The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) may issue to Respondent Republic Services of Florida, L.P. (Republic), permits to construct and operate a Class III landfill, pursuant to Permit Numbers 266830-003-SC/01 and 266830-004-SO/01, as modified as set forth below.
Findings Of Fact Background On June 30, 2009, Republic filed with DEP an application for a permit to construct and operate a Class I landfill (Application). In response to DEP's request for additional information dated July 30, 2009 (RAI), Republic filed a response dated September 14, 2009 (RRAI), upon receipt of which, DEP deemed the Application to be complete. References to the Application typically include the Application, RRAI, and other materials, such as reports, plans, and drawings, that are part of the Application, as well as three subsequent modifications, which are detailed below. Republic revised several reports, plans, and drawings in the RRAI; references to these items, such as the Engineering Report and Operation Plan, are to the versions contained in the RRAI. On November 13, 2009, DEP filed its intent to issue construction permit #266830- 003-SC/01 (Construction Permit) and intent to issue operation permit #266830-004-SO/01 (Operation Permit; collectively, the Permit). Republic Services, Inc. and its affiliates constitute the second largest waste-management operator group in the United States. Their market capitalization is just over $11 billion. The capitalization of the affiliate formed to operate the subject landfill is doubtlessly less than $11 billion, as the record does not suggest that any significant part of the overall capitalization of Republic Services, Inc., and its affiliates would be at risk in the operation of the proposed landfill. Republic presently owns and operates a Class III landfill in the City of Bartow, Polk County, known as the Cedar Trail Landfill. The oldest part of this landfill is an unlined Class III landfill of 52.5 acres in the center of the property owned by Republic. Immediately west of this unlined landfill is a 30.7-acre lined Class III landfill, which comprises cells 1-4. The Cedar Trail Landfill is located at 2500 West State Road 60, about three miles west northwest of the intersection of State Road 60 and State Road 98, which marks the center of Bartow. The landfill is immediately west of E.F. Griffin Road. Petitioners Frost live on E.F. Griffin Road, about one mile north of the Cedar Trail Landfill. Petitioner Highland Lakes Estates Homeowner's Association serves a residential subdivision known as Highland Lakes Estates. Highland Lakes Estates occupies a notch at the southeast corner of Republic's property. Aerial photographs reveal the changing land use of the land on which Cedar Trail Landfill is situated. Fifty years ago, the land was vacant with indications of agricultural uses. At the site of the proposed landfill were mostly citrus groves on the west side and some rangeland or vacant land on the east side. Ten years later, a large area immediately northeast of the subject land reveals the effects of strip mining for phosphate. Three years later, in 1971, the mined area had greatly expanded to encompass all or nearly all of the subject site and much of the surrounding area, including the western half of what would become Highland Lakes Estates. By 1980, the pits had been refilled and active mining had ceased, and the streets had been constructed for what is now known as Highland Lakes Estates. By 1993, about three dozen homes had been built in this residential, large-lot subdivision. 9. The Cedar Trail Landfill was constructed in the early 1990s as an unlined construction and demolition debris landfill. Now designated an approved landfill for Class III waste, this facility accepts such waste as is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(14) (2010), which includes construction and demolition debris, yard trash, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, paper, glass, furniture (but not white goods), plastic, and other materials not expected to produce leachate that presents a risk to the public health or environment. A zoning/land use map reveals that the land for which the proposed landfill is proposed is designated "sewage/borrow pits/spray fields." Highland Lakes Estates occupies land that is designated single-family residential with a density of one dwelling unit on up to 2.49 acres. The Cedar Trail Landfill has been the subject of three recent environmental resource permits (ERPs). Appendix R to the Application is an individual ERP issued in April 2009, and Appendix R to the RRAI is a conceptual ERP issued in March 2005. The April 2009 ERP mentions that the entire stormwater project was conceptually approved by an ERP issued on September 10, 2008, but this ERP is not part of the record. In any event, these ERPs approve the construction of a comprehensive stormwater or surface water management system for the entire Republic property. In particular, the April 2009 ERP permits the construction of a borrow pit at the southeast corner of the Republic property and a modification of the perimeter ditch/wet retention system. The April 2009 ERP states that the permitted stormwater management system will provide total onsite retention for runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The April 2009 ERP requires 2.8 acres of compensation for 2.8 acres of encroachment in the 100-year floodplain. Specific Condition 14 prohibits excavation of the borrow pits to a clay confining layer or limestone bedrock layer. Specific Condition 20 prohibits the mixing of leachate with stormwater and provides that, if leachate enters stormwater, the stormwater becomes leachate. Presumably reflecting this permitting activity, Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, is the site plan, including the unlined Class III landfill, the four-cell lined Class III landfill immediately to the west of the unlined landfill, and the eight cells proposed to accept Class I waste. These eight cells are immediately south of the four cells of the lined Class III landfill. The two northernmost of these eight cells abut, on their east boundary, the unlined Class III landfill. The remaining six cells abut, on their east boundary, an 800-foot wide borrow pit, which lies between these cells and Highland Lakes Estates. Immediately north of Highland Lake Estates is a second borrow pit, and west of this borrow pit is the unlined Class III landfill. The other major feature on the site plan is a third borrow pit running, from west to east, along the north border of the lined Class III cells, the unlined Class III landfill, and the second borrow pit. Bearing no signs of ambitious reclamation activity, the backfilled mining cuts host large water storage areas and, as described in the application for the March 2005 ERP, wetlands of "very poor quality." The backfilled soils are best described as complex surficial soils, consisting mostly of fine sands with varying amounts of organics, silts, and clays. Geotechnical investigations of the Cedar Trail Landfill suggest that mining depths, although variable, probably averaged 40 feet. Petitioners and Intervenor are substantially affected by the Permit and the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, which will stand nearly 200 feet above grade and will be the focus of substantial activity six days per week during its years of operation. Like Petitioners, Intervenor owns land in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Trail Landfill, which is in the jurisdiction of Intervenor, and Intervenor's various municipal operations are much affected by whether the proposed Class I landfill is permitted. Among other things, Intervenor has agreed to accept untreated leachate from the proposed landfill. Petitioners Frost built their home in 1980 or 1981. During the hours of operation of the existing landfill, Petitioners Frost constantly hear the beeping noise of heavy- duty equipment, presumably a safety device when the equipment is moved. Over a dozen lots in Highland Lakes Estates abut the property line of the Cedar Trail Landfill, and the closest residence is about 1000 feet from the nearest proposed Class I cell. At present, the existing landfill subjects the Highland Lakes Estates to constant noise during operating hours and a coating of dust inside their homes. Several residents of Highland Lakes Estates testified. Hard-working people, some of whom are now retired, these residents decided to purchase homes in Highland Lakes Estates because it was a sunny, healthy place to live. Over time, most of these residents, by varying degrees, have come to accept the fact of the Class III operations at Cedar Trail Landfill, but they object to the substantial intensification of land use that will result from a regional Class I landfill. One resident testified that she finds in her pool dirt that has escaped from the existing landfill, and she has become concerned about her grandchildren coming over to swim. Another resident testified that he only began closing his windows five or six years ago when the noise levels at the existing landfill increased; he eventually had to install a window air- conditioner. The same resident testified that the green herons and snowy egrets that he used to see around his house have not returned for five years, and his wife, who has health problems, including respiratory distress, would suffer from the expanded landfill operations. Application, RRAI, and Permit, Including Modifications The Permit incorporates the Application, including the RRAI, Engineering Report, Operation Plan, and drawings. Thus, all of the documents are part of the Permit. In the Application, Republic proposes to convert cells 5-8, which are not yet constructed, from a Class III to a Class I landfill and add four new cells adjacent to the unused cells. The unfilled portion of Cells 1-4 would continue to receive only Class III waste. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(13) (2010), Class I waste is all solid waste, other than hazardous waste, that is not otherwise prohibited by rule. The Application states that the proposed landfill will serve communities within 100 miles. The service area of this regional landfill will thus extend in central Florida from Marion to Osceola counties, along the Gulf Coast from Pasco to Lee counties, and along the Atlantic Coast from Volusia to Martin counties. As stated in the Application, this service area is populated by 9.7 million persons, who would daily account for 3000 tons of waste at the Cedar Trail Landfill. Initially, according to the Engineering Report, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste, but, once the existing Class III cells are filled, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste plus the 1400 tons per day of the Class III waste that is currently going into the existing landfill. As revised by the RRAI, the life expectancy of the proposed landfill is seven years. The Application states that Republic will employ an attendant, a trained operator, and 3-5 spotters at the landfill. The Application reports that the landfill would operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the working face would be covered daily. The Application reports that Republic would install seven new detection wells and use 17 existing wells for monitoring groundwater and would use two existing staff gauges for monitoring surface water, evidently at a single location, as discussed in the next paragraph. 23. Application Appendix V is the Water Monitoring Plan. Appendix V states that surface water will be monitored every time that the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area discharges offsite, but not more frequently than weekly. Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, shows that the sole surface water monitoring location is close to the leachate storage tanks, which are described below. 23. Appendix V also requires leachate monitoring, "at least annually," for five field parameters--specific conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, colors, and sheens; eight laboratory parameters--including chloride, mercury, and total dissolved solids; and the parameters listed in 40 CFS Part 258, Appendix II, which includes a comprehensive list of volatile organic compounds; persistent organic pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (a major dioxin) and Dibenzofuran; and metals, including lead and chromium. Fourteen days prior to all sampling events, Republic is required to notify DEP, so that it may obtain split samples for its own analysis. Republic is required to report the results of the groundwater monitoring quarterly and to analyze the groundwater data in a technical report filed with DEP every two years. Appendix V also requires monitoring for odors and combustible gases, mostly methane. Republic will monitor combustible gas quarterly at various ambient locations, such as the office buildings and to monitor combustible gas quarterly in the soil down to the seasonal high water table. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine combustible gas concentrations and, if they exceed 25%, take "all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health." Some confusion in the Application arises as to the issue of whether the Cedar Trails Landfill will be subject to, or voluntarily implement, the more elaborate provisions applicable to a landfill covered under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Regulated emissions for a new source might include particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and specified hazardous air pollutants. Appendix V states that the landfill will become a Title V landfill once permitted to receive Class I waste, and, at that time, it will be subject to a "more comprehensive system of landfill gas collection and monitoring." Appendix V assures that these items "will be addressed in separate documentation from this monitoring plan"--and, apparently, separate from the present record. By contrast, the Operation Plan concedes only that, based on the nature of Class I waste and the design capacity of the proposed landfill, Cedar Trail Landfill "may" become a Title V facility. The Operation Plan states: "If the regulatory thresholds at [Cedar Trail Landfill] are met [under Title V] requiring an active gas collection and control system (GCCS), [Cedar Trail Landfill] will submit as required the GCCS design plans for approval and install an active gas extraction system within the regulatory timeframes specified by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart WWW." More specific provisions in the Operation Plan identify best management practices to prevent objectionable odors. Four practices are identified, including an "active gas collection and extraction system." On the DEP form application, which is a cover sheet to the more elaborate application materials, Republic checked boxes indicating that the landfill would use active gas controls with gas flaring and gas recovery, which is probably what is meant by an "active gas collection and extraction system." The Application provides that the landfill liner would be double composite; the leachate collections system would consist of collection pipes, geonets, and a sand layer; the leachate would be stored in tanks; some of the leachate would be recirculated as spray on the working face; and the remainder of the leachate would be stored onsite and periodically transferred to a wastewater treatment center for treatment. The Engineering Report states that the waste disposal footprint will not be located where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the waste. The Engineering Report identifies appendices addressing the slope-stability analysis and foundation analysis and relies on a March 12, 1997, report by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. (Ardaman Report), January 23, 2004, report by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder Report), and June 26, 2009, report by Hanecki Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Hanecki Report). These items are discussed in greater detail below in connection with the sinkhole issue. The Engineering Report assures that the waste disposal footprint will not be within 500 feet of an existing or approved potable water well, nor will it be within 1000 feet of an existing or approved potable water well serving a community water supply. The Engineering Report adds that the minimum horizontal distance between waste deposits and the property line is 100 feet. The Engineering Report assures that the landfill footprint will not be in a dewatered pit, as the installation elevations are at least 2-3 feet higher than the seasonal high water table. The Engineering Report acknowledges that a small part of the eastern end of the four southernmost cells lies within the 100-year floodplain, as depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Map effective December 29, 2000, and as shown in Application Appendix A, Drawing 1. Claiming that the relevant map was not revised in 2000, the Engineering Report asserts that the last update to the FIRM map was in 1975, and the depicted floodplain was filled during the mine reclamation process. The Engineering Report notes that the floodplain concerns were addressed in the April 2009 ERP. 34. The Engineering Report discloses two enforcement actions against Republic at the Cedar Trail Landfill. In a letter dated October 19, 2001, DEP warned Republic about noncompliant items at the site, and, in a notice of noncompliance dated January 30, 2006, DEP warned Republic not to use a new cell prior to construction certification of the cell's stormwater system. Both matters were reportedly resolved, and Republic has not been the subject of other enforcement actions for the Cedar Trails Landfill. At DEP's urging, the RRAI elaborates on enforcement actions against Republic or, evidently, Republic affiliates at a variety of Florida facilities, not just landfills. The additional information reveals that DEP imposed a fine of $61,300 for the October 2001 violations, which included disposing of unacceptable waste, storing an excessive number of tires and exceeding groundwater standards without notifying DEP, and a fine of $1000 for the January 2006 notice of noncompliance. The other enforcement actions against Republic or affiliates concerning landfills involved consent orders about the Nine Mile Road Landfill (Seaboard Waste): in February 2003, DEP imposed a fine of $13,000 in settlement of charges that employees were not removing all unacceptable waste from the site and, in November 2005, DEP imposed a $285 fine for a failure to submit required stormwater monitoring reports. There were many other enforcement actions, generally resulting in modest fines, but they involved hauling facilities, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities, not landfills. The Engineering Report states that the proposed landfill is within six miles of, but greater than 10,000 feet from, the Bartow Municipal Airport. Airport safety is addressed in more detail below. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system, which uses materials whose physical, chemical, and mechanical properties prevent failure due to contact with Class I waste and leachate, climactic conditions, installation stress, and other applied stresses and hydraulic pressures. The Engineering Report performs no contingency sinkhole analysis. The report does not suggest that the liner system could withstand the stresses and pressures resulting from any size sinkhole, so the necessary inference is that the liner will fail if any sinkhole forms directly beneath it. The Engineering Report states that waste placement will remain within the lined containment berm. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system for use at the proposed landfill. The primary liner system and secondary liner system each comprises three layers with the top layer consisting of a composite drainage net, the middle layer consisting of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane with a minimum average thickness of 60 ml, and the bottom layer consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-9 cm/second. The Engineering Report describes in detail the leachate collection and removal system, which, sitting atop the primary liner, includes a 24-inch thick sand drainage layer with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/second, a composite drainage net, and a single perforated 8-inch diameter lateral pipe in each cell. The collection lateral pipes will gravity drain to the east to a header pipe that gravity drains to the primary leachate collection pump stations--one station for the four converted cells and one station for the four new cells. A smaller leachate collection and removal system will handle the leachate that penetrates to the leak detection layer by routing it to a secondary leachate collection pump station. Based on calculations derived from the HELP groundwater model, the leachate collection and removal system is designed to prevent leachate head from exceeding the thickness of the composite drainage net (about 1 cm) over the secondary geomembrane and from exceeding one foot over the primary geomembrane. According to the Engineering Report, flow meters will be installed at each of the pump stations to allow daily readings of the amount of leachate being pumped. At one foot of head over the primary liner, the Engineering Report expects just over three gallons per day collected at each secondary leachate collection pump station--significantly less than the leakage rate typical of a double liner system without a geosynthetic clay liner beneath the primary liner. However, the Engineering Report provides a standard action leakage rate of 100 gallons/acre/day, meaning that Republic is required to report to DEP liner leakage only when this leakage rate is attained. The pump stations will transmit the leachate to one of two above-ground, 150,000-gallon storage tanks. From these tanks, most of the leachate will be transported to an offsite location for treatment. However, up to 12,000 gallons per day of the untreated leachate will be recirculated to be sprayed on the working faces of the landfill. This is to control dust and possibly to assist with the degradation of the waste. The Engineering Report states that the Cedar Trail Landfill implements a facility-wide water quality monitoring plan. Upon completion of the pump stations for the eight cells that are the subject of the Application, Republic will expand its leachate sampling program to include annual sampling of the leachate collected in the primary and secondary leachate collection pump stations. The groundwater monitoring wells would be installed as closely as possible to the outer edge of the roadway that, with a stormwater ditch, will run the perimeter of the proposed Class I landfill. In the revised Engineering Report contained in the RRAI, Republic proposes a surface water discharge point in the stormwater pond located near the leachate storage tanks. The Engineering Report adds that Republic will continue to comply with the following prohibitions: No waste will be knowingly burned on site; Hazardous waste will not knowingly be accepted; PCB contaminated waste will not knowingly be accepted; Untreated biomedical waste will not knowingly be accepted. Please note that treated biomedical waste may be accepted at [Cedar Trail Landfill]'s Class I Landfill provided that the waste containers are marked "Treated Biomedical Waste.;" No waste disposal at the proposed Class I Landfill will occur within 3,000 feet of a Class I surface water body; [Cedar Trails Landfill] will not knowingly accept liquid waste within containers, excluding leachate and gas condensate derived from solid waste disposal operations. [Cedar Trails Landfill] will comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.300(10), FAC regarding the handling of liquid wastes; Neither oily waste nor commingled oily waste will knowingly be accepted; and Lead-acid batteries, used oil, white goods, and whole-waste tires will not knowingly be disposed of in the Class I waste disposal system. The Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, identified above, adds four items to this list of operational prohibitions: i. Garbage will not be knowingly accepted; Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste, will not be knowingly accepted; Animal carcasses will not be knowingly accepted; and Aluminum dross will not be knowingly accepted. Capitalized terms are generally defined in the Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(39) defines "Garbage" as " all kitchen and table food waste, and animal or vegetative waste that is attendant with or results from the storage, preparation, cooking, or handling of food materials." Application Appendix H is the Operation Plan, which also identifies the types of wastes to be permitted at the proposed landfill. Section 3(b) of the Operation Plan authorizes the proposed landfill to accept: Commercial waste Ash residue Incinerator by-pass waste Construction and demolition debris, including from a residence Treated biomedical waste Agricultural waste Industrial waste Yard trash, including from a residence Sewage sludge Industrial sludge Water/air treatment sludges Waste tires De minimis amounts of non-hazardous waste from incidental residential sources Section 5 of the Operation Plan provides, in relevant part: [Cedar Trail Landfill] will accept waste included in any of the waste categories identified under Section 3(b) of this Operation Plan[, but] will . . . NOT knowingly accept any hazardous waste, untreated biomedical waste, liquid waste (including paint), explosive waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste for disposal at the [Cedar Trail Landfill.] Unacceptable types of refuse are listed below and will not be knowingly accepted for disposal. --Hazardous waste --Explosive waste --Radioactive waste --Drums that have not been opened and Emptied --Refrigerators, freezers, air Conditioners (white goods) --Any toxic or hazardous materials, i.e. batteries, solvents, oil, etc. --Automobiles or parts that contain fuel, lubricants, or coolants --Untreated Biomedical waste The original Application prohibited the acceptance of septic tank pumpage, but the application form accompanying the original Application indicated that the proposed landfill would accept industrial sludge and domestic sludge. After modification by the RRAI, the prohibition against accepting septic tank pumpage was deleted, and the Operating Plan added, among acceptable wastes, sewage sludge, industrial sludge, and water- and air-treatment sludge. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(101) (2001) defines "sludge" to include solid waste pollution control residual from an industrial or domestic wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, air pollution control facility, septic tank, grease trap, portable toilet, or other source generating a waste with similar characteristics. Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200(64) (2001) defines "liquid waste" as any waste with free liquids, according to the "Paint Filler Liquids Test." As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Section 5 of the Operation Plan was amended to add the following items to unacceptable types of refuse that will not be knowingly accepted for disposal: --Garbage --Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste --Animal carcasses --Aluminum dross At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan that unacceptable waste would include Garbage contained in commercial, industrial or agricultural waste. According to the Operation Plan, the initial waste screening occurs at the gate house where the attendant interviews the driver and inspects the incoming waste load. If the attendant sees more than a negligible amount of unauthorized wastes, he will reject the load and will contact the hauler to identify the source of the waste. Additionally, Republic will notify DEP if anyone tries to dispose of hazardous waste at the proposed landfill. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, the Operation Plan was amended to provide a new paragraph between the paragraph addressing the initial waste screening at the gate house and, as discussed below, the second screening at the working face. The new paragraph provides: Any malodorous waste will be covered with mulch and/or additional soil or other approved cover materials to control odors promptly, within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. Cedar Trail Landfill will promptly cover any sludge deposited on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of the unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan, which would prohibit Republic from accepting malodorous waste or sludge that, due to exigent circumstances, it would not be able to cover within one hour from the time of unloading. If the load passes the initial waste screening, it will proceed to the working face of the landfill, according to the Operation Plan. At least one spotter will be stationed at the working face at all times that the landfill receives waste. Her job will be to detect unauthorized wastes. Republic is to assure that it has a sufficient number of spotters to find and remove unauthorized waste prior to compaction. The Operation Plan allows the spotter to work from ground level or the cab of a compactor. If the operator of a piece of heavy equipment is trained as a spotter, she may also serve as a spotter. During periods of higher waste traffic, the equipment operator will, according to the Operation Plan, "likely" need the assistance of another operator or spotter to screen the higher waste volumes. When finding unauthorized wastes in manageable volumes, the spotter or operator will remove these wastes by hand and place them into nearby containers for removal to an appropriate facility. The third waste screen occurs as the equipment operator spreads the waste, pursuant to the Operation Plan. The equipment operator is required to place any unacceptable observed wastes into containers, which will be located "within the lined area." These wastes will also be removed to an appropriate facility. In the RAI, DEP questioned the proximity of the containers to the working face, as the lined area consists of 72 acres, but, in the RRAI, Republic ignored the comment, restating only that the containers would not be located outside the lined area. The Operation Plan specifies a filling sequence. Republic will assure that the first layer of waste placed above the liner in each cell will be a minimum of four feet in compacted thickness and will be free of rigid objects that could damage the liner or leachate collection and removal system. Republic will maintain the working face to minimize the amount of exposed waste and initial cover necessary at the end of each day. The filling sequence will proceed until the permitted final grade elevations have been reached, less three feet for the final cover. The Operation Plan states that the initial cover at the Class I landfill will consist of a six-inch layer of soil that is transferred from onsite borrow pits or offsite sources. This soil will be compacted and placed on top of the waste by the end of each work day. At Republic's option, subject to DEP's approval, it may use a spray-on or tarpaulin cover, instead of a soil cover. The Operation Plan requires Republic to apply at least one foot of intermediate cover within seven days of cell completion, if additional waste will not be deposited within 180 days of cell completion. Republic may remove all or part of this intermediate cover before placing additional waste or the final cover. Through the placement of initial, daily, and intermediate cover, Republic will minimize the occurrence of moisture infiltration, fires, odors, blowing litter, and animals and other disease vectors. 59. The Operation Plan requires Republic to control litter primarily by daily waste compaction and cover. However, at least daily, if needed, employees will collect litter along the entrance and access roads and around the working face. Complaints about litter must be logged. In addition to the inspections detailed above, the Operation Plan establishes a random load-checking program to detect unauthorized wastes. Each week, Republic employees will examine at least three random loads of solid waste by requiring drivers to discharge their loads at a designated location within the landfill where the employees may undertake a detailed inspection. All random inspections will be logged. Notwithstanding the daily limit of 12,000 gallons per day, the Operation Plan prohibits Republic from spraying leachate during rain events. To apply the recirculated leachate, the lead operator will drive the leachate tanker truck on the working face, so that it can spray leachate over waste as it is being compacted, but after it has been screened by spotters. The spraying will be done to avoid causing leachate to pond atop the waste and will not be done within 50 feet of an outside slope. No restrictions apply to wind conditions. The Operation Plan states that, if the annual sampling of leachate water quality at the two pump stations reveals a contaminant in excess of the permissible limits listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24, Republic will start monthly sampling and notify DEP in writing. Also, the Cedar Trail Landfill will maintain a recording rain gauge. The Operation Plan requires Republic employees to conduct daily surveys for objectionable odors and take immediate corrective action, if odors are found at the property line. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, this portion of the Operation Plan was amended to add two odor- remediation actions and another form of odor inspection. The two additional actions to prevent odors are to 1) provide additional cover using mulch, additional soil, or other approved cover material and 2) use odor masking or neutralizing agents. The new inspection provision states: Internal inspection will be performed on a weekly basis by a properly trained odor ranger or equivalently trained person. Such individual will tour the facility, property boundary, and the subdivision of Highland Lakes Estates . . . to identify any odors leaving the Landfill's property boundaries. The results of each weekly inspection will be document, and any odors identified will be mitigated. Another new provision from the Joint Stipulation for Permit Modification applies to the handling of sludge. As amended, the Operation Plan states: When accepting sludge from a new source or distributor, [Republic] will obtain information regarding the characteristics and constituents of the sludge, including a description of the industrial process or circumstances that resulted in the generation of the sludge. Upon delivery of the sludge, [Republic] will mix lime, sodium hydroxide, or any other suitable agents to eliminate objectionable odors as required during disposal of the sludge before the material is covered. Furthermore, [Republic] will obtain advance notice from contributors prior to delivery of any sludge and shall promptly cover any sludge unloaded on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as severe weather. [Republic] shall use its best efforts to avoid accepting or disposing of sludge on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. Additionally, with respect to sludge received from wastewater treatment facilities only, such sludge shall not exceed the lesser of (1) twenty percent (20%) of the total volume of waste disposed in the landfill on an average monthly basis, determined annually on the prior calendar year, or (2) two-hundred (200) tons per day, averaged over the prior 12-month calendar year. Republic is required to monitor combustible gases quarterly and transmit the results to DEP, according to the Operation Plan. If Republic detects methane above the limits specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.530 (2010), Republic must submit a gas remediation plan to DEP within seven days. The Operating Plan indicates that the separation of the waste from the groundwater prevents the saturation of the waste and, thus, the generation of odor. Sloping and compacting will promote stormwater runoff, again to discourage the generation of odor. The Construction Permit authorizes construction of the proposed landfill in accordance with the "rules[,] . . . reports, plans and other information" submitted by Republic "(unless otherwise specified)." This parenthetical reference provides that the provisions of the Construction Permit control over any contrary provisions in the other documents that are part of the Permit due to incorporation by reference. In addition to the original Application, RRAI, and drawings, the Construction Permit also incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001). The Construction Permit states that Republic may not violate the prohibitions set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Construction Permit Specific Condition A.9.a requires notification to DEP of the discovery of limestone during excavation or discovery. Specific Condition A.9.b requires notification to DEP of any surface depressions or other indications of sinkhole activity onsite or within 500 feet of the site. Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Construction Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate, during construction or operation, to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner and leachate management system. Specific Condition C.4 prohibits the acceptance of hazardous waste and does not condition this prohibition on Republic's knowledge that the waste is a hazardous waste. Specific Condition C.5 requires Republic to "control . . . odors and fugitive particulates (dust)" and "minimize the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property." "Nuisance conditions" include "complaints confirmed by [DEP] personnel upon site inspection." Specific Condition C.5 orders Republic to "take immediate corrective action to abate the nuisance" and to "control disease vectors so as to protect the public health and welfare." Construction Permit Specific Condition C.6.b requires immediate notice to DEP of any sinkholes or other subsurface instability. Specific Condition C.8 requires Republic to manage leachate in accordance with the Operating Permit and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-700.500(8). The Operating Permit incorporates the same materials that are incorporated into the Construction Permit, again "(unless otherwise specified)." Like the Construction Permit, the Operating Permit incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001) and requires immediate notice to DEP in the event of a sinkhole or subsurface instability. The Operating Permit specifies that the action leakage rate is 100 gallons per acre per day and the leachate recirculation rate is 12,000 gallons per day. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition A.1.b states: This Facility is not authorized to accept Garbage; untreated Biomedical Waste; animal carcasses; liquids and non-liquid PCB containing materials or wastes with a PCB concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million; Liquid Waste; and aluminum dross. Additionally, this facility is not authorized to accept Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste. Class III waste means yard trash, construction and demolition debris, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, or other materials approved by [DEP] that are not expected to produce leachate which are a threat to public health or the environment as defined in Rule 62-701.200(14), F.A.C. Based on this authorization to allow certain wastes as described above from residential sources, and since the landfill design, including liner and leachate collection systems, meets the requirements of Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., for Class I landfills, the facility will be entitled to [the] household hazardous waste exemption pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(1). Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner. Specific Condition C.1.c prohibits the discharge of "residual contaminants," such as gasoline, oil, paint, antifreeze, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), onto the ground or into surface water or groundwater. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides that authorized waste types are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations Plan, and unacceptable wastes shall be removed from the site as described in Sections 3(a) and 7. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides: "Waste types authorized for management at this site are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations [sic] Plan. Unacceptable wastes are those listed in Section 5 [of the Operation Plan] " Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(2) requires the use of a sufficient number of spotters to remove unacceptable wastes, but allows Republic to direct its equipment operators to serve as spotters from the equipment. This condition allows DEP to require that spotters work from the ground, if DEP determines that spotting from equipment is not effective. Specific Condition C.1.k(3) requires Republic to remove unacceptable wastes immediately and not to unload additional wastes in the immediate vicinity until placing unacceptable wastes in the designated waste containers" "near the working face" and within the lined landfill area. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.l(2) requires Republic to inspect on each operating day the property boundary for objectionable odors and, if any are detected, abate them in accordance with Specific Condition C.5. Specific Condition C.5.a requires Republic to control odors, disease vectors (insects and rodents), and fugitive particles (dust and smoke) to protect the public health and welfare. Control is defined as "minimiz[ing]" the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property. Odors confirmed by DEP personnel are a nuisance condition, and Republic must take immediate corrective action to "abate" the nuisance. Specific Condition C.5.b provides that, if odor control measures do not "sufficiently abate" objectionable odors within 30 days, Republic will submit an odor remediation plan to DEP for approval. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.8.e requires monthly reports to DEP of leachate quantities. Specific Condition C.8.h(1) prohibits recirculation of leachate at rates that result in seepage that may discharge outside the lined area. Leachate may not be sprayed when the application area is saturated or during a rainfall event. There is no prohibition against spraying during windy conditions. Operating Permit Specific Condition E details the extensive water quality monitoring requirements. However, Specific Condition E.9.b requires only annual testing of the five field parameters, eight laboratory parameters, and the comprehensive list of Appendix II parameters set forth in 40 CFR Part 258, all of which are identified below. Specific Condition E.9.c provides that, if a contaminant listed in 40 CFR 261.24 exceeds the level listed therein, Republic will notify DEP and take monthly leachate samples until no exceedances are detected for three consecutive months. Operating Permit Specific Condition F.1.a states: "This solid waste permit will meet the statutory requirement to obtain an air construction permit before . . . constructing a source of air pollution, except for those landfills that are subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of Chapter 62-212, F.A.C." Such facilities are required to obtain an air construction permit from the Bureau of Air Regulations prior to construction. Specific Condition F.1.b requires Republic to comply with Title V of 40 CFR 60, Subparts WWW and CC. This section notes that Title V permit applications must be submitted to the District Air Program Administrator or County Air Program Administrator responsible for the landfill. Aviation Safety Landfills attract birds in search of food. Flying birds may interfere with aviation safety. Thus, landfills are typically not located in close proximity to airfields to minimize the risk that flying birds will interfere with airborne aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. The nearest airport to the Cedar Trail Landfill is the Bartow Municipal Airport, which is operated by the Bartow Aviation Development Authority. This airport is over five miles from the footprint of the active landfill and 4.6 miles from the boundary of the proposed site. Republic provided notice of the Application to all airports within six miles of the proposed landfill, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation. None of these entities objected to the proposed landfill. When Republic gave the Bartow Aviation Development Authority notice of an earlier application, which sought a permit for a landfill that would accept garbage, the authority objected to the proposal due to concerns posed by birds to aviation safety. When asked about the Application, the authority's executive director testified that she still has concerns about the proposed landfill, but she did not specify the nature of her concerns or her analysis. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, these are the only facts required for a determination of whether Republic has provided reasonable assurance of aviation safety. The record provides no basis for finding that Republic has failed to provide reasonable assurance of aviation safety. Neither the FAA nor the Bartow Aviation Development Authority has objected to the proposed landfill. The executive director's unspecified concerns do not override the absence of a formal objection from these agencies. Petitioners assign too much weight to the earlier objection submitted by the authority. The composition of the authority may have changed or some authority members may have decided they were wrong in their earlier analysis. This earlier objection does not outweigh the absence of objection to the present proposal from any of the aviation agencies and the absence of any evidence of the expected nature or extent of bird usage of the proposed landfill and the extent to which these birds would interfere with existing and expected flight paths of aircraft using the Bartow Municipal Airport. Public Health Petitioners' expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. David Carpenter, is a medical doctor with a long, prestigious history of public service, including with the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the United States Public Health Service, and the New York Department of Health, where he served as director from 1980-85. At that time, Dr. Carpenter started the School of Public Health at the University of Albany. Republic's expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. Christopher Teaf, is an expert in the evaluation of environmental contamination, waste management, and toxicology, but not a medical doctor. Dr. Teaf is a professor at Florida State University and owns a small consulting firm. The major part of Dr. Carpenter's career has been devoted to research. For the past ten years, he has focused more on human health, especially human disease from exposure to environmental contaminants. Dr. Carpenter has considerable experience with the adverse effects of landfills on human health, but his experience has been mostly with older landfills, where containment measures were few and offsite releases were many. Clearly, Dr. Carpenter's experience does not extend to the role of landfill design, construction, and operation in the transmission of human disease. Thus, Dr. Carpenter is qualified to opine on the effects of pollutants that may escape landfills, but not on the relationship of landfill design, construction, and operation on the probability that a landfill will transmit pollutants. For the most part, Dr. Carpenter did not attempt to address matters outside of his expertise. However, Dr. Carpenter testified that the risk of disease or injury increased in relationship to the proximity of the person to the landfill. This testimony can only be credited if one assumes that the landfills are identical in terms of design, construction, and operation and in terms of the environmental conditions of the landfill site. In other words, in real-world applications, it is impossible to credit this element of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, especially to the extent of his implicit suggestion that public health is unreasonably endangered by the construction of a landfill, in compliance with all rules, that satisfies all of the separation criteria and design criteria set forth in the rules, as discussed below. By contrast, Dr. Teaf focused on the details of the proposed landfill. Applying his knowledge of toxicology, Dr. Teaf determined that the proposed landfill adequately protects public health. In making this determination, Dr. Teaf analyzed the effects of various design and operational characteristics of the proposed landfill, including the double liner system, the leachate collection and management system, the selection of appropriate waste types, the procedures for the evaluation and covering of sludges, the prohibition against municipal garbage, the restrictions on household items, the monitoring of groundwater and surface water, the stormwater management system, and the plans to control dust and odors. Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the literature that he sponsored suggested important links between older landfills and a wide range of human disease. But the recurring problem with Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the research articles that he sponsored was the inability to link this information to the proposed landfill. All of the landfills studied in his research articles were older, and most of them appeared to have been designed, constructed, and operated under far more relaxed regulatory regimes than exist today. Nothing in Dr. Carpenter's testimony or sponsored literature attempted to delineate the design or operational characteristics of these landfills, such as whether they were double- or even single-lined, served by leachate circulation and recovery systems, limited as to materials that they could accept, or required to install stormwater management and water monitoring systems. 93. Analysis of the risk to public health posed by the proposed landfill requires consideration of the various means of transmission of the pollutants received by the landfill: water, land, and air. Of these, water requires little analysis, on this record. Even Dr. Carpenter conceded that the proposed landfill does not appear to pose a threat to groundwater. The double liner, leachate collection and recovery system, and groundwater monitoring plan support the finding that groundwater transmission of pollutants from the proposed landfill is unlikely. Transmission by surface water is also unlikely. Compared to groundwater monitoring, surface water monitoring is limited. For instance, there is only a single monitoring site. Also, as noted above, the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area is expected to discharge stormwater offsite during excessive storm events, at which time surface water samples will be taken. However, a comprehensive surface water management system is in place at the landfill and will prevent offsite discharges in all but a few excessive rain events. Transmission by land is also unlikely. The Application contains engineering analysis of the proposed stability of the side slopes and a determination that they will be stable. The discussion of sinkholes, below, does not affect this finding. Treating dust as transmission by air, the only other means by which pollutants may transmit by land is by animals, such as insects, rodents, and birds. An important factor limiting the activity of animals in spreading pollutants offsite is the fact that the proposed landfill will not receive garbage. Although putrescible waste may be received within other categories of waste, the prohibition against receiving garbage will greatly reduce the amount of potential food sources for animals and thus the utilization rate of the proposed landfill by these animals. A further reduction in animal utilization will be achieved through the daily and intermediate cover requirements. Thus, transmission of pollutants by animals is also unlikely. Transmission by air takes several forms. Pollutants may be transmitted as or on dust, with water in the form of aerosol, or as gas. In terms of how transmission by air is addressed by the Permit, this means of transmission potentially represents a greater threat than transmission by water or land for four reasons. First, the explicit focus of the Permit, as to gas, is to avoid explosive concentrations of methane and objectionable odors, but not the transmission of other pollutants by air. Second, the effect of the Permit is to prohibit the release of pollutants into the groundwater or offsite surface water and to prohibit the release of pollutant-bearing land offsite, but no such flat prohibition applies to the offsite release of pollutants by air. Third, the leachate recirculation system provides a good opportunity for the release of certain pollutants into the air by aerosol or evaporation, but similar releases to offsite land, surface water, or groundwater are prohibited. Fourth, scientific understanding of the effects of exposure, especially by inhalation, to pollutants, especially in the form of organic compounds, is continuing to develop: with the use of chemicals increasing three fold in the 50 years preceding 1995 and approximately 80,000 chemicals in use in 2002, only a few hundreds of these chemicals have been subjected to long- or short-term study, resulting in the discovery that about 10% of the chemicals in use in 2002 were carcinogens. Transmission by dust appears to be limited by the frequent covering and spraying of the working faces. Although nearby residents complain of dust in their homes, the practices of the less-regulated Class III landfill cannot be extrapolated to the proposed Class I landfill. Thus, the prospect of dust transmission of chemicals contained in the fill received by the proposed landfill appears also to be slight. The use of untreated leachate as the spray medium to control the dust itself raises two risks, however. First, spraying leachate will release chemicals in aerosol. The potential range of aerosol is great, especially as the landfill ascends toward its design height of 190 feet. However, the risk of transmission by aerosol is reduced to insubstantial levels by adding a Permit condition that prohibits spraying during windy conditions. Second, depositing leachate on the landfill face will release chemicals through evaporation. The point of spraying the landfill face is to control dust between the addition of the waste materials to the pile and the application of the cover. Between these two events, dry conditions will sometimes intervene and may cause the evaporation of certain, but not all, pollutants. The leachate acquires pollutants as it percolates down the waste column and into the leachate collection system. As Dr. Teaf noted, the leachate becomes more concentrated as it recirculates, but, otherwise, this record is largely silent as to the likely composition of the recirculated leachate. However, for landfills accepting sludge, higher levels of mercury may be present in the leachate. As reported by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, in a report issued March 2007, and titled, "Design and Operational Issues Related to Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids and Class I Landfills--Phase III," one study found that the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that receive sludge is almost three times greater than the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that do not accept sludge. The same study reported that total dissolved solids and chlorides were present at greater concentrations at the landfills that did not accept sludge and that other parameters--unidentified in the cited article--were not significantly different between the two types of landfills. Republic proposes to recirculate substantial volumes of leachate--sufficient, for instance, to raise the moisture content of the fill from 25 percent to 28.9 percent. The Permit allows the proposed landfill to operate six days per week, for a total of 312 days annually. The Operation Plan prohibits the application of leachate during rain, but the number of days annually during which rain extends for the entire day is few, probably no more than a dozen. These numbers suggest that Republic may apply as much as 3.6 million gallons annually of untreated leachate to the landfill face. The 12,000 gallon-per-day limit and restrictions on head in the leachate collection and removal system effectively limit the quantities of leachate that may be recirculated, but the sole provision addressing leachate water quality is the annual monitoring event described above. Given the time required to analyze the many parameters included in the EPA regulation, for most of the year between tests, Republic will be applying over three million gallons of leachate whose pollutant concentrations will be completely unknown. Some assurances emerge, though, when considering air transmission of pollutants by class. In general, on this record, as to transmission by gas, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a compound's volatility, which is a measure of its ability to enter the air, and a compound's persistence. VOCs are one of the most dangerous classes of pollutants to public health and include such carcinogens as benzene, tolulene, xylene and, the most dangerous of all VOCs, vinyl chloride, which is released upon the degradation of such common substances as plastics, carpets, and upholstery. Biogas, which is generated by the anerobic decomposition of organic compounds in a landfill, contains mostly methane and carbon dioxide, but also significant levels of VOCs. When inhaled, the primary results of exposure to VOC are respiratory irritation and allergenic effects. Volatility is measured by vapor pressure, which is a measure of a chemical's ability to get into the air. As their name suggests, VOCs enter the air easily. They are also capable of traveling great distances due to their light molecule. However, VOCs are easily destroyed by sunlight and diluted by wind. Other organic compounds common to landfills are only semi-VOCs, such as PCBs. Although less volatile, these chemicals, too, are hazardous to public health--in the case of PCBs, in any amount. Due to this fact and their persistence in the environment, the United States has prohibited the manufacture of PCBs for over 30 years. However, not only are PCBs considerably less likely to enter the air than VOCs, they also travel shorter distances than VOCs due to a heavier molecule. Dr. Carpenter opined that there is little evidence that PCBs are an issue in the proposed landfill. Another class of organic compound, 1000 times less volatile than even PCBs, is phthalates, which are used in the production of plastics. Phthalates pose significant threats to public health, especially reproductive health. However, the exceptionally low volatility of this compound renders transmission by evaporation highly unlikely. Much of the regulatory framework imposed on landfill design, construction, and operation arises out of concerns for the control of human pathogens, which are infection-causing organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. One of the great advances in human longevity in the United States occurred in the early 1900s--not with the development of antibiotics or improved medical care--but with the implementation of basic sanitation control and the removal of pathogens from the drinking water. For the proposed landfill, sludge will be the primary source of pathogens. Sludge is nutrient-rich organic matter, which will be received at the proposed landfill without any treatment except possibly dewatering. Even with the acceptance of sludge, the proposed landfill presents little risk for the transmission of pathogens. Pathogens communicate disease only when a person is exposed to an effective dose and are better transmitted by direct contact or animal than air. Bacterial pathogens are themselves killed by wind, as well as sunlight, temperature, and humidity differentials, so the preferred means of air transmission would be aerosol versus gas. The record permits no findings as to the persistence of pathogenic viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. However, as noted above in connection with the land transmission of pathogens, the immediate application of lime and cover to the sludge will tend to prevent the release of effective doses of pathogens by air, as well. The last major class of pollutant that could be transmitted by air is heavy metals, such as mercury or lead. Although these metals produce a wide range of neurological diseases and generally interfere with cognition and behavior, Dr. Carpenter admitted that heavy metals were not as much of a concern as VOCs, presumably due to their resistance to vaporization. Even though transmission by air is not as tightly controlled as transmission by water or land, for the four reasons noted above, there is little risk of transmission by air--i.e., dust, aerosol, or gas--when the specific properties of likely pollutants are considered. In all but five respects, then, Republic has provided reasonable assurance that public health will not be endangered by pollutants released from the landfill by water, land, or air. First, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs a condition that prohibits spraying leachate during windy conditions, which DEP may define as it reasonably sees fit. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this is a requirement in the rules and, due to its importance, should be restated explicitly in the Permit, which restates numerous other rule requirements. Second, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs more frequent monitoring of leachate water quality, at least at the frequency, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, set forth in the rules. Large volumes of untreated leachate will be recirculated through the landfill. Even if aerosol transmission is controlled, transmission by evaporation of some pollutants, although not the heavy metals, is possible. Also, pollutants are concentrated in recirculated leachate and thus the consequences of transmission into groundwater or surface water, however unlikely, become greater. At the same time, the action leakage rate is generous--to Republic, not the groundwater. At 100 gallons per acre per day, Republic is not required to report to DEP possible liner leakage until about 7300 gallons per day are lost to the surficial aquifer. Suitable for the detection of catastrophic failures associated with most sinkholes, this action leakage rate is too high to trigger action for small liner leaks. If Republic is to be allowed this much leakage into the groundwater, it must identify the leachate's constituents and their concentrations at least semi-annually. Third, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Application must extend the right of split testing to all of the parties in these cases, if DEP fails to exercise its right to take a split sample. The spraying of untreated leachate and generous limit applied to liner leakage before reporting and remedial action are required underscore the importance to public health of independent leachate testing. There is no reason to allow budgetary constraints or administrative oversight to preclude Petitioners and Intervenor, who are uniquely situated to suffer from the escape of excessive pollutants in the leachate, from providing, at their expense, this independent leachate testing. Fourth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to restate accurately the language of the rules concerning the extent of knowledge required of Republic, if it is to be liable for the acceptance of certain prohibited wastes. Fifth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to be modified to ensure that at least one spotter, whose sole responsibility is spotting, will be assigned to each working face while the landfill is receiving waste. Sinkholes The sinkhole issue arises in the geotechnical analysis of the sufficiency of the foundation to support the considerable loads of a landfill and also in the stability of the side slopes of the landfill. This analysis starts with consideration of the geology of the area, of which Republic's property is a part, and, among other things, the potential for sinkhole formation in the area. The Cedar Trail Landfill lies within the Bartow Embayment and along the eastern slope of the Lakeland Ridge of the Central Lake District Physiographic Province. This embayment is a large erosional basin partially backfilled with phosphatic sand and clayey sand of the Bone Valley Member. At this location, the top of the Floridan Aquifer is formed by Suwannee Limestone, which consists of white to tan, soft to hard, granular, porous, very fossiliferous limestone with interbedded dolomite. This rock unit is 110-140 feet thick. Atop the Suwannee Limestone sits the Hawthorne Group, which comprises the Arcadia Formation, at the base of which is the Nocatee Member, which is a relatively impermeable sand and clay unit. Atop the Nocatee Member is the Tampa Member, which consists of hard, dense, sandy, locally phosphatic, fossiliferous limestone. The top of this member, which is the top of the Arcadia Formation, is locally referred to as the "bedrock complex," which marks the lower limit of phosphate mining. Atop the Arcadia Formation, still within the Hawthorne Group, sits the Peace River Formation, which consists of phosphatic clayey sand and clayey sand. The lower portion of the Peace River Formation is a relatively impermeable, undifferentiated clayey unit locally known as "bedclay." The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is mined for phosphate and is locally known as "matrix." Atop of the Peace River Formation are undifferentiated surficial soils, typically consisting of silty sand, clayey sand, and some hardpan and organic soils. These materials are locally known as "overburden." Phosphate mining is prevalent in the area, including, as noted above, much or all of the Cedar Trail Landfill site. Strip mining for phosphate normally removes the entire surficial aquifer, just into the bedclay. Mined areas are then backfilled with overburden spoil soils, clay, waste clay, and sand tailings. After backfilling, the soil strata bear little resemblance to premining strata. Sinkholes are prevalent in the general area surrounding the Cedar Trail Landfill. A sinkhole is a surface depression varying in depth from a few feet up to several hundreds of feet and in area from several square feet to several acres. Sinkholes are typically funnel-shaped and open broadly upward. Sinkholes form when weakly acidic groundwater creates cavities in the calcium carbonate within limestone. Soils above these cavities erode into the cavities. In the area that includes the Cedar Trail Landfill, cover-collapse and cover- subsidence sinkholes predominate among sinkhole types. A cover-collapse sinkhole, which is typically steep- sided and rocky, forms when cohesive soils over a limestone cavity can no longer bridge the cavity under the weight of overlying soil and rock. At this point, the cohesive soils suddenly collapse into the cavity. These are more common in the part of the state in which the Cedar Trail Landfill is located. A cover-subsidence sinkhole occurs due to the gradual lowering of the rock surface as solutioning occurs in the subsurface rocks. This type of sinkhole develops as subsurface soluble rock is dissolved and overlying soils subside into the resulting shallow surface depressions. Regardless of the type of sinkhole, borings into sinkholes will reveal zones of very loose soil sediments that have washed downward into the cavernous voids within the bedrock. This very loose soil zone is called a raveling zone, which starts at the limestone layer, as the overlying soils begin to collapse into the solution features within the limestone. As the loosening works its way upward toward the surface, it eventually results in the subsidence of the ground surface and formation of a sinkhole. Considerable sinkhole activity has taken place in the immediate vicinity of Republic's property. Most visibly, a sinkhole formed in 2006 in 285-acre Scott Lake, 4.5 miles northwest of the landfill. This sinkhole drained the entire lake and destroyed several structures. The Florida Geological Service sinkhole database, which consists of anecdotal reports of sinkhole activity, some of which are unverified, includes 49 sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. Two documented sinkholes have occurred within .17 mile of the landfill--one of which is reported to be 125 feet in diameter and 80 feet deep. Based upon the information contained in the preceding paragraph, Clint Kromhout, a professional geologist with the Florida Geological Survey, opined on August 23, 2009, that the potential for sinkhole formation "within the proposed site and surrounding area" is "low to moderate." Mr. Kromhout does not provide a definition of "low," but part of his opinion is shared by the Golder Report, which agrees that the sinkhole potential on the proposed site is "low." The potential for sinkhole formation in the general area surrounding the proposed landfill, as distinguished from the site itself, is at least moderate. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Republic and Intervenor necessarily concede: "All parties acknowledge that the proposed landfill site is in a general region that has a relatively high frequency of sinkholes as compared with the rest of the state of Florida." It is misleading to characterize the area surrounding the proposed landfill as of low potential for the formation of sinkholes, unless there is another category, like "nonexistent." But characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate is not determinative of the likelihood of sinkholes at the landfill's footprint, nor is a site-specific geotechnical investigation mooted by such a characterization. Rather, characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate dictates the intensity and scope of the ensuing geotechnical investigation, if the investigation is to provide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the proposed landfill. Acknowledging moderate potential for sinkhole formation in the surrounding area, Republic has appropriately relied on three geotechnical reports, including three sets of boring data. The final of these reports, the Hanecki Report, is based on the collection and analysis of boring data, as well as a review of the data and analysis contained in the two earlier geotechnical reports, the Ardaman Report and Golder Report. The boring data reveal that the proposed landfill site features four units. Nearest the surface is Unit 1, which is brown to dark brown, medium- to fine-grained sand with minor amounts of clayey silt. Unit 1 is 0-10 feet thick. Next down is Unit 2, which is tan to gray, medium- to fine-grained sand with increasing silty clay or clayey silt. Unit 2 is 5-10 feet thick and generally marks the upper limit of fine-grained, granular soils (i.e., clayed sands and silty sands). Unit 3 is orange brown to yellow brown, gray and tan silty clay to clayey silt or fine sand and silty clay. Unit 3 is 5-15 feet thick. Unit 4 is gray and tan clayey silt or silty clay with minor amounts of fine sand. This material is very stiff or very dense, and most borings terminated in this unit. The few borings that penetrated this unit suggest that it may consist of dolomitic sandy clays and silts and dolomitic limestone to depths greater than 100 feet below grade. Units 3 and 4 generally mark the upper limits of low permeability/low compressibility soils. The Hanecki investigation comprised two main steps. First, Hanecki retained a subconsultant to perform electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) along 100-foot-wide transects run across the site. Any anomalies revealed by the ERIs were to be followed by standard penetration test (SPT) borings, which permit soil testing at predetermined intervals, as well as a measure of the compressibility of the soils. Compressibility is measured during the soil-testing intervals, during which the drill bit is replaced by a soil sampler. The driller records the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to produce 12 inches of penetration. The value is expressed in N-values, where N represents the number of such blows. Looser soils produce lower N values. Another important piece of information obtained during SPT boring is the partial or total loss of circulation fluid during drilling. While the drill is penetrating soil, a slurry circulates through the borehole to prevent the collapse of the sides of the hole. This slurry is recycled during drilling, but, if the drill encounters a void, all or part of the circulation fluid is lost. The ERI survey revealed no real anomalies because of a narrow range of resistance values. However, taking relatively small differences in resistivity as an anomalies, Hanecki identified 14 features of interest. At each of these locations, Hanecki performed an SPT boring. Because the ERI transects were unable to span the two onsite ponds, Hanecki added two locations for SPT borings adjacent to each side of each pond, for a total of four additional SPT borings. At the request of DEP, Hanecki added a nineteenth SPT boring at Golder site G-11, which had revealed low N-values during Golder's borings. Hanecki extended the borings into "refusal" quality soil, which was defined as soils requiring more than 50 blows of the 140-pound hammer to achieve six inches or less of penetration. All of Hanecki's SPT borings encountered very hard limestone. Among the most significant findings of Hanecki's borings, only one boring, G-11, experienced any circulation fluid loss, and this was estimated at 50 percent. However, it is more likely that this partial circulation fluid loss is due to loosely deposited sands than a void that might be indicative of conditions suitable for sinkhole formation. Not all circulation losses indicate voids that that will result in sinkhole formation. Also significant among Hanecki's findings is a clayey soil, or bedclay, at every SPT boring, which severely limits hydraulic recharge to the limestone. By impeding vertical migration of surface and shallow subsurface water to the limestone layer, this bedclay "greatly inhibits limestone erosion." This bedclay also supports the looser soils above the bedclay and thus prevents raveling, without which sinkholes cannot form. Two borings--G-11 and F3-1--lacked a layer of Unit 3 or 4 soil above the limestone, but Hanecki concluded that the Unit 2 layers above the limestone at these locations contained sufficient clay or clayey sand to serve the same functions of impeding the downward movement of groundwater and preventing the downward movement of loose soils. This conclusion appears reasonable because Unit 2 is the uppermost reach of the finer- grained materials, of which clays and silts are examples when compared to sands. There is obviously some variability in the distribution of finer- and coarser-grained materials within each occurrence of Unit 2 soils. Hanecki's findings indicated intervals of loose soils, sometimes at depth, which typically would suggest raveling zones. At the proposed location, though, these findings do not support raveling due to the underlying bedclay layer and the history of mining, which probably introduced looser soils typically found closer to the surface through the entire 40-foot depth of the mine cut. Based on these findings, the Hanecki Report concludes that, regardless of at least moderate potential for sinkhole potential in the area, the footprint of the proposed landfill has an acceptably low risk of sinkhole development to permit development of the proposed landfill. This is a reasonable conclusion because it is supported by the data collected by Hanecki and his reasoned analysis of these data. Hanecki's conclusion is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Golder Report and Ardaman Report, which are based on an additional 84 SPT borings, post- reclamation. Only about 12 percent of these SPT borings reached the limestone, and they cover all of Republic's property, not merely the footprint of the proposed landfill. Even so, these borings confirm two important findings of the Hanecki Report. First, they produced data indicative of an extensive bedclay layer intact on Republic's property. Second, the Ardaman and Golder borings reveal only two or three instances of partial circulation loss that, like the sole occurrence of partial circulation loss in the Hanecki borings, are located on Republic's property, but outside the footprint of the proposed landfill. Republic has provided reasonable assurance that the site will provide an adequate foundation for the proposed landfill and sinkholes are unlikely to undermine the structural integrity of the proposed landfill.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Construction Permit and Operation Permit, but only if the Operation Permit is modified by the addition of the five items identified in paragraphs 172, 174, 175, 181, and 187. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi A. Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ronald L. Clark, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801-5271 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Jennings Kemp Brinson, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801 Sean R. Parker, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 North Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-4620 Ralph A. DeMeo, Esquire Hopping, Green, & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paula L. Cobb, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 John W. Frost, Esquire Frost Sessums Van den Boom & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 2188 Bartow, Florida 33831 John Stanley Fus Highland Lakes Estates HOA 2190 Boardman Road Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248 may be recovered from Petitioners pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Spill Response, Inc. (Spill Response) is a corporation which was formed in approximately 1986 or 1987, and is presently inactive and without any assets. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the sole owner, president and director of Spill Response, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. Spill Response was previously in the oil spill response business, as its name suggests. At such time, it had an office in Port Everglades and stored its equipment on fenced and gated property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida, on which approximately a dozen large aboveground petroleum storage tanks (surrounded by concrete containment areas) also were situated. At all times material to the instant case, the property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida (FPR site) has been owned by Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc. (FPR), an inactive corporation that previously was in the waste oil recovery business. The FPR site, which is presently FPR's only asset, is the subject of a pending foreclosure action initiated by Charles Green, who, at all times material to the instant case, has held a first mortgage on the property. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the president and director of FPR, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. In the latter part of 1994, the storage tanks on the FPR site were no longer in commercial use. At that time, Gordon, on behalf of FPR, hired Fred Rice to clean and maintain the site in preparation for its closure. Rice was instructed to remove the petroleum residue and sludge from the tanks and from the containment areas. Rice engaged in these petroleum and sludge-removal activities on a part-time basis until the spring of 1995, when he stopped working on the project after not having received timely payment for work he had performed. Rice placed the petroleum residue and sludge that he had removed, as well the rags and other materials that he had used in the removal process, in 55-gallon drums. He filled approximately six or seven such drums. A number of other 55-gallon drums containing petroleum residue and sludge (that some person or persons other than Rice had filled) were already on the FPR site. Rice put the six or seven drums that he had filled on a truck that was parked on the site and had “Spill Response, Inc.” and “Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc.” markings on its sides. The truck was owned by Spill Response and had been on the site for some time. It had no battery and was inoperable. Rice told Gordon that he had put the drums he had filled with petroleum residue and sludge on the Spill Response truck. The next time Gordon went the FPR site, in late May of 1995, he discovered that the locks on the gates had been changed and that there were vehicles and equipment on the property that did not belong there. Gordon telephoned the Davie Police Department to complain about the unauthorized use of the FPR site. A police officer was dispatched to the site to investigate. When the officer arrived on the scene, he encountered Gordon outside one of the gates. Although the gate was locked, Gordon and the officer gained access to the site by squeezing through an opening in the gate. Upon entering the site, they looked around. Based upon what they saw, they correctly "figured out" that Certified Crane and Rigging, Inc., d/b/a Certified Equipment Management Company (Certified) was storing its crane equipment and trucks on the site. At all times material to the instant case, Certified has been owned and operated by William "Skip" Walton. Walton is an acquaintance of the aforementioned Charles Green, the holder of the first mortgage on the FPR site. Certified's telephone number was painted on the equipment and vehicles it was storing on the FPR site. The police officer called the number and spoke with Walton. Following his telephone conversation with Walton, the officer informed Gordon that Walton had indicated, during the conversation, that he was leasing the FPR site from Green. Gordon advised the officer that he did not want to press criminal charges (for trespassing) against either Certified or Walton. Gordon subsequently telephoned Green. Green told Gordon that it was true that he had leased the FPR site to Walton. Green explained to Gordon that he "needed to earn some money from the property." (It had been some time since Green had received any mortgage payments from FPR or Gordon.) Gordon contacted his attorney to discuss with her what legal action, if any, he could take to regain possession of the FPR site and be compensated for the unauthorized use of the property. Gordon's attorney advised him that he "would have recourse if [he] wished to pursu[e] the matter in court," but that it might not be cost-effective for him to do so. Gordon took no action, "in court" or otherwise, to regain possession and control of the FPR site; nor did he take any action to retake possession and control of the Spill Response truck or the filled drums that were in the truck and elsewhere on the site. Furthermore, he made no effort to make sure that the drums and their contents were stored and disposed of properly, believing that the proper storage and disposal of these items were now the responsibility of the new occupant of the site. He did not return to the FPR site for over a year. On or about June 6, 1995, the Department was notified (after its regular business hours) that the Spill Response truck had been discovered abandoned on the side of the road a few blocks from the FPR site. The following day,1 Ann Meador, an Environmental Specialist III with the Department, went to the location where the truck had been abandoned and served as the Department's on- scene coordinator. The truck was in poor condition and still inoperable. It had been brought (not driven) to the location by someone other than Gordon. The truck contained 37 sealed 55-gallon drums, which were in poor condition (but not yet leaking) and had oil residue on the outside. It could not be reliably determined exactly what was in the drums without removing them from the truck and examining and analyzing their contents. Meador made arrangements for OHM Remediation Services Corporation (OHM), with whom the Department had a contract to perform such services on an emergency basis, to assist in the removal of the drums from the truck. OHM personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene and removed all 37 drums from the Spill Response truck. After the drums were unsealed, their contents were examined and sampled to the extent possible2 (as were the contents of three additional drums which were filled with the "Level B" protective clothing and equipment that OHM personnel had used during the cleanup operation and then discarded). Each of the drums was assigned a number for identification purposes. To save time and money, samples from some of the drums were composited. The drums were then overpacked and taken to the Department’s hazardous waste storage facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Department paid OHM $7,046.93 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services OHM performed. In requesting OHM to perform these services and in paying OHM $7,046.93 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid OHM was not excessive. The Department hired Laidlaw Environmental Services (Laidlaw) to analyze the samples that OHM had collected and to then properly dispose of the drums and their contents. Laidlaw's analysis revealed the following: drums numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 contained oily sludges, oil, oil mixed with water, or oily residues; drum numbered 6 contained benzene and had a flash point between 73 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit; drum numbered 29 contained benzene and lead and had a flash point of less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit; drums numbered 10 and 11 contained benzene and lead; drums numbered 7, 8, 31, 32, 33 and 39 contained benzene, lead, and cadmium. Laidlaw properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Laidlaw $21,163.90 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services it performed. In requesting Laidlaw to perform these services and in paying Laidlaw $21,163.90 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Laidlaw was not excessive. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $129.82 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the Spill Response truck. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the drums on the truck properly removed and disposed of was $28,340.65. It was not until Gordon received a letter from the Department advising him of the costs the Department had incurred and requesting that Spill Response and he reimburse the Department for these costs that Gordon became aware of the fact that the truck and the drums had been moved from the FPR site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Petitioners, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $28,340.65 in costs the Department reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 4, 1990, Bio-Med Services, Inc., (hereinafter "BMS") submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER"), an application for the construction of a biohazardous waste incineration facility (hereinafter "facility") to be located on approximately 5.5 acres in the City of LaBelle Industrial Park. The application was prepared, signed and sealed by Robert A. Baker, Professional Engineer, and was signed by Gary V. Marsden, president of BMS. BMS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio-Med Management, Inc., (hereinafter BMM), and was formed for the express purpose of making application for construction of the facility at issue in this case. Gary V. Marsden has held the position of president of BMS for approximately one and one-half years. Prior to becoming BMS president, Gary Marsden was a telephone equipment salesman. Gary Marsden's father, Clarence, is president of BMM, and a director of BMS. The BMS business plan indicates that Clarence Marsden was integral to the formation of BMS, was the primary contact between BMS and engineer Baker, and will act as salesman for BMS. Clarence Marsden has been convicted approximately four times on felony counts related to illegal drug activities. Neither Marsden has any experience related to construction or operation of biohazardous waste incineration facilities. According to the first application, the incinerator facility will utilize two "Consumat-1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. 1/ The Consumat-1200 units are each capable of incinerating approximately 2,000 pounds of waste hourly. The U-Burn incinerator is capable of incinerating 250 pounds of waste hourly. The total waste incineration capacity of the facility is approximately 50 tons daily. The waste to be incinerated consists of biological and biohazardous wastes, primarily from hospitals and medical offices. The facility would not be authorized to incinerate hazardous or radioactive wastes. The application seeks approval to construct an incinerator facility which could operate 24 hours daily, seven days weekly, on a year-round basis. Although the incinerators would be shut down for maintenance and repairs, the applicant hypothesized the constant operation of the facility for the purpose of predicting emissions levels. The air pollution control (hereinafter "APC") system proposed in the first application includes venturi scrubbers, caustic scrubbers, and a 50 foot tall, 30 inch diameter discharge stack. On or about April 19, 1991, BMS submitted amendments to the first application. The amendments, (hereinafter the "second application") were prepared and signed by Mr. Baker. The amendments deleted the venturi scrubbers/caustic scrubbers and substituted dry hydrated lime injection scrubbers and baghouses. The amendments also altered the discharge stack dimensions to provide for a stack height of 65 feet and a diameter of 40 inches. The second application also included a bypass stack to provide for APC system malfunctions. Such bypass stacks provide for uncontrolled discharge of emissions into the atmosphere, when such emissions could further damage a malfunctioning APC system. On or about September 24, 1991, an application was submitted by Eastern Grading, Inc. 2/ for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility to be located on a site outside the City of LaBelle, rather than at the LaBelle Industrial Park. According to the third application, the incinerator facility still proposes to utilize two "Consumat- 1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. The third application deleted the bypass stack system intended to handle emergency situations and substituted a proposed crossover mechanism. The Eastern Grading application, (hereinafter the "third application") prepared and signed by Mr. Baker and signed by Gary Marsden as president of Eastern Grading, Inc., is the application at issue in this proceeding. Subsequent to the filing of the third application, BMS has now abandoned plans to locate the facility on the site identified in the third application and instead seeks approval to construct the biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park site identified in the first application. The proposed site for the facility is located approximately 4,900 feet from the City of LaBelle Public Water Treatment Facility. The raw water supply comes from shallow wells southwest of the city, and is stored at the treatment plant in open holding areas. After sand-filtering and softening, the water is stored in vented tanks. Based upon the proximity of the water treatment plant to the incineration site, there is high potential for impact on the local water supply by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. The site of the proposed facility is located next to the Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision, approximately 75 feet from the closest residence, approximately 2,000 feet from a senior citizen service center, and approximately 3,700 feet from a local nursing home. It is likely that some individuals in the nursing home may be regarded as particularly health sensitive, as are a number of residents of Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision who suffer from respiratory illnesses and who testified during the proceeding. The site is approximately 4,600 feet from a local elementary school, approximately 4,400 feet from an intermediate school, approximately 7,400 feet from a middle school, and approximately 8,600 feet from a high school. Persons with existing respiratory illnesses, elderly persons, and children are regarded as "sensitive receptors" and are substantially more at risk through exposure to airborne chemical pollutants than is the general population. Based upon the proximity of the incineration site to such sensitive receptors, there is high potential for impact on such persons by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. There was no site-specific analysis of the proposed facility done by either the applicant during preparation of the application or by the DER during review of the proposal. The applicant has provided no data related to potential heath risks posed by the proposed facility. The DER has not specifically analyzed such health risks. The third application states that various requirements of the Department will be met. The application provides as follows: "Each incinerator will have the following equipment and operational requirements in order to comply with the requirements of FAC 17-2.600: Particulate emissions will not to (sic) exceed 0.020 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) corrected to 7% oxygen (O2). Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions to be reduced by 90% by weight on an hourly average basis. At least one second residence time at no less than 1800 F. in the secondary combustion chamber. An air lock system designed to prevent opening the incinerator doors to the room environment and to prevent overcharging. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the stack exhaust gases of less than 100 PPMv, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on an hourly basis. The secondary combustion chamber to be preheated to 1800 F. prior to burning and maintained at 1800 F. or greater during active burning of wastes. All incinerator operators will be trained by Consumat Systems or another qualified training organization. A training plan for the operators will be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) prior to the start of operations. Continuous monitoring and recording of temperatures and oxygen will be maintained at the exit of the secondary combustion chamber. Operating procedures and calibration requirements will be submitted to FDER upon selection of monitoring equipment. All air pollution control equipment will be functioning properly during operation of the incinerator system. The list of assurances set forth above are a recitation of the requirements of the DER's rules as provided at Chapter 17- 2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence as to specific equipment and operational requirements is insufficient to support the assertion that the facility will meet such standards. As the applicant's professional engineer, Mr. Baker signed and sealed a statement as follows: This is to certify that the engineering features of this pollution control project have been examined by me and found to be in conformity with modern engineering principles applicable to the treatment and disposal of-pollutants characterized in the permit application. There is reasonable assurance, in my professional judgement, that the pollution control facilities, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the department. It is also agreed that the undersigned will furnish, if authorized by the owner, the applicant a set of instructions for the proper maintenance and operation of the pollution control facilities and, if applicable, pollution sources. Mr. Baker's certification relates only to his opinion that the facility, properly operated and maintained, will be capable of compliance with Chapter 17-2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The engineering and design of the incineration facility have not been completed. The application states, without qualification, that the two Consumat units will be utilized. The remaining equipment, including the entire air pollution control system, is identified by type of component, but is otherwise not specified. Where equipment specifications are provided, such specifications are qualified by language stating that the equipment installed will meet either such specifications "or their technical equivalents". No actual operating or test data related to any of the equipment or systems proposed for use is included in the application. There is no reliable operating or test data applicable to biohazardous waste incineration facilities available for this particular configuration of components. The application fails to contain sufficient information related to "engineering features" to permit a credible determination as to whether or not the incineration facility will conform with modern engineering principles. The application fails to support Mr. Baker's assertion that reasonable assurances are provided that when properly maintained and operated, the facility will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the DER. Although there is no evidence to establish that the applicant intends not to comply with the requirements of the DER's regulations, the application, reflecting the fairly preliminary design of the incineration facility, fails to provide sufficient information to assure that, once final design decisions are made and the equipment acquired, that such equipment will be compatible and configured in a manner which assures compliance with the DER's acceptable emissions regulations. The applicant has no experience in construction or operation of such incineration facilities. There is no other existing and operating biohazardous waste incineration facility using this configuration of air pollution control equipment. Mr. Baker contends that the completion of final design plans and specifications is a relatively straightforward process, but nonetheless, it has not been done. The Consumat incinerators have already been purchased, are used equipment, and were subject to a cursory inspection conducted by a BMS investor prior to purchase and transportation of the used equipment from the original owner in South Carolina. There is no evidence that structural inspections by a qualified metallurgist are contemplated. The Consumat units are starved-air incinerators. A starved air incinerator consists of two chambers, one primary and one secondary. The inflow of air into the primary chamber is controlled to provide for partial combustion and volatilization of wastes. The maximum temperature of the primary chamber is 1400 degrees F. The gases produced in the primary chamber flow into the secondary chamber where the temperature is maintained through gas burners. The minimum temperature in the secondary chamber is 1800 degrees F. The application provides that the waste gases will remain in the secondary chamber for two seconds. Control of temperature and residence time is the secondary chamber is required to complete the combustion process. The draft permit conditions require the applicant to install, maintain and operate continuous emissions monitoring equipment to record the secondary combustion chamber's exit temperature and oxygen level. Each incinerator will have an oxygen probe and a thermal couple at the secondary chamber exit. The oxygen probe will provide data needed to ascertain whether the combustion process is adequate and permits the correction of oxygen levels to the 7% standard required to measure emissions levels. The thermal couple permits the monitoring of exit temperatures. The draft permit also requires BMS to maintain all testing measurements and calibration data, and other information related to equipment maintenance and adjustments. The Consumat units must be retrofitted to permit the residence time and temperature indicated in the application. The application does not contain design or engineering information related to retrofitting the secondary chambers. The U-Burn unit is, according to professional engineer Baker, a "very unique design of a company that's no longer in existence." The U-Burn would be operated only in conjunction with one of the Consumat units. One Consumat and the U-Burn would each have a separate connection into one of the two APC systems. The application provides no design or engineering data related to the connection of the U-Burn unit into the APC system. The application states that the incinerators will be loaded by means of an enclosed ram feed mechanism which will prevent the incinerator from being opened to the room environment and prohibit overloading of the unit. The enclosed ram feed mechanism has not yet been designed. Two parallel lines of identically sized pollution control equipment are proposed, each line designed to meet the requirements of one Consumat unit and the U-Burn unit. Each line of equipment will include a preconditioner ("quencher"), a lime injection dry scrubber, and a fabric filter baghouse. To control emissions, it is necessary to reduce the temperature of gases exiting the secondary chamber, where the minimum temperature is 1800 degrees F. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the gas stream will be preconditioned by the use of water injection to lower the gas stream temperature to 275 degrees F. The water from the preconditioning process will be evaporated as part of the exhaust gases. The preconditioner will be lined with refractory material to withstand the extreme temperature. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the preconditioner, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. There has been no more than preliminary design and engineering work completed for the construction and operation of the preconditioner. The application states that the dry hydrated lime injection system (dry scrubber) and the fabric filter system have been designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-2.600 F.A.C. for particulate matter and HCI emissions control. Upon leaving the preconditioner, cooled flue gases move into the dry scrubber. According to the "Process Description" in the application, an ultra- fine, dry hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) will be injected into the preconditioned gas stream via a metered pneumatic system inside a reactor. Although the velocity of the injection must be sufficient to ensure that the dry lime mixes thoroughly with the flue gases, the application contains no information related to expected injection velocity. Once mixed, the lime reacts with hydrochloric acid to produce calcium chloride. The dry scrubber will collect large particulate matter and will have an airlock system for removal of collected solids. The lime injection rate will be at a minimum of 30% greater than the stoichiometric requirements for the neutralization of the HCI. This system is intended to remove at least 90% of the HCI in the gas stream. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the dry scrubber, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. No more than preliminary design work for the construction and operation of the dry scrubber has been completed. Following dry scrubber treatment, the flue gases proceed to a reverse jet fabric filter baghouse. Baghouse technology is a relatively standard methodology of controlling submicron particulate matter (and dioxins/furans condensed on such matter) and heavy metal vapors. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the reverse jet fabric filter will have a maximum air to cloth ratio of 5 to 1. 3/ Under some conditions, a 5 to 1 air to cloth ratio may result in the filter bags becoming clogged with ultrafine particulates. The baghouse is intended to have a removal efficiency of greater than 99% for submicron particulate matter. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the baghouse, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. A substantial amount of manufacturer literature related to dry scrubbers, baghouses (including the fabric filter bags), and emissions monitoring equipment is included in the application, but is of no probative value given that the applicant has not committed to using any of the equipment for which literature is included. The application indicates that the incineration facility will include a "crossover" between the two APC systems, to provide for the possibility that one APC system could fail. During such "upset" conditions, there is a substantial potential for visible and fugitive emissions, as well as odors and smoke. The applicant has not yet designed the crossover mechanism and has no information related to the actual planned operation of a crossover mechanism. Standard incinerator design provides for the utilization of bypass stacks which permit the discharge of uncontrolled emissions upon the failure of an APC system. The crossover theoretically would shift the discharge from one incinerator's failed APC system to the second incinerator's APC system, during which time the operation of the second incinerator unit would be reduced or would cease in order to provide adequate capacity in the operating APC system for the discharge from either or both operating incinerators. The application does not provide information related to the operation, design or location of the crossover mechanism. There is no information as to how the facility would address the potential situation where, with only one incinerator and APC system operating, an APC system failure would occur. The utilization of the crossover mechanism is unique, there being no similar medical waste incineration facility crossovers in use elsewhere. It is not possible to determine, given the lack of detail in the application, whether the crossover mechanism could be expected to adequately and successfully address potential "upset" situations. The site plan identifies two buildings on the site, one for incineration operations and the second for ash storage. There is no information supplied related to the location or storage of delivered, but unincinerated, biohazardous wastes, although, if the site plan is accurate, such storage apparently occurs within the incineration building. The application states that solid wastes (ash and lime) will be collected and disposed of off-site in an approved landfill. At hearing, BMS submitted an ash residue management plan, providing the applicant's plan to manage ash from the incinerators and the baghouse discharge. The plan was not signed or sealed by the applicant's professional engineer although he attested to the plan at hearing. According to the plan, incinerator bottom ash generated by the facility "will be handled in a manner which will prevent danger of contamination or release to the environment". Ash will be removed from "the consumat Model CS 1200 incinerator" 4/ unit by means of an ash ejection ram and collected in a wet sump, designed to eliminate dust and blowing ash. The wet ("quenched") ash is removed from the water-filled sump by a drag chain from which excess water will drain for reuse in the ash sump. The wet ash will exit the building by conveyer and be deposited into a covered, metal, "roll-off"-type, water tight storage container. When full, the container contents will be sampled and a representative sample provided to a DER-approved laboratory for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ("TCLP") analysis. The container will thereafter be sealed, and the ash trucked to an approved disposal facility. Baghouse waste will include fly ash and reagent waste related to the dry scrubber treatment. Such waste will be removed through a bottom drop hopper discharging into 55 gallon drums. The hopper/drum system will be shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere. Upon filling, the drums will be sampled for the TCLP analysis and then sealed and transported to the approved disposal site. The BMS Ash Residue Management Plan also states: "Type A class waste will be disposed of by Waste Managements, Inc., at their facility located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073. In the event ash residue would not be classified as Type A waste, it will be disposed of by Chemical Waste Management, Inc., whose offices are also located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073." The Ash Residue Management Plan is insufficient to comply with the DER's requirement related to such plans. The plan fails to indicate the capacity of the disposal site or whether the disposal site is intended to receive ash residue from the solid waste combustor for the life of the facility. The plan is ambiguous as to whether the identified sites are actual disposal sites or are offices of the company which will allegedly handle disposition of the ash. The plan fails to address the beneficial uses, if any, of ash residue, although the plan does state that ash recycling is not anticipated. The plan fails to identify contractual requirements, or notification and inspection procedures, which assure that hazardous wastes are not received or burned in the facility. Although the plan states that the incinerator ash will be placed into a wet sump to eliminate dust and blowing ash, and that wet sump water will be recycled into the sump, the plan fails to address the cumulative effects such water reuse and the potential impact of exposure to humans or the environment. As to the baghouse hopper/drum system (shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere) the plan fails to consider other pathways of human or environmental exposure such as through direct contact or ingestion, and the potential for soil and ground water contamination. The application states that any liquids generated from wash-downs and cleaning operations will be collected in a holding tank and thereafter incinerated. The application contains no design or engineering data which identifies the means for incinerating such liquids or establishes that such liquid incineration will be accomplished in a manner which will not adversely affect incinerator or APC operation. Petitioners assert that the facility is experimental in nature because the design is rudimentary and the crossover mechanism is not used in medical waste incinerators of this type. Respondents assert that the facility is not experimental, and that the various types of equipment proposed are in use at other incineration facilities elsewhere. The evidence fails to establish that the entire facility should be properly identified as "experimental", however, there is no credible test data available for a facility utilizing this proposed combination of equipment in the configuration identified in the application. It is likely to expect a biohazardous waste incinerator to emit multiple air pollutants. Such pollutants include particulate matter and hydrogen chloride (HCI), as well as toxic pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents. As to toxic pollutants, the DER reviewed the anticipated chemical emissions of arsenic, mercury, manganese, cadmium, chromium VI, nickel, zinc, lead, tetrachlorodibenzo dioxin (TCDD), and hydrochloric acid. The draft permit in this case requires the proposed facility to conduct emissions tests for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, oxygen and carbon monoxide within 60 days of initially operating the facility, and to conduct annual emissions tests thereafter. At hearing, the applicant agreed to monitor emissions for the toxic pollutants arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents, and further agreed to continuously monitor carbon monoxide and opacity. The DER has established a policy related to the control of toxic emissions from an air pollution source. The "Air Toxics Policy" is an effort by the DER to protect public health from the potential dangers posed by inhalation of excessive levels of toxic air emissions. The DER has a working list of 756 chemicals for which acceptable emission levels have been established. In identifying chemicals for inclusion on the working list, the DER utilized sources which referenced chemicals of concern and also reviewed data related to the air toxics programs of other regulatory agencies. The DER air toxics working list suggests acceptable ambient air concentration levels for the identified toxic chemicals. The acceptable levels are identified as "no threat levels" or "NTL's" and are set forth at average eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentration levels. The DER asserts that the NTL's are conservative figures and that adverse public health consequences are unlikely to occur when ambient concentration emission levels do not exceed the NTL's. In establishing the average eight and 24 hour concentration NTL's, the DER utilized the more conservative of figures available from either the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The OSHA and ACGIH figures are applicable to exposure of a healthy employee to a single chemical for an eight hour working period. The annual NTL's are directly based on EPA health data values listed in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. Of the three NTL's, the EPA- based annual levels are considered to be more accurate. In situations where the eight and/or 24 hour averages are exceeded, additional consideration is given to whether the annual NTL is also exceeded. The DER has not reviewed the data upon which the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH levels rely, and has not independently reviewed the statistical methodology utilized by the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH in calculating the cited agencies acceptable emissions levels. However, the weight of the testimony in support of the methodology, absent specific evidence to the contrary, establishes that such reliance is reasonable. In attempting to establish eight and 24 hour NTL's for use in the DER's Air Toxics Policy, the DER considered the likelihood that air emissions would contain multiple toxic chemicals and would impact a less healthy population (including particularly susceptible individuals) for an extended period of time. The DER reduced the eight hour OSHA/ACGIH concentration by two orders of magnitude, resulting in DER eight hour NTL's which are 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels. The DER further reduced the 24 hour OSHA/ACGIH levels by a factor of 4.2 (based upon dividing the total hours in a seven day period by a 40 hour work week) resulting in DER average 24 hour NTL's which are 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH acceptable occupational levels. Petitioners assert that the uniform safety factors calculated by the DER which resulted in the reduction of OSHA/ACGIH figures to the DER NTL's are arbitrary, and that some NTL's were likely too high and others were too low. However, Petitioners did not identify any of the 756 chemical NTL's on the DER working list as inadequate or excessive. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the DER's utilization of a two magnitude safety factor is appropriate. Based upon the lack of adverse health impacts on the working population subject to OSHA/ACGIH occupational levels, the dearth of toxicological data available for most substances of concern, and absent evidence to the contrary, the inclusion of safety factors which result in an average eight hour NTL 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels and an average 24 hour NTL 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels is a reasonable attempt to prohibit excessive emissions and protect the general public's health from dangers posed through inhalation of such toxic air emissions. The DER annual average air toxic concentration levels are directly derived from EPA data and are distinguished on the basis of whether or not a substance is a carcinogen. For carcinogens, the NTL is based upon a unit risk factor which equates to a one in one million increased risk of developing a cancer related to said chemical. For non-carcinogens, the DER NTL is based upon an "inhalation reference concentration" which relies directly upon inhalation toxicity data, where such data is available. Where "inhalation reference concentration" data is unavailable, the DER NTL is based upon an extrapolation of oral toxicity data. The evidence fails to establish that the reliance of the DER on such EPA data is inappropriate or unreasonable. The DER utilizes the air toxics working list to compare anticipated emissions from a proposed air pollution source to the NTL's. Not all 756 chemical comparisons are made in every case. The comparison is for the purpose of determining whether additional inquiry should be made related to specific chemical emissions. The instant application includes predicted emission rates supplied by engineer Baker. The Baker estimates are based upon actual uncontrolled incinerator emission test results, to which a predicted "control efficiency" was applied for each type of control technology proposed in the application. The control efficiency predictions were based upon a noncommercial Canadian pilot project utilizing a dry-scrubber/baghouse combination, on non peer-reviewed literature and, as to mercury emissions, on a telephone conversation with a representative of the municipal waste industry. At the hearing, Petitioners utilized a data base compiled by Dr. Paul Chrostowsky, who supplied emissions estimates based upon his data base. The data base consists of actual test results from incinerators (including 12 medical waste incinerators) and from peer-reviewed literature. None of the facilities in the Chrostowsky data base reflect data from facilities utilizing a dry scrubber/baghouse system. Half of the incinerators in his data base utilized no controls, one utilized a baghouse, and the remaining five utilized wet scrubbers. Dr. Chrostowsky took the average emissions levels and added one standard deviation to account for uncertainty related to the lack of an operating record for the proposed facility. The emissions estimates produced by Dr. Chrostowsky are deemed to be more reliable and are credited. Dr. Chrostowsky opined that the applicant's estimates did not reflect likely operating conditions and were unreasonably low. According to his estimates, the application underestimated emission rates for hydrogen chloride, arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. He also opined that the application's predicted mercury removal rate of 94% was excessive and that a removal rate 70% would be more likely. However, even given Dr. Chrostowsky's emissions levels, only the 24 hour NTL for hydrogen chloride is exceeded. Although Dr. Chrostowsky's calculated an exceedance of the annual average HCI NTL, the calculation was based on error. Other emissions remain at levels below the DER's level of acceptable emissions established by rule. Utilization of a 70% mercury removal rate still results in mercury emissions within the DER's range of acceptable emissions. As to Dr. Chrostowsky's estimated hydrogen chloride emission in excess of the DER's 24 hour NTL, such calculation appears to have been based on the application's estimated HCI control efficiency of 90%. The application utilized a conservative figure based upon the DER minimum requirement of 90% HCI control, when the actual HCI control efficiency could likely be greater than 90%. However, given the preliminary state of design and the lack of test results and data reflective of this particular equipment configuration, the evidence is insufficient to determine with reasonable assurance that such requirement will be met, or that the 24 hour HCI NTL will not be exceeded. It should be noted that the DER's NTL's address only potential human impact through inhalation, on the assumption that the most likely human ingestion for air emissions is through inhalation. The policy does not address human consumption of toxics though contaminated water supplies or via other pathways, Given the proximity of the proposed facility to local water supplies, the potential for other ingestion impacts exists, and should be examined. The application also included the results from engineer Baker's air dispersion modeling, performed to predict local concentrations of certain pollutants in the ambient air. The results indicate that maximum one, eight, and 24 hour concentrations will occur approximately 100 meters from the stack, and that maximum annual average maximum concentrations will occur approximately 500 meters from the stack. Mr. Baker first utilized a standard screening model developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency specifically for this purpose. Mr. Baker is not an expert in computer modeling and utilizes standard EPA programs to perform such functions. If an initial comparison demonstrates that expected emissions from a proposed pollution source exceed an NTL, additional review of anticipated emissions is conducted to determine whether the initial review data is inaccurate or, if not, whether additional APC technology is required to control the excess emission. The use of an initial screening model is standard scientific practice and is reasonable. Mr. Baker uses the screen model to determine whether there are exceedances of any relevant emissions standards. Where no exceedances occur, it is generally unnecessary to perform further modeling. The Baker screen model relied upon hypothetical meteorological data unrelated to the meteorological variables at the proposed incineration facility site. The screen model results are regarded as an estimation of maximum one hour air pollutant concentrations at or beyond a property line. A set of conversion factors is applied to the maximum one hour air pollutant concentration with the results predicting eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentrations. According to Mr. Baker's screen model results, the proposed facility's emissions did not exceed the DER's air quality standards or the NTL's in the working list. Mr. Baker subsequently utilized a more advanced EPA model, identified as the "Industrial Source Complex" (ISC) model, which projects both short-term and long-term concentrations. Mr. Baker opined that the ISC model provides a more accurate estimation of pollutant dispersion into the atmosphere. In running the model, he relied upon National Weather Service (NWS) surface meteorological data from Fort Myers and on NWS upper air meteorological data from Tampa, (as the DER had directed) and upon default EPA options. The NWS data included five years of weather information. Based on the ISC model, Mr. Baker anticipates that the emissions will not exceed the DER's air quality standards or NTL's. Meteorological conditions in LaBelle may differ significantly from the NWS Tampa upper air meteorological data. Tampa is much closer to the Gulf of Mexico than LaBelle. Lake Okeechobee, located nearby to the east of LaBelle, may impact LaBelle's local conditions. There is no reliable LaBelle meteorological data easily available, and the DER did not require collection of such site-specific data. Although an expert witness opined that, based upon Orlando's inland location, available Orlando NWS upper air data would be more representative of LaBelle conditions than the Tampa data used, the witness utilized the Tampa data to run his models. There is no actual evidence that utilization of Orlando data would have resulted in different pollutant dispersion modeling results than those included in the application. On behalf of the Petitioners, the ISC model was run utilizing the same weather data used by Mr. Baker and the emissions projections calculated by Dr. Chrostowsky, resulting in substantial agreement between the modeling results. Petitioners suggest that the applicant should have been required to provide data related to the dispersion of air pollutants during certain specific meteorological events, such as temperature inversions. Such inversions occur when warm upper air traps the cooler air below, and holds air pollutants close to the Earth's surface. Although the evidence related to such inversions is based upon a one-year frequency of fog incidence for Ft. Myers, Tampa and Orlando (rather than an analysis of temperature and air pressure data) temperature inversions may occur in LaBelle as often as 20 or more times annually. Utilization of a five year set of NWS data would include occurrences of temperature inversions. Fumigation concentrations occur when, during the dissipation of temperature inversions, the cooler and warmer air levels mix, and pollutants concentrations at the top of the cooler air level may be pulled down resulting in short, but intense, concentrations of pollutants at ground level. It is likely that fumigation events occur in the LaBelle area. Stagnation events are similar to fumigation events, although apparently affecting a larger geographic area than does a fumigation event. It is likely than stagnation events occur in the LaBelle area, however, there is no model which simulates a stagnation event. The screen model utilized in this case by the DER does simulate a fumigation event. According to the screen model predictions, maximum pollutant concentrations would occur under neutral stability conditions, not during fumigation events. The DER utilized the ISC model to predict small particle deposition ("fallout"). Fallout is specific to the meteorology of a site. The ISC model does not accurately predict fallout and such modeling is not required by the DER's regulations. However, such information, if available, could provide useful particle deposition data, given the proximity of the site to the City of LaBelle public water supply. Petitioners assert that the DER should have required a full risk assessment to determine the facility's potential for adversely affecting the local environment and residents in the area. A limited assessment, solely related to dioxin risks and acid gas risks, was performed on behalf of the Petitioners. The evidence is insufficient to establish whether or not the proposed incineration facility will result in an adverse health risk to the general population residing in the area, but given the location of the proposed facility and proximity to the local water supply and to sensitive receptors, the completion of a full risk analysis is warranted. As to dioxin levels, the limited risk assessment estimated that the BMS facility would produce a cancer risk ten to 100 times greater than the risk associated with Lee County's proposed nonbiohazardous waste incineration facility. However, the predicted dioxin emission levels are within the range established by the EPA as acceptable. The Petitioner's expert further opined that such EPA figures overestimate the cancer potency of dioxin. An acid gas analysis was performed utilizing the "hazard quotient/hazard index" method of analysis. The hazard quotient/hazard index analysis provides an acceptable approach to determining air emission health risks. Acid gases include hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen fluoride, and sulfuric acid mists. Certain meteorological conditions, including temperature inversions or fog, interact with acid gases to form acid mists and other agents injurious to human lung function. The acid gases/acid mists risk assessment indicates that the incineration facility increases the potential for hazardous health impacts on the local population.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Bio-Med Services, Inc., for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park, in LaBelle, Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of March, 1992.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Orchard View Development, Limited (Orchard View) is an Ontario, Canada corporation. Its president is William T. Lamsom. Orchard View is now, and has been since approximately two to six months prior to the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, the owner of a triangular, three-quarter acre parcel of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Parcel or the Parcel) located on the fringe of a Boca Raton, Florida residential neighborhood. There are children in the neighborhood who pass by the Parcel on their way to and from school. City streets border Orchard View's Parcel on all sides. Across one of these streets is a creek. Orchard View owns an additional 78 acres of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Acreage or the Acreage) to the north of its Parcel. Only a street separates the Acreage from the Parcel. Orchard View first acquired the Acreage in approximately 1975 and sold it about 14 or 15 years later. During this 14 or 15-year period, the Acreage was used by others, without Orchard View's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground. Numerous items, including boats, automobiles, tires, baby carriages, mattresses and landscaping material, were left abandoned on the property. Steps taken by Orchard View (which was well aware of the problem) to deter such dumping, including posting "no trespassing" signs on the property and erecting a 10-foot dirt barrier on one side of the property, were ineffective. Orchard View also complained to the police about the problem, but the making of these complaints did not result in an amelioration of the situation. Orchard View reacquired the Acreage at approximately the same time it acquired the Parcel. Since Orchard View's reacquisition of the Acreage, unauthorized persons have driven their all-terrain vehicles on the property without the approval or authorization of Orchard View, notwithstanding the "no trespassing" signs on the property. Although aware of the dumping problems in the area, Orchard View has not, at any time after its acquisition of the Parcel, posted "no trespassing" signs on the Parcel or erected a fence or other barrier around the Parcel, nor has it taken any other measure designed to discourage or prevent dumping on the Parcel. On June 9, 1997, at 11:10 a.m., the Department was notified by Lieutenant John Johnson of the Boca Raton Fire Department that four drums, which were labelled “poison and toxic,” had been discovered on the Parcel. The drums did not belong to Orchard View. They had been dumped on the Parcel by some person or persons not associated with Orchard View without Orchard View's knowledge, approval or authorization. Catherine Porthouse, an Environmental Specialist II with the Department, promptly responded to the scene (where she met Lieutenant Johnson) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Because the drums were labelled “poison and toxic” and their contents were unknown, Lieutenant Johnson would not allow anyone, including Porthouse, to approach the drums without "Level B" protective clothing and equipment. Porthouse therefore initially viewed the drums from a distance using binoculars. She noted that three of the drums were leaking and that there was stained soil in the area of the drums. She also saw other solid waste materials nearby. Porthouse learned that Orchard View was the owner of the property on which the drums were located. At 12:49 p.m. on June 9, 1997, Porthouse telephoned Lamson and advised him that the drums were on the Parcel and that they needed to be removed by an "emergency response contractor." When informed about the presence of the drums on the Parcel, Lamson was not surprised. He realized (as he testified at hearing) that the area was "a good dumping ground." Lamson told Porthouse that he would ask his son, a general contractor who lived and worked near the Parcel, to remove the drums. Porthouse, however, explained to Lamson that the removal of the drums needed to be done by someone qualified, under state and federal law, to handle and transport hazardous substances. Lamson thereupon asked Porthouse to provide him with a list of "emergency response contractors" qualified to remove the drums. Porthouse gave Lamson her office and cellular phone numbers and asked him to call her back within no more than three hours to update her on his efforts to hire an "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums. Following Porthouse's telephone conversation with Lamson, the Department faxed to Lamson the list of qualified contractors Lamson had requested during the telephone conversation. After speaking with Porthouse, Lamson attempted to telephone his son. Lamson's son was not in, so Lamson left a message on his son's answering machine telling his son about his telephone conversation with Porthouse concerning the abandoned drums on the Parcel. In his message, Lamson asked that his son look into the matter. Neither Lamson, nor his son, made any arrangements for a qualified "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums from the Parcel; nor did either of them contact Porthouse and advise her that such arrangements had been made or would soon be made. Accordingly, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 9, 1997, after having waited over three hours for Lamson to provide her with such information, Porthouse hired Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum), a qualified "emergency response contractor" with whom the Department had a contract, to properly dispose of the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as the stained soil, on the Parcel. Magnum personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene shortly thereafter. By approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. that day (June 9, 1997), Magnum personnel had overpacked, removed from the Parcel and taken to an off-site hazardous waste storage facility the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as a fifth drum which contained the stained soil from the site (which Magnum had excavated). Before it had overpacked the drums and removed them from the Parcel, Magnum had examined and sampled the contents of each drum. The samples that Magnum had collected from the drums were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed the following: drum number 11 contained oil, barium, lead and toluene and had a flashpoint of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 2 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 3 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium and lead, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 4 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of over 200 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 5 contained the soil that had been contaminated by spillage from drum numbers 2, 3 and 4 and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Magnum $6,135.00 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed. In requesting Magnum to perform these services and in paying Magnum $6,135.00 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Magnum was not excessive.2 The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $390.13 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the four drums on the Parcel. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have these abandoned drums properly removed from the Parcel and disposed of was $6,525.13. The Department is requesting that Orchard View reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Orchard View, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $6,525.13 in costs it reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about August 1, 1978, respondent Pilot Properties, Inc. filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of a construction permit to expand and enlarge a wastewater treatment facility from 18,000 gallons per day to 150,000 gallons per day. The DER issued its notice of intent to issue the permit on November 13, 1978, and the Perdido Key Development Association, Inc. timely requested a hearing on said notice. Over the objection of respondent Pilot Properties, Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. was joined as a party petitioner. The Perdido Key Development Association, Inc. subsequently withdrew as a petitioner. The remaining petitioner, Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. is comprised of members who reside on, own property on or have a business interest in Perdido Key. Among its purpose are the improvement of the Perdido Key community and the protection of the environment. The members of the Association utilize Old River for recreational and commercial purposes. The proposed expanded facility is designed to serve cluster homes and condominium complexes on Perdido Key, for a total of approximately 428 units. It will utilize a contact stabilization process whereby raw sewage enters the plant from the individual units, receives treatment and then the effluent is discharged evenly through a spreader or equalizer into two percolation ponds continuing approximately 54,000 square feet. The facility is designed to remove 95 percent of B. O. D. and suspended solids. The plant is not designed to remove nutrients. The percolation ponds serve as a disposal device, and not a treatment device. The ponds are to be constructed at an elevation of six feet. Considering fluctuation, the percolation pond bottoms will be separated from the groundwater by three feet. It is an accepted DER guideline to require a three foot separation between the groundwater and a percolation pond. The conditions of the proposed permit require that a three foot buffer zone be maintained between the bottom of the ponds and the maximum groundwater elevation. The nearest edge of the percolation pond will be located approximately 105 to 110 feet from the water line of Old River. The effluent will be discharged from the plant to the percolation pond and then to the groundwater, which ultimately flows in the direction of Old River. Groundwater monitoring wells are provided to measure the level of nitrogen. The soil on Perdido Key is course-type sand, with little clay or silt. It has a very rapid vertical percolation rate. According to the respondent's witness who qualified as an expert in ecology and botany, the process of adsorption, precipitation and denitrification which occurs as groundwater moves horizontally will prevent the degradation of Old River. This witness observed no suspicious levels of phosphate in samples from Old River. This witness observed no suspicious levels of phosphate in samples from Old River. He found the phosphate nitrate and fecal chloroform level of Old River comparable to that found in other clean water bodies. The petitioner's witness who qualified as an expert in aquatic ecology took samples of groundwater and sand from various areas on Perdido Key to analyze their nitrate and phosphate content. It was his conclusion that phosphate was not attenuated by the sands and that nutrients, particularly phosphate, are being discharged into Old River from sewage treatment facilities existing on Perdido Key. He observed a shifting of the composition of flora in Old River near the site of another existing sewage treatment facility which was not designed to remove nitrates or phosphates. However, the other existing facility was not shown to be comparable in the size of its percolation ponds, the pond elevation from the groundwater or in the manner of discharge form the plant to the percolation pond. This witness did agree that the spreading or equalizing method of discharging effluent from the plant to the 54,000 square feet of percolation ponds could delay the entrance of nutrients to Old River by as much as five months. The petitioner produced a witness who was skilled in the operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment plants similar in design to that proposed by respondent Pilot Properties. This witness testified that this type of facility required greater operating time due to difficulties encountered by hydraulic imbalances on clarifiers and the upward flow of discharge. The witness had no knowledge as to the future operating plans of the respondent. The two respondents presented witnesses who were qualified as experts in the areas of design and construction of sewage treatment systems. Both witnesses had reviewed the subject permit application and were of the opinion that if the proposed plant is constructed as designed, it will meet the minimum treatment standards required by DER's statutes and rules. The application submitted by Pilot Properties was for the issuance of a construction permit. Among the conditions of the proposed issuance of such a construction permit is a requirement that the permitted obtain an operation permit sixty days prior to the expiration date of the construction permit. Prior to the issuance of an operating permit, the applicant must provide the Department of Environmental Regulation with four months of results of analysis and flow measurements. An operation permit is issued only to those facilities which are able to operate within the standards of DER's rules. If the plant does not properly operate, DER requires the necessary corrections and modifications to bring the plant into compliance. DER may also prohibit further hookups if the plant operates improperly.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue to the Respondent Pilot Properties, Inc. the requested construction permit subject to the conditions contained in the Department's initial notice of intent to issue the permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day March of 1980. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. Michael Patterson, Esquire 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Robert T. Fulton General Counsel Pilot Properties, Inc. 664 Cherry Street Winter Park, Florida 32789 William Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At final hearing, the parties stipulated to the following facts: The Department of Environmental Regulation is an administrative agency of the State of Florida created by Chapter 75-22, Laws of Florida, and vested with the power and duty to implement and enforce the provisions of the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, Part I, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to these Acts, the Department is authorized to regulate the construction and operation of solid waste disposal facilities and stationary installations reasonably expected to be sources of pollution. Respondent, City [of North Miami], owns the property on which is located a solid waste facility known as "Munisport Sanitary Landfill" located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Dade County, Florida; latitude 25 degrees 54' 9" North, longitude 80 degrees 9' 5" West in Sections 21 and 22, Township 52 South, Range 42 East. Respondent, Munisport, operates a solid waste disposal facility under contract with the City. On March 7, 1977, the Department issued to the City of North Miami permit/certification number 13-31-028GM (hereinafter "dredge and fill permit") which modified and superseded permit/classification number 13-31-0286. The permit was issued under the provisions of Sections 253.123, 253.124, and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The permit also provided water quality certification required by Public Law 92-500. The dredge and fill permit was issued for the purpose of constructing a continuous 5,000 foot-long earthen dike with a modified top width of 12 feet aligned waterward of the mean high water line such that the waterward toe of the dike would be on or landward of the property line. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of material would be dredged from the 63-acre tract located behind the dike and waterward of the mean high water line. Portions of the tract would be excavated to minus 35 feet mean low water to form nontidal lakes. Approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill material would be enplaced as follows: Clean fill to be utilized to produce an elevation of a minimum of two feet above the calculated ground water table, after which fresh refuse and a two-foot final cover of clean fill would be placed. Within a zone of 100 feet from the landward crest of the dike, yard trash and construction debris would be the only types of solid waste acceptable as fill, and A ten-foot wide by three-foot deep circulation canal would be dredged on the outside perimeter of the dike. General condition 13 of the dredge and fill permit provides that the permit does not indicate an endorsement or approval of any other Department permit/approval that may be required for other aspects of the total project. A solid waste operation permit would also be required. On June 8, 1979, the City and Munisport received from the Department Operation Permit No. SWO-13-5152 (hereinafter "solid waste operation permit"). The purpose of the solid waste operation permit was to allow and regulate the placement of solid waste (refuse, yard trash and construction debris) in the area behind the dike described above and on adjacent uplands in order to generate an appropriate elevation for a golf course. General condition number two of the solid waste operation permit states that: This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations indicated in the attached drawings or exhibits. Any authorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the Department (emphasis added). Specific condition number six of the solid waste operations permit provides that the subject facility be operated at all times at the maximum level of efficiency so as to minimize the adverse effect on the environment of contaminated storm water runoff or leachates which cause degradation of surface or ground waters. Specific condition number nine of the solid waste operation permit provides that "no solid waste shall be placed within thirty feet of any existing or future lake". Prior to the issuance of the solid waste operation permit, Respondents' permit application was subjected to a de novo review during a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing requested by the Florida Audubon Society and others. The record of these proceedings explained and expanded upon the application and, therefore, became a part thereof. Respondents' consultant testified in these proceedings as follows: We have an agreement with the Department of Environmental Regulation that goes back several years that we would not dig up any old land fill material nor would we place any land fill material in an area that would eventually become a lake. Testimony of Mr. Thomas Joseph Checca on October 18, 1978; Transcript of proceedings in Florida Audubon Society, et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc., DOAH Case No. 78-316. On October 25, 1979, an inspection of the above-described facility was made by Mr. Scott Quaas, an employee of the Department, who observed that two lakes had been constructed in old waste on the site without the required 30-foot setback as required by the aforementioned permit conditions. A letter of notice was issued by the Department regarding that and other violations on November 16, 1979. On December 18, 1979, a follow-up inspection of the subject facility was made by Mr. Quaas, at which time it was observed that two more lakes had been excavated through waste previously deposited at the site, thereby causing such waste to come in direct contact with the water in the lakes adjacent thereto. It was also observed that no 30-foot setback was provided at the new lakes. Notice of these additional violations was provided to Munisport on January 16, 1980. An on-site meeting regarding the above-described violation was held on January 24, 1980, at which time it was agreed that Respondents would reply by February 1, 1980, as to whether corrective actions would be taken regarding the aforementioned violations. As of the date of final hearing in this cause, corrective action had been taken to eliminate these violations. Specific condition number 13 of the solid waste operation permit requires the posting of a performance bond or other security acceptable to the Department which adequately covers the cost of monitoring and final closing procedures required under the permit and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, and procedures listed in the application for permit which may become necessary to correct any pollution detected at the site in violation of Department rules. No such bond or security has been posted with the Department. Extensive discussions between the Department and representatives of the City and Munisport have failed to produce agreement regarding the terms of a performance bond or security. The parties were notified of this violation and were given an opportunity to respond. Leachate (runoff containing pollutants) has been allowed to enter lakes on the site. A leachate plume containing ammonia has been detected beneath the subject sanitary landfill site, which plume has reached ground waters of the State and is being observed to be moving off the site in an east- southeast direction, toward Biscayne Bay. This leachate plume contains total Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) in amounts which are substantially in excess of the water quality standards of .5 milligrams per litre for Dade county, Florida. See, Chapters 24-11(4), Dade County Code. It was not anticipated when Operation Permit Number SWO-13-5152 was issued that leachate would be allowed to enter the lakes or that a leachate plume would form in the manner which is presently being observed. In addition to being a pollutant, Ammonia-Nitrogen is the first substance generally observed when a leachate plume forms. There exists a significant possibility that other pollutants contained in solid waste deposited at the site will also begin to reach ground waters of the State and the waters of Biscayne Bay. General condition number eight of the solid waste operation permit states that: This permit does not relieve the permittee from liability for harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life or property and penalties therefore caused by the construction or operation of this permitted source, nor does it allow the permittee to cause pollution in contravention of Florida Statutes and department rules, except where specifically authorized by an order from the department granting a variance or exception from department rules or state statutes. Specific condition number 15 of the solid waste operation permit states that: These permit conditions do not exempt the applicant from complying with pollution control requirements of other Federal, State, Municipal, County or Regional water pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances or codes, nor does it authorize any violation thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the permits and certification which are the subject of this proceeding in their entirety or such lesser action as may be deemed appropriate by the Department in the exercise of its discretion as the State agency charged with the power and duty to control and prohibit the pollution of air and water under Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, and as the agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act which regulates the appropriate disposal of solid waste and landfill operation in this State. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William P. White, Jr., Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Willard K. Splittstoesser, Esq. 776 N.E. 125th Street North Miami, FL 33161 Marvin P. Sadur, Esq. 2000 L. Street, N.W., Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility Permit No. 003397-013-SO (the Permit) should be revoked and the facility closed for the reasons stated in the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) Notice of Revocation (Notice) issued on July 31, 2014.
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties, the Property, and the Dispute The Department administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 403 and the rules promulgated thereunder, including those applicable to construction and demolition debris (C & D) disposal facilities. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns real property located at 6990 Rolling Hills Road, Pensacola, Escambia County (County), Florida. The large, odd- shaped parcel (whose exact size is unknown) is south-southwest of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Pensacola Boulevard (U.S. Highway 29) and has Class III fresh surface waters running in a northeast-southwest direction through the middle of the property. See Resp. Ex. 28. The entire site is surrounded by a six-foot tall fence or is separated from adjoining properties by natural barriers. A railroad track borders on the eastern side of the parcel; the western boundary fronts on Rolling Hills Road; and the northern boundary appears to be just south of West Pinestead Road. Id. The area immediately south of the parcel appears to be largely undeveloped. See Dept. Ex. 40. The Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), a local government body, has an easement that runs along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the railroad track on which a 48-inch sewer pipe is located. An older residential area, known as Wedgewood, is located northeast of the facility on the north side of West Pinestead Road. Id. The closest Wedgewood homes appear to be around 400 or 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property. A community and recreational center, the Marie K. Young Center, also known as the Wedgewood Center, serves the Wedgewood community, is northwest of the facility, and lies around 500 feet from the edge of the property. Established in 2012 where a school once stood, it has more than 200 members. Although non- parties, it is fair to say that the Wedgewood community and County strongly support the Department's efforts to revoke Respondent's permit. Respondent acquired the property in 2007. At that time, an existing C & D disposal facility (the facility) was located on the property operating under a permit issued by the Department. The Permit was renewed in February 2013 and will expire in early 2018. Besides the general and specific conditions, the renewed Permit incorporates the terms and conditions of a Consent Order executed in November 2012, as well as detailed requirements relating to the operation of the facility, water quality monitoring, an odor remediation plan, financial assurance and cost estimates, and closure of the facility. The latter requirements are found in four Appendices attached to the Permit. The facility operates under the name of Rolling Hills Construction and Demolition Recycling Center. All material received by the facility is disposed of in an active disposal pile known as cell 2, located in the middle of the northern section of the parcel. Cell 1, southwest of cell 2 and just east of Rolling Hills Road, was closed a number of years ago by the prior operator. Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County.1/ It currently serves around 50 to 60 active customers, employs 16 persons, and operates between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The former manager, Charles Davidson, who had overseen operations since 2010, was replaced in June 2014, and Respondent blames him for ignoring or failing to address most of the problems encountered during the last three years. Since June, the managing partner of the LLC, Scott C. Miller, has overseen the operations. Unlike Class I or III landfills, a C & D landfill may accept only construction and demolition debris. Construction and demolition debris is defined as "discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature." § 403.703(6), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.200(24). Debris includes not only items such as steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber that are typically associated with construction or demolition projects, but also rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally result from land clearing or land development operations. Id. No solid waste other than construction and demolition debris may be disposed of at the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.730(4)(d). To address and resolve certain violations that predated the renewal of the Permit, the Department and Respondent entered into a Consent Order on November 14, 2012. See Dept. Ex. 2. These violations occurred in 2011 and included the storage and/or disposal of non-C & D debris, and a failure to timely submit an appropriate Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Id. Among other things, the Consent Order required that within a time certain Respondent submit for Department review and approval an RAP; and after its approval to "continue to follow the time frames and requirements of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C." Id. Those requirements included the initiation of an active remediation system and site rehabilitation within a time certain, and the continued monitoring and related corrective action for any water quality violations or impacts. Id. To ensure that it has the financial ability to undertake any required corrective action, the Permit requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance for the corrective action program cost estimates. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-701.730(11)(d); § 2, Spec. Cond. F.1. This can be done through a number of mechanisms, such as a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash escrow. The Permit also requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance to demonstrate that it has the financial ability to close the facility and otherwise provide for the long-term care cost estimates of the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.630; § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Rather than using a cash escrow or letter of credit, Respondent has chosen to use a performance bond for both requirements. These bonds must be updated annually to include an inflation adjustment. Given the many requirements imposed by the Permit and Consent Order, in 2013 and 2014 several follow-up site inspections of the facility were conducted by the Department, and a review of the operations was made to determine if the various deadlines had been met. Also, in 2014, the Department received complaints from the County and neighboring property owners, almost exclusively by those residing in the Wedgewood community, regarding offensive odors emanating from the facility. Based on field observations, the review of operations, and odor complaints, on July 31, 2014, the Department issued a Notice containing eight counts of wrongdoing. The Notice was issued under section 403.087(7)(b), which authorizes the Department to revoke a permit when it finds the permit holder has "[v]iolated law, department orders, rules, or regulations, or permit conditions." To Respondent's consternation, the Department opted to use that enforcement mechanism rather than initiating an enforcement action under section 403.121 or executing another consent order, both of which would likely result in a sanction less severe than permit revocation.2/ The Notice contains the following charges: exceeding surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 (Count I); failing to implement an RAP as required by the Consent Order and Permit (Count II); failing to provide adequate financial assurances for facility closure costs (Count III); failing to provide financial assurances for the corrective action required by the RAP (Count IV); failing to reduce on-site and off-site objectionable odors and to implement a routine odor monitoring program (Count V); disposing non-C & D waste on site (Count VI); failing to remove unauthorized waste (Count VII); and disposing solid waste outside of its permitted (vertical) dimension of 130 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (Count VIII). These allegations are discussed separately below. Although the Notice is based on violations that occurred on or before July 31, 2014, the undersigned denied the Department's motion in limine that would preclude Respondent from presenting mitigating evidence concerning circumstances surrounding the violations and efforts to remediate them after July 31, 2014. Given that ruling, the Department was allowed to present evidence to show that Respondent's remediation efforts have not been successful and that some violations still existed as of the date of final hearing. Respondent disputes the allegations and contends that most, if not all, are either untrue, inaccurate, have been remedied, or are in the process of being remedied. As noted above, Respondent considers the revocation of its permit too harsh a penalty in light of its continued efforts to comply with Department rules and enforcement guidelines. It contends that the Department is acting at the behest of the County, which desires to close the facility to satisfy the odor complaints of the Wedgewood residents, and to ultimately use the property for a new road that it intends to build in the future. Count I - Water Quality Violations The Notice alleges that two water quality monitoring reports filed by Respondent reflect that it exceeded surface water quality standards at two monitoring locations (MW-2 and SW-6) sampled on August 26, 2013, and at one monitoring location (MW-2) sampled on March 4, 2014. The Notice alleges that these exceedances constitute a failure to comply with Class III fresh surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 and therefore violate conditions in the Permit. These standards apply in areas beyond the edge of the discharge area (or zone of discharge) established by the Permit. To ensure compliance with water quality standards, when the Permit was renewed in 2013, a Water Quality Monitoring Report (Appendix 3) was attached to the Permit. It required Respondent to monitor surface water for contamination, identify the locations at which samples must be collected, and specify the testing parameters. All of these conditions were accepted by Respondent and its consultant(s). The monitoring network, already in place when Respondent purchased the facility, consists of six ground water monitoring wells and three surface water monitoring stations. The surface water stations, which must be sampled to determine compliance with water quality criteria, are SW-5, a background location, and SW-6 and MW-2, both compliance locations located outside the zone of discharge. A background location is placed upstream of an activity in order to determine the quality of the water before any impacts by the activity. A compliance location is placed downstream of an activity to determine any impacts of the facility on surface water. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Permit require Respondent to submit semi-annual water quality reports. To conduct the preparation and filing of the reports, Respondent used an outside consulting firm, Enviro Pro Tech, Inc. (EPT). On November 5, 2013, EPT submitted a Second Semi-Annual 2013 report. See Dept. Ex. 5. According to Mr. Miller, who now oversees operations at the facility, EPT did not provide Respondent a copy of the report, or even discuss its findings, before filing it with the Department. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that surface water samples exceeded the Class III Fresh Water Quality Standards for iron, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and mercury at SW-6 and for iron at MW-2. See Dept. Ex. 6. A copy of the Department's report was provided to Respondent and EPT. Notably, the report indicated that background levels were lower than the down-gradient results. Under Department protocol, if the samples at the compliance locations exceed both the regulatory levels and the background, there is a violation of water quality standards. This accepted protocol differs from Respondent's suggested protocol that the background level should be added to the regulatory standard before a comparison with the sample results is made. In sum, except for the reported nickel value at SW-6, a violation which the Department now says it will not pursue, all exceedances shown on Department Exhibits 5 and 6 are violations of the standards. On April 1, 2014, EPT submitted a First Semi-Annual 2014 report. See Dept. Ex. 7. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that the surface water samples at one monitoring location, MW-2, did not meet water quality standards for iron; however, background levels for iron were much higher than downstream. See Dept. Ex. 8. No other exceedances were shown. Although the Department engineer considered the higher background level for iron to be an "inconsistency" since it varied from the prior reports, the reported iron value was treated as a violation when the Notice was drafted. In its PRO, however, the Department concedes that it did not establish a violation of standards for iron, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the Notice. While having no concerns with sampling taken at MW-2, Respondent's expert contends that the reported values for SW-6 are unreliable because the samples taken from that location were turbid and filled with large amounts of suspended solid matter. He noted that the well is located in a wetland area that is "clogged with vegetation." The expert estimated the turbidity at the site to be in the range of 480 to 500 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) and believes the sample was taken in a "high turbid sediment laden area," thus rendering it unreliable. However, at the time of the sample collection, turbidity was measured at 164 NTUs, or much less than the amount estimated by the expert. See Dept. Ex. 5, p. 147. There is no rule or procedure that disallows the use of turbid samples. In fact, they can be representative of actual water quality. Also, rule 62-302.500(2)(d) provides that if an applicant for a C & D permit believes that turbid samples are not representative of water quality, it may use filtered samples by establishing a "translator" during the permitting process. Respondent did not request a translator during the permitting process, nor is any such translator provision found in the Permit. The expert also criticized EPT for holding the 2013 sample for iron for 22 days after collection before reanalyzing it without providing any explanation for this delay. A reasonable inference to draw from the data, however, is that iron was present in the original sample at levels that required dilution and reanalysis. Respondent's expert testified that even though off- site stormwater is discharged onto the property, no offsite monitoring locations exist, and therefore any offsite exceedances would not be reported. He also criticized the sampling locations that were selected by EPT. In fairness to Respondent, a repositioning of the monitoring network and retesting of the samples might have produced more favorable results. But these are measures that should have been addressed long before this proceeding was initiated. Finally, Respondent's expert testified that the implementation of its RAP, now partially completed, will cure all of the reported exceedances. Assuming this unrefuted testimony is true, it should be taken into account in determining an appropriate penalty. Count II - Failure to Implement an RAP In this Count, the Department alleges that after the issuance of an RAP Approval Order on July 3, 2013, Respondent was required to implement the RAP within 120 days. The Notice alleges that as of July 31, 2014, the RAP had not been implemented. An RAP was first filed by Respondent on November 15, 2010. See Dept. Ex. 3. When the Department determined that changes to the RAP were necessary, the Consent Order imposed a requirement that an RAP addendum be filed within 150 days. The date on which the addendum was filed is not known. However, an RAP Approval Order was issued on July 3, 2013. See Dept. Ex. 4. The terms and conditions in the RAP were incorporated into the renewed Permit. The work required by the RAP consists of two phases, with all work to be completed within 365 days, or by early July 2014. Phase I related to the initiation of an active remediation system within 120 days, or by October 31, 2013. This phase requires Respondent to install a pump and treat system at the facility, which will withdraw contaminated groundwater through recovery wells, pump the water to aeration basins to treat the water, and then re-infiltrate the treated water back into the ground. As noted below, the system was not operational until the second week in December 2014. Respondent's failure to implement the approved RAP by the established deadline constitutes a violation of rules 62- 780.700(11) and 62-780.790 and Permit conditions, as charged in the Notice. While Respondent concedes that it did not comply with the deadline for implementing the RAP, it points out that work on Phase I was begun in a timely manner. However, on October 16, 2013, or just before the 120 days had run, a Notice of Violation was issued by the County. See Resp. Ex. 2. The effect of the Notice of Violation was to halt much of the work on Phase I until Respondent obtained a County stormwater permit. Respondent asserts that this was responsible for all, or most, of the delay. The record shows that the EPT consultant did not apply for the County permit until September 10, 2014, or almost one year after the Notice of Violation was issued. Additional information was required by the County, which was supplied on October 23, 2014, but final sealed documents were not filed by the consultant until around Thanksgiving. The permit was issued by the County "a week or so" before the final hearing. Respondent attributes the delay in applying for a County permit to its former manager and his failure to coordinate with the EPT engineers assigned to the project. It also claims that the County failed to process the application in an expeditious fashion. However, the facts suggest otherwise. Once the permit was issued, Phase I was completed on December 8, 2014, and it was operational at the time of the final hearing. Respondent's expert, hired in August 2014, has proposed a modification to the RAP that would avoid impacting the existing stormwater pond. However, the modification must be reviewed and approved by the Department, and as of the date of the hearing, it had not been formally submitted. The Department asserts that the only reason the modification is being sought is to reduce the cost of a performance bond. In any event, in its PRO, Respondent does not argue that the proposed modification excuses its 13-month delay in completing the requirements of Phase I, or the second phase of the project, which should have been completed by early July 2014. Count III - Failure to Provide Financial Assurance This Count alleges that Respondent failed to provide the required annual 2014 financial assurance mechanism that demonstrates proof of financial assurance for closure and long- term cost estimates of the facility. At the beginning of 2014, Respondent had an $836,000.00 financial performance bond in place for closure and long-term costs. The Permit requires that on or before March 1 of each year Respondent revise the closure cost estimates to account for inflation in accordance with rule 62-701.630(4). See § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Once the estimates are approved, the performance bond must be updated within 60 days. In this case, an increase of around $18,000.00 was required. The annual inflation adjustment estimate was not submitted until April 15, 2014. The Department approved the cost estimates the following day and established a due date of June 16, 2014, for submitting a revised financial assurance. Respondent did not have a revised performance bond in place until a "week or two" before the hearing. Other than Respondent's manager indicating that he had a new bonding agent, no evidence was presented to mitigate this violation. The failure to timely update its financial assurance for closure and long-term costs constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.630, as charged in the Notice. Count IV - Financial Assurances for Corrective Action In the same vein as Count III, the Notice alleges that Respondent failed to maintain a financial assurance mechanism to demonstrate proof that it can undertake the corrective action program required under the RAP. Respondent was required to submit proof of financial assurance for corrective actions within 120 days after the corrective action remedy was selected. On July 3, 2013, the RAP Approval Order selected the appropriate remedy. On August 8, 2013, the Department approved Respondent's corrective action program cost estimates of $566,325.85 and established a deadline of October 31, 2013, for Respondent to submit this proof. When the Notice was issued, a corrective action bond had not been secured, and none was in place at the time of the final hearing. This constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.730(11)(d) and applicable Permit conditions. Respondent's manager, Mr. Miller, concedes that this requirement has not been met. He testified that he was not aware a new bond was required until he took over management of the facility and met with Department staff on June 17, 2014. Due to the Notice, Mr. Miller says he has had significant difficulty in securing a bond. He explained that the bonding company is extremely reluctant to issue a bond to an entity faced with possible revocation of its permit, especially if such revocation might occur within a matter of months. Mr. Miller says the bonding company wants 100 percent collateralization to put a bond in place. Nonetheless, he is confident that a bond can be secured if only because its cost will dramatically drop when the RAP project is completed. However, even at hearing, he gave no timeline on when this requirement will be fulfilled. Count V - Objectionable Odors One of the driving forces behind the issuance of the Notice is the complaint about off-site objectionable odors. A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to this issue by witnesses representing the Department, County, Wedgewood community, and Respondent. The Notice alleges that during routine inspections in April, May, and July 2014, mainly in response to citizen complaints, Department inspectors detected objectionable odors both at the facility and off-site. The Notice further alleges that Respondent failed to immediately take steps to reduce the odors, submit an odor remediation plan, and implement that plan in violation of rules 62-296.320(2) and 62-701.730(7)(e) and section 2, Specific Condition E of the Permit. Notably, the Department has never revoked a landfill permit due solely to objectionable odors. Several Department rules apply to this Count. First, objectionable odors are defined in rule 62-210.200(200). Second, a C & D facility must control objectionable odors in accordance with rule 62-296.320(2). Finally, if odors are detected off-site, the facility must comply with the requirements of rule 62-701.530(3)(b). That rule provides that once off-site odors have been confirmed, as they were here, the facility must "immediately take steps to reduce the objectionable odors," "submit to the Department for approval an odor remediation plan," and "implement a routine odor monitoring program to determine the timing and extent of any off-site odors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the odor remediation plan." These same regulatory requirements are embodied in the Permit conditions. See § 2, Spec. Cond. E. At least occasionally, every landfill has objectionable odors emanating from the facility. As one expert noted, "The trick is, how can you treat it." The technical witnesses who addressed this issue agree that the breakdown of drywall, wall board, and gypsum board, all commonly recycled at C & D facilities, will produce hydrogen sulfide, which has a very strong "rotten egg" type smell. The most effective techniques for reducing or eliminating these odors are to spray reactant on the affected areas, place more cover, such as dirt or hydrated lime, on the pile, and have employees routinely patrol the perimeters of the property and the active cell to report any odors that they smell. Although the facility has been accepting waste products for a number of years, the last seven by Respondent, there is no evidence that the Department was aware of any odor complaints before April 2014. While not an active participant in the operations until recently, Mr. Miller also testified that he was unaware of any citizen complaints being reported to the facility prior to that date. However, in response to citizen complaints that more than likely were directed initially to the County, on April 14, 21, and 24, 2014, the Department conducted routine inspections of the facility. During at least one of the visits, objectionable odors were detected both on-site, emanating from cell 2, and off-site on West Pinestead Road, just north of the facility. See Dept. Ex. 14. Because the inspector created a single report for all three visits, he was unsure whether odors were detected on more than one visit. After the inspection report was generated, Department practice was to send a copy by email to the facility's former manager, Mr. Davidson. A Department engineer who accompanied the inspector on at least one visit in April 2014 testified that she has visited the site on several occasions, and on two of those visits, the odor was strong enough to make her physically ill. On a follow-up inspection by the Department on May 22, 2014, the inspector did not detect any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 17. In June 2014, however, a County inspector visited the Wedgewood Center area in response to a complaint that dust was coming from the facility. He testified that he detected a rotten egg type smell on the Wedgewood Center property. At a meeting attended by Mr. Miller and County and Department representatives on June 17, 2014, the Department advised Respondent of its findings and provided Mr. Miller with copies of the inspection reports. On July 1, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector noted a hydrogen sulfide odor on the north, south, and west sides of the disposal area of the facility, and on the top of the disposal pile at the facility. See Dept. Ex. 18. Another inspection conducted on July 9, 2014, did not find any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 19. On July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector again noted objectionable odors at the facility but none off-site. Id. On July 24, 2014, Department inspectors noted objectionable odors on top of the pile, the toe of the north slopes, and off-site on West Pinestead Road. See Dept. Ex. 20. An inspection performed the following day noted objectionable odors on top of the pile and the toe of the north slopes, but none off-site. Id. The Notice, which was already being drafted in mid-July, was issued a week later. In response to the meeting on June 17, 2014, Respondent prepared a draft odor remediation plan, made certain changes suggested by the Department, and then submitted a revised odor remediation plan prior to July 31, 2014. A Department engineer agrees that "in the strict sense it meets the requirements of the rule" and "could work," but there are "two or three things that still needed . . . to be submitted in order for it to be completely approvable." For example, she was uncertain as to how and when dirt cover would be applied, and how erosion would be controlled. Although the plan was filed, it was never formally approved or rejected, and the "two or three things" that the witness says still needed to be done were never disclosed to Respondent. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to accept Respondent's assertion that it assumed the plan was satisfactory and complied with the rule. After the Notice was issued, Respondent set up a hotline for community members to call and report odors. A sign on the property gives a telephone number to call in the event of odors. At an undisclosed point in time, Respondent began requiring employees to walk the perimeter of the facility each day to monitor for odors; spreading and mixing hydrated lime to reduce the odors around the facility; and increasing the amount of cover applied to the working face of the facility. The parties agree that these measures are the best available practices to monitor and eliminate objectionable odors at a C & D facility. Despite these good faith measures, Mr. Miller acknowledged that he visited the facility during the evening a few days before the final hearing in December 2014 and smelled hydrogen sulfide around the ECUA sewer pipe and "a very mild level" by the debris pile. Respondent does not deny that odors were emanating from the facility during the months leading up to the issuance of the Notice. But in April 2014, the County experienced a 500- year storm event which caused significant flooding and damaged a number of homes. Because Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County and charges less than the County landfill, it received an abnormal amount of soaked and damaged C & D debris, which it contends could have generated some, if not all, of the odors that month. Given the magnitude of the storm, this is a reasonable explanation for the source of the odors at that time. Respondent also presented evidence that an underground ECUA sewer pipe that runs on the eastern side of the property was damaged during the storm, causing it to rupture and be exposed. Although ECUA eventually repaired the damaged pipe at a later date, the pipe is still exposed above ground. Until the pipe was repaired, Respondent's assumption that it likely contributed to some of the odors detected by the Department appears to be valid. Finally, Respondent's expert attributes some of the odors to biological degradation from other sources both on-site and off-site, including a large wetland area running through the middle of the property. To a small degree, County testing later that fall confirms this assertion. The County has also been an active participant in the odor complaint issue. In response to complaints received from residents of Wedgewood, in July 2014 it began collecting hydrogen sulfide data using a device known as the Jerome 631X Hydrogen Sulfur Detector. This equipment is used to monitor for the presence of hydrogen sulfur. On July 21 and 22, 2014, samples were taken documenting that hydrogen sulfide was coming from the facility. In early September the County set up a fixed station at the Wedgewood Center, around 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property, to continuously and automatically collect the data. During September and October 2014 the detector reported the presence of hydrogen sulfide at that location 64 percent of the days in those months, and this continued into the month of November. Seventy-five percent of the exceedances occurred when wind was blowing from the south, or when winds were calm. The data also reflected that when the wind was blowing from the meter to the facility, or to the south, hydrogen sulfide was still detected on some occasions. A resident of the Wedgewood community testified that on multiple occasions she has smelled objectionable odors in her home and yard and at the Wedgewood Center, and that these odors have been emanating from the facility for a number of years. Because of the odors, she says fewer citizens are participating in programs hosted by the Wedgewood Center.3/ The evidence establishes that before the Notice was issued, Respondent filed an odor remediation plan that was never rejected; therefore, the allegation that a plan was not submitted has not been proven. However, objectionable odors were detected off-site in June and July 2014, or after the April inspection reports were provided to the facility, and they continued throughout much of the fall. Therefore, the Department has established that the plan was not properly implemented. These same findings sustain the allegation that steps were not immediately taken to reduce the objectionable odors. Counts VI and VII - Disposal and Failure to Remove Unauthorized Waste Counts VI and VII allege that on April 14, 2014, the Department documented the disposal of prohibited or unauthorized waste, including waste tires; and that on July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection that documented the disposal of unauthorized waste, including waste tires, clothing, shoes, and Class I waste, including one electronic item and a grill, in violation of rule 62-701.730(4)(d). The Permit specifies that the facility can only accept for disposal C & D debris. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.2. Another condition provides that if unauthorized debris is spotted after a load is received, the unpermitted waste should be removed and placed in temporary storage in a bin at the sorting area. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.3. The Operations Plan spells out these procedures in great detail. Photographs received in evidence show that during the inspection on April 14, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: tires, a basketball goal, Quiklube material, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, a toy, and a crushed electronic item. See Dept. Ex. 22. Photographs received in evidence show that during an inspection on July 18, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: blanket or clothing, a shoe, a bag of Class I garbage, several bags of household garbage, furniture, an electronic item and garbage, drilling mud, a suitcase, and tires. See Dept. Ex. 23. Respondent's expert, who has trained numerous spotters, including a current Department inspector, established that a de minimis amount of unpermitted waste, which is easily hidden in the debris, is not unusual and would not constitute a violation of the rule. For example, when a building is torn down, numerous thermostats containing mercury vile will be in a C & D container but very difficult to see. Also, workers at construction sites may throw small amounts of leftover food in the pile of debris that goes to the facility. However, he agrees that most, if not all, of the items observed during the two inspections would not be considered de minimis. Respondent does not deny that the unauthorized waste was present on two occasions. However, it contends that one would expect to find some of the items in a C & D dumpster. It also argues that the amount of unauthorized waste was minimal and not so serious as to warrant revocation of its Permit. The evidence supports a finding that on two occasions Respondent violated two conditions in its Permit by accepting non-C & D waste and failing to remove it. Therefore, the charges in Counts VI and VII have been proven. Count VIII - Facility Outside of Permitted Dimensions This Count alleges that on May 22, 2014, the Department conducted an inspection of the facility in response to a complaint that Respondent had disposed of solid waste outside its permitted (vertical) limit of 130 NGVD; that on July 25, 2014, the Department had a survey performed at the facility that confirmed this violation; and that this activity violated section 2.3 of the facility's Operation Plan and Specific Condition C.10 in the Permit. Section 2.3 provides that "the proposed upper elevation of waste at the [facility] will range up to 130-feet, NGVD, which is slightly above original grade[,]" while Specific Condition C.10 provides that "[t]he final (maximum) elevation of the disposal facility shall not exceed 130 feet NGVD as shown on Attachment 3 - Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan." Respondent admits that on July 25, 2014, the maximum height of the disposal pile exceeded 130 feet NGVD. However, it argues that, pursuant to Specific Condition C.10, which in turn refers to the Permit's Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan, the 130-foot height limitation comes into play only when cell 2 is being closed and is no longer active. This interpretation of the conditions is rejected for at least two reasons. First, a disposal pile in excess of the established height would trigger concerns about the integrity of the foundation of the facility. When the 130-foot ceiling was established by the Department at the permitting stage, it was based on calculations that the ground could support the weight of the waste. Second, the facility's financial assurance calculations are based on a set dimension of the site; these calculations would likely be impacted if there were no height restrictions. The Department's interpretation is more reasonable and limits the height of the pile to no more than 130 feet NVGD at any time when the cell is active. The Department has established that Respondent violated Permit conditions by disposing of waste outside its maximum permitted height of 130 feet NVGD. To Respondent's credit, its new consultant, Charles Miller, completed preparation of a height reduction plan on September 3, 2014. See Resp. Ex. 4. Although Mr. Miller says the plan was being implemented at the time of final hearing, it has never been formally submitted to the Department for approval. Under the plan, Respondent proposes to extract all of the existing waste from the pile in the next two years. To reduce the volume of new waste being accepted, Respondent recently purchased a Caterpillar bulldozer, low-speed grinder, and Trommel screener. New waste will be shredded, screened to separate sand and dirt from the material, and then ground and compacted. Mr. Miller anticipates that the facility can achieve up to an eight to one (or at a minimum a five to one) reduction in the size of the waste. This will dramatically reduce the height of the pile and bring it well below 130 feet at closure. But whether cell 2 is now below 130 feet NGVD is unknown. In any event, these proposed remediation steps should be taken into account in assessing an appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking Respondent's C & D Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: On August 31, 1978, Raymond M. Ewing Realty, Inc., also referred to herein as the "applicant," submitted its application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment and disposal facility on Perdido Key in Escambia County. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued its notice of intent to issue the permit with conditions on December 5, 1978. The petitioner Perdido Key Development Association timely requested an administrative hearing and the motion to join Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. as a party petitioner was granted. The proposed facility is designed to serve a condominium complex on Perdido Key consisting of 72 units. It is expected that 250 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring an average daily design hydraulic flow of at least 18,000 gallons per day. The plant described in the application will have a capacity to handle 25,000 gallons per day. The plans and specifications, engineering report and application are in substantial conformity with each other. Substantial residential development presently exists on Perdido Key. No central sewer system exists to service Perdido Key, and only septic tanks and package sewage treatment plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. The proposed facility will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the plant and then discharged into an underground drainfield system. The facility is designed to remove 95 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. Duplicate blowers and pumps are included to insure continued operations in the event of failure of one of the units. In the event of a power failure, a contractual arrangement with the treatment plant operator will provide for the bringing in of emergency electrical generators. The 100 year flood elevation for this area is eleven feet. The top of the proposed plant is fifteen feet above mean sea level, and a water manifold is provided to prevent water from splashing into the plant. The drainfield is located approximately 330 feet from Old River, a body of water adjacent to Perdido Key. Such location is the farthest and highest reasonable point away from the River. While the plant is designed to remove over 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, it is not designed to remove nutrients or phosphorous from the effluent. The drainfield is located on porous coastal dune sand. There is an acceptable distance between the bottom of the drain field and the maximum high ground water level. There was evidence presented which illustrates that nutrients and phosphates will be removed through the absorption and precipitation phenomena as they move through the sand and become diluted by the groundwaters. Vegetation on top of the drainfield will also assist in the removal of phosphates and nitrates. Field testing has not shown any contamination of ground water or Old River by an existing sewage treatment plant. Among the conditions proposed for the issuance of the construction permit is that an application be submitted for an operation permit. Such application must include four months of results analyses and flow measurements to substantiate compliance with the applicable rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The initial test results must be provided within six weeks after the facility has been placed in operation. Further conditions require that there be no discharge to area surface waters, and that, prior to placing the facility into operation, the construction be certified and approved as having been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The petitioners herein are both organizations whose members own property, reside or have a business interest on Perdido Key. The members of the petitioners use the waters of Old River recreationally and commercially.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue to the respondent Raymond M. Ewing Realty, Inc. the requested construction permit subject to the conditions contained in the Department's initial notice of intent to issue the permit. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: M. Michael Patterson 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Daniel P Fernandez Assistant General Counsel Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey T. Sauer Smith, Sauer and Venn, P.A. Post Office Box 12446 Pensacola, Florida 32582 Charles Collette, Esquire Post Office Box 10161 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Secretary Jake Varn Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
