOD removal. Also because a spray and drip irrigation system would be substituted for the percolation ponds the maximum quantity of effluent to be applied to the property would be reduced to 1.58 gallons per day under the proposed permit. The location of the percolation ponds and consequently the proposed spray and drip irrigation system is a superior site for effluent disposal because of the sandy soil, high elevation relative to the property surrounding the site, and the high permeability rate of the soil. The ponds have been in existence for approximately ten years, and have operated under a permit which allows a maximum average of 1.65 million gallons of wastewater a day to be applied to the ponds' 30 acre site. Indeed, when the ponds were originally permitted approximately ten years ago all of the various factors affecting flow rates were reduced to calculations to determine the amount of effluent which could safely be placed on the percolation ponds' site to insure complete and continual compliance with Department requirements. To date, all of the effluent currently being applied to the percolation ponds meets the Department's standards when it leaves the percolation pond property and there have not been any violations of the operating permit or any other statutes, or rules for the subject percolation ponds during the history of their operation. Similarly, the design calculations for the proposed conversion to the spray and drip irrigation system on the proposed golf course show that the water quality will continue to meet the Department's standards when it leaves the property. The pond site is surrounded by eight monitoring wells. These wells measure the level of any contaminants which may seep into the groundwater and also measure any changes in groundwater levels. The monitoring wells are a requirement of the percolation ponds' permit to insure compliance, with state water quality standards and to insure that the percolation ponds are not adversely affecting any off-site property. DWU has submitted quarterly reports of the readings from these monitoring wells, as required by law, to the Department. The wells will remain in place should the property be converted to a golf course with a spray and drip irrigation wastewater disposal system. A portion of the monitoring wells which encircle the percolation ponds lie along the northern boundary of the percolation ponds, which is the southern boundary of Petitioners' property. Petitioners submitted the testimony of two lay witnesses in an attempt to establish a causal relationship between the percolation ponds and flooding in and around the percolation pond area. Petitioners' witness, Bud Sharon, testified that he saw water on property located immediately to the south of DWU's percolation ponds which he had previously owned. The water Mr. Sharon saw was a continuous stream of water running down the side of his property. The stream of water developed after the ponds had been built. However, this witness was not qualified to render any expert opinions correlating the presence of any water on his property to any activities on DWU's percolation ponds. Most importantly, the evidence showed that the ponds were not in continuous use by DWU and at times were dry while Mr. Sharon's stream was continuous. This fact alone leads to the conclusion that the stream of water Mr. Sharon testified about was caused by factors not attributable to the percolation ponds. Additionally, analysis of the water found upon this witness' property was determined to be free from any contaminants and did not pose any health risks. Finally, the evidence demonstrated that with improved storm water control throughout the general area the stream has abated. Dale Whitney was also proffered by petitioners and presented lay testimony regarding his observations of water in the vicinity of the percolation ponds. This witness testified that he saw water emanating from the berm which forms the southern boundary of the DWU percolation ponds. However, it was established during cross-examination that this witness did not know whether the DWU percolation ponds were in use at the time or when they had previously been in use. This witness also admitted under cross-examination that he was not qualified through experience, training or otherwise to opine about the source of water which he observed or whether it was in any way attributable to the percolation ponds. Additionally, the evidence showed that Mr. Whitney's observations occurred shortly after a heavy rain and during a particularly wet time of the year. In short, the water seen by Mr. Whitney more than likely was the result of storm water control in the area with rainwater percolating out of the berm. The evidence was insufficient to show that effluent from the percolation ponds was leaking through the berm. On the other hand, the empirical data from the monitoring wells surrounding the percolation ponds demonstrates that the breakline for the area is north of the percolation ponds' site and is on Petitioners' property. The groundwater at the subject site flows in a southerly direction to the Gulf of Mexico. The data from the monitoring wells also indicates that the wastewater stays in the groundwater and does not emanate to the surface and cause flooding. Similarly, there was no competent substantial evidence that the subject site caused any flooding at any time to the Petitioners' property. Indeed the historical data gathered from the percolation ponds' site demonstrates that water on that site runs away from Petitioners' property. In short, Petitioners failed to offer any plausible basis for inferring that water on the percolation ponds' site could flow uphill over the breakline and cause either flooding or raised nutrient levels on Petitioners' property. 1/ Moreover, for the past ten years during which the percolation ponds have been in existence, all effluent contaminant levels have been well within compliance with all Department rules. Moreover, Petitioners presented no substantial credible evidence, either testimonial or documentary, concerning any water sample analyses in support of their allegations regarding water borne contaminants emanating from the percolation ponds onto their property; and no substantial credible evidence in any way materially controverting the engineering information submitted by DWU in its application or the determinations made by the Department in its analyses and approval of DWU's application. Clearly, the actual performance of the percolation ponds over the past ten years establishes that the site will perform in accordance with the Department's rules should the proposed conversion be allowed. Additionally, given DWU's full compliance with all of the Department's rules relative to the performance and function of the percolation ponds over the past ten years, as well as compliance on DWU's use of its currently existing reclaimed water reuse systems and the fact that the conversion proposal meets the Department's water quality and design criteria requirements for reclaimed water use, reasonable assurances that DWU will continue to comply with all the Department's rules should the proposed conversion be allowed have been given and the permit should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing permit application number DC46-199969 to Destin Water Users, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 3rd day of August, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The permit Applicant and Co-Respondent, Florida Medical Facilities, Inc. is the owner and developer of a 60-acre tract of land upon which it has constructed a hospital and will construct various attendant laboratories, medical offices and the like. Additionally, the Applicant is the owner of approximately five acres of land adjacent to its original 60-acre site which lies on Morningside Drive in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida. The Applicant proposes to construct and operate the wastewater treatment plant on that 5-acre parcel. The Applicant proposes to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant and effluent disposal drain field system which will accommodate and dispose of all wastewater effluent on the site by the absorption bed, land application method. The proposed sewage treatment plant will have an average daily design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons per day. The anticipated peak flow of the treatment plant will be 60,000 gallons per day. The plant will generate and dispose of approximately 900 gallons of waste sludge on a daily basis. The facility would employ dual drain fields, use of which would be rotated on a weekly basis. The proposed average hydraulic loading rate would be 3.21 inches per day or two gallons per day, per square foot of drain field. The proposed facility will serve a 100-bed community hospital, assorted medical offices, a diagnostic laboratory and a 75-bed nursing home. The permit applicant has agreed and stipulated that chemical, nuclear and other hazardous and noxious waste materials, blood, body parts, medicines, and drugs will not be introduced into the sewage treatment system plant or drain fields. The Applicant (FMF) originally proposed to dispose of sewage effluent emanating from its hospital and other facilities by transmission of it through force-mains to existing public wastewater systems, one of which is in Charlotte County and the other in Sarasota County. After exploring these possibilities, these alternatives proved to be either too expensive or to involve transmission of effluent over too great a distance to make these options feasible. Sarasota County has a local pollution control program approved by the DER, pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Under this program the Sarasota Environmental Service Department reviews domestic wastewater treatment facility permit applications pending before the DER and makes recommendations on their disposition. The county's ordinance concerning such facilities is equivalent to the DER standards, except in some respects it is stricter Mr. Russell Klier of the county environmental services department established that the proposed project as planned and designed, will comply with county ordinances regarding wastewater treatment plants. Indeed, it was established through Mr. Klier's testimony, that the proposed project has more redundancy and reliability safeguards than any other such project presently operating in Sarasota County. The proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal system is designed to attain the secondary level of treatment required by Chapter 17-6.060, Florida Administrative Code. The effluent disposal system will provide for disposal of effluent in an absorption field system as envisioned by Chapter 17-6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code and the Department's "Land Application Manual," incorporated by reference in that rule. The system, as proposed, will have the additional safeguards required by the "Land Application Manual" in order to attain "Class I reliability." The hospital, which is the initial facility to be constructed on the 60-acre site, is largely completed, and is being served by a temporary "package" sewage treatment plant until the permit application is resolved. The package sewage treatment plant, as well as the proposed plant and drain field land application system will only serve the medical center complex. All on-site stormwater and surface water run-off from both the 60-acre original medical center site, as well as the 5- acre proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal site, will be managed by directing stormwater and surface water run-off to holding ponds to be constructed and maintained on the original 60-acre site. Steven Houghton was accepted as an expert engineering witness. It was thus established that the system as designed will meet all water quality parameters regulated and enforced by the DER and Sarasota County in terms of the quality of the effluent generated by the plant and disposal system for disposal by land application. In this connection, he established that no nuclear, infectious, toxic or noxious waste will be processed by the system or introduced into the system nothing other than domestic-type sewage will be treated, processed and disposed of by the proposed system. Mr. Houghton acknowledged that the project will be located in an historically flood-prone vicinity, but that will not affect the quality or effectiveness of the operation of the plant nor the safe disposal of the resulting effluent. In that regard, the Applicant will place fill at the drain field site so as to provide a more effective soil percolation condition than that presently existing in the soils at the drain field site. Additionally, the Applicant will provide a sewage storage tank to provide extra reliability and avoidance of pollution caused by sewage overflows in the event of any excessive sewage flows into the plant, and as a safeguard against disposing of insufficiently treated effluent during periods of high rain and high surface or ground water conditions. Additionally, the system will be constructed and operated with sufficient redundancy of electrical and mechanical components so as to provide auxiliary capacity throughout the system, allowing it to operate efficiently 24 hours a day and to continue to provide treatment and disposal of the effluent in accordance with secondary treatment and Class I reliability standards, even during periods of mechanical or electrical outages. Petitioner Mary Wagoner owns and resides on acreage generally south and adjacent to the proposed project site. Mrs. Wagoner uses a potable water well in the shallow aquifer with a depth of approximately 35 feet. Mrs. Wagoner's well has recently been tested and at this time provides good, safe, potable water which she uses both for drinking, cooking, domestic usage, as well as water for her livestock. Mrs. Wagoner's well is less than 500 feet from the proposed "wetted area" of the drain field land application disposal site. Mr. Edward Snipes was accepted and testified as an expert witness in the areas of engineering and wastewater engineering on behalf of the Department. He corroborated Mr. Houghton's testimony in establishing that the project would meet the Department's standards for water quality and Class I reliability in large part. It was shown that the project will not likely have harmful effects on the Petitioners' water wells. Mr. Snipes established that the Department's "Land Application Manual" embodied in Rule 17-6.04(4)(Q), Florida Administrative Code requires a buffer zone of only 100 feet, instead of 500C feet, from the wetted area of the sewage effluent disposal site, due to the type of system and level of treatment proposed. That is, the system would provide secondary treatment, with additional safety measures incorporated in the design and operation so as to achieve Class I reliability. This Class I reliability standard includes a sufficiently high rate of disinfection so as to allow unrestricted public access to the site, and thus would meet the most stringent Class I reliability standards extant in Rule 17- 6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code. This permits a reduced buffer zone between the wetted area of the drain field and any adjacent, shallow-water wells. Thus, the buffer zone would, in the case of this plant, be allowably reduced from 500 feet to 100 feet. In only one respect, was any doubt cast by Petitioner's testimony and evidence on the showing of reasonable assurances that all Department water quality and wastewater treatment standards will be met. That doubt concerns the distance from the bottom of the drain field to the water table elevation at the drain field site, as that relates to the ability of the system to continue to treat and dispose of effluent within appropriate standards in this admittedly flood-prone area, as that problem would in turn relate to potential contamination of ground water in the area, especially in times of high rainfall and high ground water levels. In that connection, Petitioner Wagoner offered Herman Weinberg as an expert witness in civil engineering and he was accepted. Mr. Weinberg acknowledged that he was not a soil engineer and acknowledged that the Department or its witnesses were more knowledgeable about wastewater regulation, treatment and disposal methods than he. He opined, however, that the plant may not be able to reach Class I reliability due to its location in a flood-prone area. He fears that insufficient soil testing and water quality testing had been done prior to the filing of the permit application. and prior to the ultimate construction of the project, if that is to be the case. Section 17-6.040(4) (M), Florida Administrative Code, adopts by reference the United States Environmental Protection Agency design criteria for mechanical, electrical and fluid system and component reliability manual. That manual sets forth certain minimum standards for Class I reliability sewage treatment and disposal plants and systems. In this regard, the rule in that manual establishes that wastewater treatment works include holding ponds and basins and other structures of the disposal system. It provides that all treatment works, structures, as well as electrical and mechanical equipment, shall be protected from physical damage by flooding of a magnitude occurring on the average of once in a hundred years, the so- called "100-year flood." In this connection, it was established through witness Weinberg's testimony as well as that of Mr. Houghton, the Applicant/Respondent's witness, that the 100-year flood plan elevation on and around the subject site is 12 feet above mean sea level. The top of the proposed drain field would be located at 12.33 feet elevation. The bottom of the drain field would be at 10.33 feet elevation. The water table level established by witness Houghton as a result of his survey and calculations, is at 8.33 feet elevation. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in its "Land Application Manual," which provides criteria for sewage plant and disposal system construction and operation, requires a 36-inch minimum separation between the bottom of a drain field and the design water table level. Thus, the legally operative Class I reliability standards, incorporated in the above-referenced rule and manuals, and which the Applicant and the Department agree is the level of reliability required, given the conditions and the proximity of Petitioner's well, can only be met if the drain field disposal system is at this required elevation of 36 inches above the design water table level. Affirmative, reasonable assurances that this safeguard will be incorporated in the subject system are necessary in view of the fact that Petitioner Wagoner's potable water well is clearly less than 500 feet from the wetted area of the drain field site. In this connection, the Applicant/Respondent has proposed placing fill soil of a suitable type for adequate percolation and land application treatment of the effluent on the drain field site, however, it has not been established that this will be done to such an extent as to raise the elevation of the drain field sufficiently so that the bottom of the drain field is a minimum of 36 inches above the design water table. The installation of an adequate depth of fill soil of a suitable percolation characteristic must therefore be a condition on the issuance of the permit. Further, in that regard, the Applicant/Respondent's soil test and calculation of tile ground water level or "design water table," occurred in January and February of 1985, at a time when the southwest region of Florida was in a drought or dry condition, such that the water level or ground water table at normal rainfall conditions would likely be at a higher elevation. Thus, a grant of this permit must be conditioned upon the installation of sufficient, appropriate quality fill soil to ensure that the minimum 36-inch separation between the drain field bottom and the water table is maintained during normal water table or rainfall conditions. If this measure is not taken, given the 2-foot separation between the drain field, as designed, and the water table, the oxygen transferring capacity of the soil beneath the drain field may not be sufficient to satisfy the oxygen demand required for consistently adequate treatment and safe disposal of the sewage effluent. Additionally, in this same context, Chapter 1 of the DER Land Application Manual at Section 1.3, requires that sufficient storage capacity exist on-site to ensure retention of sewage effluent during conditions which preclude land application, such as high ground water conditions or flooding conditions. This capacity should be equivalent to three days maximum daily flow at the design capacity of the plant, or in this case, 180,000 gallons. Although the Applicant, by its plans and specifications in evidence, has assured that a sewage effluent storage tank will be constructed and operated, it has failed to establish that sufficient storage capacity will be incorporated to assure the retention of 180,000 gallons of effluent. Any grant of the permit application should be conditioned upon such an assurance. Finally, in connection with the above-mentioned condition concerning installation of sufficient, appropriate soil filling to allow for a minimum 36-inch amount of unsaturated soil beneath the drain field, that addition of fill should also be of a sufficient type and amount to ensure that the Applicant's proposed rotation or "resting" of drain fields for 7-day periods will be adequate to ensure that the subject amount of soil is unsaturated before re-use of either of the two drain fields. There should be incorporated in these conditions, upon a grant of the permit, the requirement that the Department monitor construction of the proposed facility to ensure that the above conditions are adequately met, in view of the low-lying terrain at the drain field site and the flood-prone condition of that locality. Petitioner Mary Nygaard testified on behalf of herself and her husband, Lyle A. Nygaard. Mrs. Nygaard complains of feared pollution of her shallow-water potable well which she maintains is within 500 feet of the drain field and sewage plant site. Mr. Nygeard established that the well is 187.1 feet from the Petitioner's southern property boundary, but acknowledged that no survey has been done delineating the distance to the proposed wetted area of the drain field. It was not otherwise proven how far the Nygaard's potable well is from the wetted area of the proposed drain field where the effluent will be disposed of. Various easements and roadways lie between the Nygaard's well and the wetted area of the proposed drain field site with indeterminate dimensions, thus it was not proven what distance exists between the Nygaard's well and the drain field site other than that it exceeds 187.1 feet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Florida Medical Facilities for a permit authorizing construction of an extended aeration, wastewater treatment plant and disposal system to serve only the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center project in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida, referenced above be GRANTED, provided that the above-delineated conditions upon a grant of the permit are complied with. DONE and ENTERED this 30th of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lyle and Mary E. Nygnard 740 Morningside Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Harlan Domber, Esquire ISPHORDING, PAYNE, KORP and MUIRHEAD, P.A. 333 West Miami Avenue Venice, Florida 33595 James H. Burgess, Jr., Esquire SYPRETT, MESHAD, RESNICK and LIEF, P.A. Post Office Box 1238 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Douglas L. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following specific rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to the extent that the proposals actually constitute proposed findings of fact as opposed to recitations of testimony and evidence, conclusions and arguments of law. APPLICANT/RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 7 constitutes a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 11 constitutes in part a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Accepted, but this proposed finding of fact is unnecessary and immaterial to a resolution of the material issues presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions which must be met before the permit should be granted as that relates to Class I reliability standards and the "buffer zone" issue. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the necessity of the installation of a minimum 36-inch adequate soil percolation zone and adequate sewage effluent storage capacity. Accepted in part, but rejected to the extent that this proposed finding of fact maintains that the nature of Mrs. Wagoner's well has been impossible to obtain due to her refusal to allow inspection. Indeed, Mrs. Wagoner adduced competent evidence of the water quality in her well. Accepted in part, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the additional conditions that should be placed upon the permit related to its location in a flood-prone area, and related to the distance between the bottom of the drain field and the high water table. Accepted. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions referenced above which must be met for Class I reliability and for avoidance of harmful effect on Petitioner's water well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted.. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning additional conditions referenced above which must be met concerning Class I reliability and protection of water quality in Petitioner's-well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting merely a discussion of testimony. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but this proposed finding is irrelevant to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as merely being a recitation of testimony. Accepted. PETITIONER WAGONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, except to the extent that it indicates the applicant will situate the facility in a manner so as not to be accessible to the general public. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a discussion and conclusion of law. 13 and 14. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. 15 and 16. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. They are rejected for the additional reason that portions of those two paragraphs that constitute proposed findings of fact do not comport with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. 17 through 31. These proposed findings are rejected as constituting conclusions of law and, to the extent that they embody proposed findings of fact, are not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. The evidence and testimony shows that reasonable assurances (except as to the permit conditions recommended) have been provided that all pertinent regulatory criteria have been or will be met. The EPA Manual criteria referenced in these proposed findings of fact (17-31) are not mandatory, whereas those in Subsection (4)(q) of the above-referenced rule are mandatory and have been reasonably assured by the applicant to be met subject to the conditions recommended on a grant of the permit by the Hearing Officer. Accepted, except to the extent that the applicant is reputed not to have provided data to substantiate the estimated design water table. The applicant's proof of the water table elevation was un-refuted. Accepted as to the first sentence, the remaining portion of that proposed finding of fact is irrelevant and unnecessary to a disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Accepted to the extent that the conditions recommended to be attached to a grant of the permit envision assurance being provided before a grant of the permit that the issue raised by proposed finding No. 39 is satisfied. Accepted. Accepted as to its second sentence, the first sentence in that proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented, and as being unnecessary to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 47. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 48. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 49. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 50. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 51. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 52. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 53. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 54. Accepted. 55. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 56. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 57. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 59. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 60. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 61. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 62. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 63. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 64. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 65. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 66. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 67. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 68. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 69. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the additional reason that the last sentence is a proposed finding of fact not supported by competent, substantial credible evidence and testimony presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the further reason that the proposed finding of fact is not supported by competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected in part as constituting a conclusion of law and accepted to the extent that reasonable assurances concerning the effect of the water table elevation discussed in the Recommended Order have not been provided and such assurance should be a condition on a grant of the permit. The remainder of that proposed finding of fact is not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented and is irrelevant. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's Application for Variance from Chapter 10D-6, FAC Standards for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems should be approved?
Findings Of Fact By letter dated September 9, 1986, the County Engineer for Volusia County, Florida, denied the Petitioner's request for expedited subdivision. On or about October 15, 1986, the Petitioner filed an Application for Variance from Chapter 10D-6, FAC Standards for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). On or about November 12, 1986, the Volusia County Health Department recommended denial of the Application. By letter dated November 24, 1986, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that his Application had been placed on the agenda of the Variance Review Group's December 4, 1986 meeting. By letter dated December 16, 1986, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that the Application was denied. By letter dated January 7, 1987, from the Petitioner's counsel, the Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the proposed denial. The property involved in this case is located at 1083 Sheri Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). The Petitioner's parents originally owned 10 acres of property. By warranty deed dated September 12, 1958, the Petitioner's parents gave the Petitioner the Property which consisted of two lots from the ten acres, described as follows: The Easterly 149 feet of the Westerly 295 feet of the Southerly 1/2 (one half) of Lot 140, Blake, as per map in Map Book 1, page 38, of the public records of Volusia County, Florida. The Petitioner's parents also gave five acres of the ten acres to another individual in 1958. This property was developed as a mobile home park. The Property measures 150 feet x 150 feet. The property immediately to the west of the Property is currently owned by the Petitioner's Father. It measures 155 feet x 150 feet. Between 1958 and 1960 the Petitioner began construction of a single- story house on the Property. Also between 1953 and 1960 the Petitioner placed a mobile home on the Property. The Petitioner and his family lived in the mobile home while his house was being constructed. Two septic tanks were placed on the Property sometime between 1958 and 1960. The mobile home located on the Property was hooked up to one of the septic tanks. In 1960 construction of the house was completed and the Petitioner and his family moved into the house. The mobile home remained on the Property until 1961 when it was permanently removed. When construction of the house was completed, both septic tanks were connected to the house. Since 1961, trailers have been temporarily on the Property and have been hooked up to one of the septic tanks. Use of the septic tank by trailers has been infrequent, however, since 1961. Recently the Petitioner placed a mobile home on the Property and hooked it up to one of the septic tanks. The Petitioner was cited by the Volusia County Code Compliance Board for having the mobile home located on the Property. Subsequent to the action by the Volusia County Code Compliance Board the Petitioner attempted to subdivide the Property. The Petitioner proposes using a portion of the Property and a portion of his Father's adjoining property to create a lot 60 feet by 150 feet. The evidence failed to prove how much of the Property and how much of the Petitioner's Father's property would be used to create the new lot. The Petitioner wants to put a mobile home on the new lot and hook it up to one of the existing septic tanks on the Property. The Petitioner plans to provide the mobile home as a home for his daughter who is unemployed. Both of the existing septic tanks on the Property would remain on the Property if the subdivision is approved. The Property is .39 acres and the Petitioner's Father's adjoining lot is .48 acres. The Property and the Petitioner's Father's adjoining property have existing single story residences and use wells located on the property. The private well on the Property is less than 75 feet from the septic tanks. If a new lot is created, it will be located between the Property and the Petitioner's Father's property and all three lots will be less than 1/2 acre in size. The two septic tanks on the Property are larger than normal and the Petitioner is not aware of any problem with the two tanks. The Petitioner does not believe that there has been any contamination of his well caused by the septic tanks. Mobile homes are located in the mobile home park and on other lots in the area of the Property. The mobile homes are located on lots of less than 1/2 acre and they use septic tanks. There is therefore, a high concentration of septic tanks in the area. Mobile homes are frequently moved on and off property in the area but other lots do not remain vacant for any appreciable time. The Respondent reviewed the Petitioner's Application in accordance with its Rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Application be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department Of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Wine wood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mr. Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 James L. Rose, Esquire Rice and Rose Post Office Box 2599 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire District IV Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083
Findings Of Fact On October 13, 1988, Petitioner applied for a permit from Respondent for the operation of an onsite sewage disposal system in connection with a commercial project to be constructed on Petitioner's property in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner's application was disapproved that same day. Respondent denied the application because a publicly owned sewer system was available to Petitioner. A sewage line of the City of Lakeland, Florida, exists within a public easement abutting Petitioner's property. That sewage line is about 10 feet from Petitioner's property line. Gravity flow from Petitioner's proposed facility to the sewer line can be maintained. The city's system is under no moratoriums from any governmental body which would prevent the addition of Petitioner to the system. On October 17, 1988, Petitioner applied to Respondent's variance board, in accordance with provisions of Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.045, Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was considered by the board on November 3, 1988, and a recommendation that the variance be denied resulted. On December 12, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner of the recommended denial of the variance application. The denial letter to Petitioner informed him that variances were granted for the relief or prevention of excessive hardship in those situations where there is a clear showing that the public health would not be impaired and pollution of groundwater or surface water would not result. The letter further stated that recommendation to deny variance was premised on the availability of public sewer to the property. Existence of adequate drainage for the proposed on site disposal system on Petitioner's property is questionable. The water table during the wettest season of the year on the property is only 20 inches from the surface. During other parts of the year, the water table is 38 inches from the ground surface. Two residences are presently situated on Petitioner's property and produce a flow to the present septic tank sewage disposal system of approximately 900 gallons per day. A commercial building also previously existed on the property and supplied a septic tank flow of approximately 700 gallons. The proof at hearing failed to establish whether the commercial building flow coexisted with the present residential flow. Petitioner proposes to construct a "mini mall" consisting of four stores, each with one toilet, on the property. Since public usage of the toilets in the building is not anticipated to be frequent, Petitioner estimates that approximately 600 gallons of sewage flow will be generated on a daily basis. Petitioner's property is presently served by the public water utility of the City of Lakeland. While the property lies outside the corporate city limits, it is bounded on two sides by property within the city limits on which restaurants, served by the city's sewage system, are situated. The city easement containing the sewer line runs along another side of the property which is contiguous to U.S. Highway 98. Under current policy of the City of Lakeland, connection to the city sewage system is permitted only to property located in the city limits. Petitioner must agree to annexation by the city of his property in order to obtain connection to the sewage system. However, the city assesses impact fees in addition to costs of sewage connection and in Petitioner's situation the amount of impact fees anticipated to be levied by the city is approximately $53,000. Petitioner estimates the value of his property when the "mini mall" is completed at $700,000. Estimated cost of construction, without consideration of the city's impact fees, will be $350,000. While Petitioner does not contemplate selling the property after the development is completed, he will be leasing the individual store facilities. The sole objection of Petitioner to denial of his request for a variance recommendation is that he will be forced to resort to joining the city's public sewage system and, by concomitantly accepting the city's annexation of his property, incurring the city's impact fees. It is Petitioner's contention that the impact fees effectively make the city's system unavailable to him. Alternatively, Petitioner also contends that assessment of impact fees by the city will pose a financial hardship on him and increase the per unit rental or lease costs he must charge tenants. Petitioner also contends that his commercial project will cause no adverse public health considerations because sewage flow from his facility to an on site sewage disposal system will be no more and possibly less than that presently flowing from the residences on the property to the existing septic tank system. This testimony is not credited due to the fact that anticipated drainage flow is an estimate by Petitioner with no demonstrated expertise in making such estimates; drainage at the proposed site location is questionable; and Petitioner's application states that the proposed site is located five feet from a public water well. Petitioner asserts that facts of a previous decision of the variance board established policy which requires that the variance he has requested be granted. On May 19, 1988, the variance board recommended a variance be granted to an automobile dealership in Polk County to operate an on site sewage disposal system. Had the variance not been granted, the dealership would have been force to accept annexation to a city adjoining the dealership property in order to have sewage disposal. Such a decision would have resulted in two dealerships from the same company within that city. The applicant in that case would have lost his automobile dealer franchise or have been forced to relocate elsewhere. The automobile dealership property site possessed adequate drainage with a water table 44 inches below the surface during the wettest season of the year and 84 inches at other times of the year. Anticipated sewage flow estimated at 525 gallons per day for the automobile dealership is similar to the estimate of 600 gallons per day for Petitioner's facility. Impact fees were not a consideration in the case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying approval of the variance requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Deno P. Dikeou Liberty National Bank Building Suite 200 502 N. Highway 17-92 Longwood, Florida 32750 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit or the grant of a variance from the rule by which that permit application was denied so as to be authorized to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank system) for his property near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida within the purview of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Desmond Harbroe, owns real property in Dixie County, Florida consisting of a lot described as lot 28 of Riverbend Estates. The lot in Riverbend Estates is located at "Hinton's Landing" on the west bank of the Suwannee River. The lot itself is located approximately 1500 feet west of the shoreline of the Suwannee River on a connected canal. The canal is characterized by high banks at the location of the lot and the lot is one of the highest lots in the subdivision, with overstory vegetation consisting of large pines and live oaks. The lot is gently sloping and characterized by well- drained soil consisting of sand down to a depth of 72 inches (a "slight limited" soil). The lot is approximately one and one quarter acres in size and was purchased May 29, 1976. The Petitioner contemplates constructing a single family residence on the lot and it does not presently contain an OSDS. The proposed residence would consist of a two bedroom dwelling with a heated or cooled area of approximately 1200 square feet. A dwelling of this size and type is equated in the standards in the Department's rules with production of 450 gallons per days (GPD) of sewage flow. Although no specific evidence of expected sewage is of record, there is no dispute regarding that figure. Herbert H. Raker is a registered land surveyor located at Box 626, Cross City, Florida 32628. Mr. Raker surveyed the subject lot and established a benchmark elevation of 13.72 feet above main sea level (MSL). That benchmark is six inches above the actual ground or grade level at the location of the benchmark. The site of the proposed installation itself is at an elevation of 13.22 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the subject property is 15 feet above MSL. That elevation was established through data supplied by the Suwannee River Water Management District to the Petitioner and submitted to the Department in the application process. That information and the document upon which it is predicated is hearsay, but was not objected to at hearing and, in any event, constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule in the category of government records, compilations and reports for purposes of Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes, and is, thus, admissable and accepted by the Hearing Officer. The subject property purchased by the Petitioner was for building a single family residence as described above. On December 12, 1989 the Petitioner received a letter from the Suwannee River Water Management District advising that there was no objection by the District to filling the lot in order to bring the surface grade level of that property to a sufficient height so as to comport with the "two year flood" elevation. The critical elevation in relation to the rules at issue however is the ten-year flood elevation. This advice from the Water Management District does not address the issue of filling the lot to bring it up to a level so that the bottom of the subject drain fill proposed would be above the ten-year flood elevation and thus comport with the rules at issue. In this connection, the property is located within the ten year flood plain based upon the evidence establishing that flood plain level to be at IS feet above MSL. The property is also located within the "regulatory floodway" of the Suwannee River. This is a geographical area closer in proximity to the actual free flowing portion of the river than is the boundary of the ten-year flood elevation demarcated area. The rule cited below provides that mounded systems requiring a placement of fill material, or construction above grade, will not be authorized in the regulatory floodway unless there is certification by registered engineers that the placement of fill or the structure placed would not increase the water surface elevation of the "base flood". That certification must be substantiated by data and the method of calculation used by the engineer must be provided. Here there is only a two and one half foot difference between the grade level of the property involved at the site of the proposed installation and the 15 foot ten-year flood elevation. Thus, as Mr. Harbroe indicates, given the overall size of his lot, it would be possible to fill the property to the proper grade level so that the bottom of the drain field trenches, when installed in the resulting mound, would be above the ten- year flood elevation. The Petitioner however supplied no detailed information about how such an alternative system might be installed and operate and, most particularly, did not supply the requisite engineering certification and information which might show that the installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the base flood. This might have been done, for instance, by establishing that a sufficient volume of fill could be removed from his property, elsewhere, to build the requisite mound and thereby not alter the surface elevation of the base flood. Such evidence is lacking in this proceeding however and cannot therefore serve as a basis for a grant of the permit, by means of illustrating an alternative system or approach for treating the sewage effluent which will comport with the rules. Pursuant to the authority of the statutes cited in the conclusions of law below and in related rules, lots platted before 1972 are accorded special consideration in determining whether to grant septic tank system permits (or variances). The Petitioner, however, did not adduce evidence of whether the subdivision known by the name "Riverbend Estates" of which his lot 28 is a part, is a platted subdivision at all, and did not establish that even if it is that it was platted and recorded before 1972. Thus no evidence has been adduced which will justify the special consideration provided for in the authority cited below. The grant of variances from the permitting rules involve the demonstration of hardship as a basic consideration. Hardship involves a demonstration that there is no reasonable means by which an on-site disposal system can be installed which will comply with the permitting rules, that is, impossibility of compliance is the bellwether for demonstration of hardship. It is also provided in the variance statute and rules cited below that the hardship may not be intentionally caused by the action of the applicant for the permit or variance himself. The Petitioner, having the burden of proof here, did not adduce direct evidence to establish that any hardship preventing compliance with the permitting rules was not intentionally caused by the Petitioner. However, the overall tenor of the Petitioner's testimony establishes inferentially, without doubt, that the hardship involving the Petitioner's impossibility of compliance with the permitting rules, given the presently prevailing grade level of his lot and installation site, was caused merely by his purchase of the property. He took no action involving that purchase to place himself in a position where he intentionally could claim a hardship situation and a justification of variance from the permitting rules and thus render himself legally capable of installing the subject system. He merely purchased the lot in good faith with, the intention of using it for a single family dwelling and did not intend by that mere act to place himself in a position to claim a hardship situation and thus circumvent the permitting rules. The similar use of the nearby lots in the subdivision for single family dwellings and which he was aware already had permitted septic tank type on-site disposal systems in place and operating led him to believe he could install a similar system. He was thus an innocent purchaser and did not intentionally create a hardship situation to thereby avoid compliance with permitting rules. In fact, however, the Petitioner has not truly established that he is in a hardship situation, that is, that he can not possibly comply with the permitting rules. This is because, by his own admission, he has sufficient land area on his lot to permit the "mounding" of an on-site disposal system. If this were accomplished it is quite likely that he could comply with the permitting rules and not require a variance, based upon a showing of hardship. The problem with this approach is that the Petitioner's proof fails because he did not adduce the requisite engineering certification and testimony justifying the grant of a permit based upon the building of the lot and mounding of the system. If this were accomplished in the future, it is quite likely that a permit could be granted for this lot. In a like vein, in terms of the variance issue portion of this proceeding, it has not been demonstrated by the Petitioner that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage involved nor has it been demonstrated that the discharge from the Petitioner's proposed sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. In this last regard, it although soil conditions prevailing at the proposed installation site and water table elevations beneath the surface of the property are appropriate as that relates to the requisite interval of "slight limited" soil between the bottom of drain field absorption beds and the water table elevation, the fact remains that these trenches or beds are beneath the ten-year flood elevation and thus pose the potential to degrade ground or surface testers. Thus the other requisite elements for establishment of entitlement to a variance from the permitting rules have not been made out by the Petitioner's proof. In fact, the Petitioner's proof establishes that a reasonable alternative may indeed exist for the treatment of the sewage involved with mounding of the system, since his grade elevation is only approximately 2.5 feet below the relevant flood elevation and unrefuted evidence shows that he has sufficient area on his lot to permit the mounding of the system with the requisite adjacent "buffer area". This constitutes a reasonable alternative which may comply with the permitting rules. Unfortunately, however, Petitioner's proof did not include the requisite engineering information and certification so that a recommendation for grant of the permit in the regulatory floodway can be made at this time. Having been denied his permit application on December 19, 1989 the Petitioner on March 5, 1989 applied for the subject variance referenced above. On April l9, 1990 the Petitioner was advised by the Respondent that it was useless to proceed with a variance application and that a formal administrative hearing should be sought before Division of Administrative Hearings instead. This is because of Executive Order 90-14 entered by the Governor, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation in evidence and, specifically, "recommendation #36." That portion of the report in effect recommended that on-site sewage disposal systems within the ten year flood plain area should be prohibited. The Department interpreted the effect of that executive order, incorporating the recommended prohibition from the task force report, to mean that such variances absolutely could not be granted by the Department, hence, its recommendation to the Petitioner and others similarly situated, that they should immediately seek a formal administrative hearing on the question, rather than expend time and expense pursuing the Department's internal variance procedure. The Department has thus in this in similar cases interpreted that executive order to create, and effect, a conclusive presumption that variances can not be granted in any case in which the installation site for the on- site sewage disposal system is at or beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In effect, therefore, it declines to exercise any discretion when confronted with variance request related to lots or property where the installation site for the proposed system occurs beneath the ten-year flood elevation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an on-site sewage disposal permit and denying a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administration Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4170 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but not directly material to resolution of the issues presented for adjudication. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: (None submitted) COPIES FURNISHED: Desmond Harbroe 4550 N.W. 43rd Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Asst. District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
