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 The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is eligible to sit for the Professional Engineers examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. On December 12, 1983, Petitioner, Craig S. Smith, made application to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to sit for the April, 1984 professional engineering examination. Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, reviewed Petitioner's application in their meeting on February 19, 1984 and denied his reguest to sit for the April, 1984 examination. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to qualify under the ten-year provision which requires ten years of experience in engineering pursuant to Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, and Rule chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. The Board determined that Petitioner did not satisfy the requisite experience in the areas of engineering, responsible charge and engineering design. Specifically, Respondent determined that Petitioner had 82 months of creditable service toward the 120 month requirement and no experience in the area of engineering design. Petitioner's application reveals that he was employed by Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., 6784 Northwest 17 Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from May, 1971 to May, 1973 in the position of a driller crew chief. His professional duties during that period include the following: subsurface investigations for foundation design; securing and classifying subsurface samples in accordance with standard procedures of ASTM and AASHTO; overall responsibility for drilling operations and sampling equipment (standard penetration tests using either split barrel sampler, shelby tube, hollow stem flight auger, steel casing, drilling mud and rock coring, when required). From May, 1973 to January, 1979, Petitioner was employed by the same employer but held the position of laboratory and field engineering technician. His specific job duties include various construction sampling, testing and inspection as follows: ASPHALT asphaltic design mixes conforming to Florida Department of Transportation and FAA criteria; quantitative extraction of bitumen from bitumen paving mixtures; bulk specific gravity of compacted bituminious mixtures; compressive strength of bituminious mixtures; sampling bituminious paving mixtures; sampling bituminious materials; (o) bituminious mixing plant inspections; coating and stripping of bitumen-aggregate; determining degree of particle coating of bituminous-aggregate mixtures: maximum specific gravity of bituminous paving mixtures; specific gravity of solid pitch and asphalt displacement; determining degree of pavement compaction of bituminous paving mixtures; resistance to plastic flow of bituminous mixtures using marshall apparatus; resistance to deformation and cohesion of bituminous mixtures by means of hveem apparatus. CONCRETE compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens; making and curing concrete compressive and flexural strength specimens in the field and laboratory; obtaining and testing drilled cores and sawed beams of concrete; flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third point loading); slump of Portland cement concrete; weight per cubic foot, yield, and air content (gravimetric) of concrete; (q) sampling fresh concrete; measuring length of drilled concrete cores; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the pressure method; securing, preparing and testing specimens of lightweight insulating concrete; air content of freshly mixed concrete by the volumetric method; checking approximate strength of hardened concrete by the Swiss hammer method; cement content of hardened Portland cement concrete; specific gravity, absorption and voids in hardened concrete; inspection and testing agencies for concrete materials as used in construction. SOILS investigating and sampling soils and rocks for engineering purposes; dry preparation of disturbed soil and soil aggregate samples for test; particle size analysis of soils; determining the liquid limit of soils; determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils; determining the field moisture equivalent of soils; moisture-density relations of soils using a 5.5 lb. rammer and a 12 in. drop; specific gravity of soils; moisture-density relations of soil-cement mixture; cement content of soil cement mixture; wet preparation of disturbed soil samples for test; moisture-density relations of soils using a 10 lb. rammer and an 18 in. drop; density of soil in place by the sand-cone method; the California bearing ratio, the line-rock bearing ratio; unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil; permeability of granular soils (constant head) one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils; repetitive and nonrepetitive static plate load tests of soils and flexible pavement components, for use in evaluation and design of airport and highway pavements; determination of moisture in soils by means of a calcium carbide gas pressure moisture tester; bearing capacity of soil for static load on spread footings; density and moisture content of soil and soil- aggregate in-place by nuclear methods (shallow depth); classification of soils and soil aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes; determining the Florida bearing ratio test (Florida Department of Transportation) determining the calcium carbonate content for base course materials (Florida Department of Transportation). AGGREGATES sampling stone, slag, gravel, sand, and stone block for use as highway materials; amount of material finer than 0.075 mm sieve in aggregate; unit weight of aggregate; voids in aggregate for concrete; organic impurities in sands for concrete; sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates; mechanical analysis of extracted aggregate; sieve analysis of mineral filler; specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate; specific gravity and absorption of coarse aggregate; resistance to abrasion of small size coarse aggregate by use of the Los Angeles abrasion machine; soundness of aggregate by use of sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate; clay lumps and friable particles in aggregates; lightweight pieces in aggregate; surface moisture in fine aggregate; reducing field samples of aggregate to testing size; total moisture content of aggregate by drying. MISCELLANEOUS percent of elongation, yield and tensile strength of steel members; compressive strength of hollow load bearing masonry units; inspection tests, including the inspection of pressure grout to insure proper distribution for foundation design; inspection and testing agencies for reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain and sewer pipe as used in construction; inspection and testing amenies for precast and prestress oiling members; From January of 1979 through January of 1982, Respondent held the position of supervisor for the same employer, Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc. During that period, he was in charge or was otherwise overall responsible for field and laboratory operations, prepared engineering reports, analyses, recommendations and design for various construction projects; Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport-Resurface Requisition No. 14905 and No. 29019 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport- ADAP No. 06-12-0025-10 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0025-11 R/W and T/W Improvements and Resurfacing Key West International Airport - ADAP No. 06-12-0037-08 Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Project No. 7155 City of Fort Lauderdale Parking Garage Project No. 7071 City of Fort Lauderdale 5 Ash Waste Water Treatment Plant Project No. 7642 From January of 1982 to the present time, Respondent formed his own company and holds the position as President of that firm (Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc., 430 Northwest Flagler Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301). Respondent is responsible for all phases of construction materials, testing, analysis, inspections, evaluations, quality control and quality assurance. The laboratory personnel and facilities of Eastcoast Testing and Engineering, Inc. has been inspected by the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. It is accredited by the Department of Commerce, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for selected test methods of freshly mixed field concrete. Eastcoast was awarded the annual testing contract for the City of Fort Lauderdale during its first year of operation. During his tenure as an employee of Florida Testing and Engineering, Inc., Petitioner planned and implemented testing programs for the purpose of developing design criteria; implemented investigation and testing programs for the purpose of determining the cause of failures; prepared reports documenting material test data; and assisted in the preparation of reports for engineering evaluation under the guidance of a professional engineer. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) For Petitioner's experience at Florida Testing during the period 1971 to 1973, Respondent determined that "zero time" was credited for that experience based on the Board's determination that Petitioner's work was more a "technician's job than engineering-related job." (Testimony of Board member William B. Bradley, Tr. page 16.) For Petitioner's experience during the period Nay, 1973 to January, 1979, Respondent allotted fifty percent or 34 of the 68 months experience that Petitioner served in that position. The Board determined that the "in-house testing" would have a lot more association with normal engineering procedures than Petitioner's earlier work. (Tr. 17.) The Board considered the technical testing and reporting thereof that took place in the laboratories was more responsible for engineering and, therefore, creditable as opposed to Petitioner's field work. (Tr. 17-18.) Again, for the period 1979 through 1992, Respondent gave Petitioner 59 percent credit for a total of 18 months of the 3 years in question. For the period 1979 through 1982, the Board determined that Petitioner was not essentially doing anything different but, rather, that he was "in charge of people now; he is preparing engineering reports here which I assume Mr. Winterholler signed." For that service, Petitioner was given credit for 18 of those 36 months. From the period of January, 1982 to the present time, the Board gave Petitioner 199 percent credit because, as President of his own firm, he would be more involved and would have more responsibility for the actions of his testing laboratory and, therefore, entitled to full credit for that time. (Testimony of Bradley at Tr. page 21.) Finally, Mr. Bradley determined that be saw no design engineering in the Petitioner's submissions because designing is "actually putting onto paper what's going to be there." (Tr. page 29.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding Petitioner eligible to sit for the next regularly scheduled Professional Engineers examination based on his compliance with the ten (10) year requirement of Subsection 471.013(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1984.
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.
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Vigna and his corporation, AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., should be disciplined for the improper disposal of hazardous waste.
Findings Of Fact Lyn-Rand, Inc., was a corporation in the metal fabrication and painting business in Dade County, Florida, during April and May of 1989. The industrial processes used by Lyn-Rand required the use of solvents, cutting oils, and other chemicals. Lyn-Rand employed Courtney Warrenfeltz as its quality control director. Mr. Warrenfeltz had met Dr. Anthony Vigna, who held himself out as a transporter of hazardous waste. Dr. Vigna offered to dispose of 55-gallon drums of waste which had accumulated at the Lyn-Rand facility. Dr. Vigna took samples of the waste, offered to use his federal EPA identification number in connection with the disposal, and do all the paper work involved with the disposal. Mr. Warrenfeltz believed, based upon his conversations with Dr. Vigna, that Dr. Vigna was knowledgable about hazardous waste disposal. Mr. Warrenfeltz made arrangements for Dr. Vigna to pick up nine drums of cutting oils and cleaning solvents on Saturday, April 29, 1989. Dr. Vigna was paid $500 per drum. Those drums had been marked with "x's" on the tops and sides. An employee of Lyn- Rand, Carlos Alayon, had been left instructions to expect Dr. Vigna, and had been given a check to give Dr. Vigna when the drums were picked up. While Dr. Vigna was at the Lyn-Rand site to pick the drums up, he asked Alayon for some black paint which Dr. Vigna used to paint over the labels on the drums. Alayon then helped Dr. Vigna load the drums into a rental truck. Dr. Vigna gave Mr. Alayon no paperwork, such as a manifest, receipt, or shipping papers. Mr. Warrenfeltz never received any paperwork from Mr. Alayon or from Dr. Vigna. The drums Dr. Vigna took from Lyn-Rand were discovered later, Saturday, April 29, 1989, at the business premises of Compliance Technology, Inc., a corporation located in Broward County, which is licensed to act as a broker for hazardous waste. Compliance Technology, Inc., does not, however, act as a transporter of hazardous waste. The employee of Compliance Technology who found the drums near the back loading dock, Mike Webb, was concerned, because their labels had been obliterated with black paint and the only marks on the drums were the "x's." The obliteration of the labels was a cause for concern and the bungs appeared to be leaking around the tops of two of the drums. The drums had been abandoned near a storm drain. The drums were not fenced or secured; if someone had driven into them due to their placement on the ground near the loading dock, the drums could have ruptured and the contents flowed into the storm drain and eventually into the Biscayne Aquifer. Mr. Webb notified the founder of Compliance Technology, Dr. Solon Cole, of the discovery of the drums, and the matter was reported on or about May 1, 1989, to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board and the City of Hollywood Police Department. Compliance Technology moved the drums away from the storm drain, barricaded them, and replaced bungs in two of the drums. On or about May 5, 1989, Dr. Cole notified Jeff Tobergte, of the Department of Environmental Regulation office in West Palm Beach, about the drums. Mr. Tobergte went to Compliance Technology the next day, and photographed the drums and sampled their contents. He found that the drums contained various solvents, including methylene chloride, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene and phenol. The samples had a pH of less than 2 and a flash point of less than 60 degrees centigrade, and therefore were hazardous wastes. Dr. Cole and Mr. Tobergte were able to determine that one of the drums had a label which stated "Spray Iron Phosphatizer and Cleaner" "SC-283" from Novamax Tech in Atlanta, Georgia. After contacting Novamax Tech, Mr. Tobergte learned that SC-283 is an unusual product with only four buyers in Florida, three of them in Dade County, including Lyn-Rand. Mr. Tobergte then drove to all three locations in Dade County which were customers of Novamax Tech, and determined that the most likely source of the drums at Compliance Technology was Lyn-Rand. Mr. Tobergte visited Lyn-Rand on May 8, 1989, and verified that the drums he had photographed were drums which originated at Lyn-Rand. The verification was made by comparing the photographs of the drums left at Compliance Technology with drums at Lyn-Rand which still had labels. Mr. Warrenfeltz recognized the markings on the photos of the drums left at Compliance Technology. The pine needles found on the drums were also significant, since drums were stored in a manner at Lyn-Rand which lead to pine needles falling upon them. Mr. Warrenfeltz told Mr. Tobergte that Lyn-Rand had recently shipped nine drums and recognized the drums from the photographs as those delivered to Dr. Vigna. Lyn-Rand removed the drums from Compliance Technology's property and arranged for their proper disposal. Neither Dr. Anthony Vigna nor AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., has any EPA identification number. After the discovery of the abandoned drums, Mr. Vigna mailed a letter to Compliance Technology on May 10, 1989. The letter was backdated to April 28, 1989, and states in part that it was sent to Dr. Solon Cole, the President of Compliance Technology, "to make you aware of a delivery of nine drums that my driver will be leaving off at your plant." The letter was an after-the-fact attempt by Dr. Vigna to cover himself, which is foiled by the postmark date the letter bears. The content of the letter itself, however, leaves the impression that Dr. Cole and Compliance Technology had no prior awareness of the delivery, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Cole, that he had not agreed to any delivery of hazardous waste by Dr. Vigna, because Compliance Technology is not a hazardous waste storage facility, or a transporter of hazardous waste. It had acted as a broker for entities needing to dispose of hazardous waste. Dr. Vigna had visited Compliance Technology, and should have known that it did not store hazardous waste. This after-the-fact letter is also inadequate to constitute a shipping manifest for the hazardous waste delivered by Dr. Vigna, for there is no designation of the source of the material, or explanation of the contents of the drums. It does not approximate the kinds of documents used by legitimate hazardous waste transporters. Perhaps most significantly, Dr. Vigna and his company never contacted Dr. Cole after the drums were dropped at the Compliance Technology site to make arrangements to pay Compliance Technology for handling the drums, as the letter of May 10, 1989, suggests. Dr. Vigna maintains that his delivery of the drums to Compliance Technology was the result of a misunderstanding he had with Dr. Solon Cole. Dr. Vigna maintained that he and Dr. Cole had discussions concerning possible business ventures and he told Dr. Cole that he would be delivering nine drums of cutting oils and cleaning solvents to Compliance Technology, Inc. This testimony is rejected as much less credible than that of Dr. Cole, and because of the rather significant problems with the letter Dr. Vigna mailed on May 10, 1989, which was designed to cover himself, not to notify Compliance Technology of a delivery before the delivery was to be made. There is some slight corroboration of Dr. Vigna's version of the facts which arises from the decision of Compliance Technology not to press criminal charges against Dr. Vigna. The lawyer for Compliance Technology, Arthur Luongo, wrote to the Assistant State Attorney on June 7, 1989, and said: I have a great concern that Compliance Technology may be liable for a malicious prosecution action should they [the employees of Compliance Technology] testify in a criminal proceeding against Mr. Vigna. I see the case as one of simple civil negligence arising out of an honest, though admittedly stupid, mistake. It is the intention of Compliance Technology to become a public corporation within a year, and being the defendant in such a suit could seriously effect the value of their stock. They do, however, intend to recover civil restitution for their time, efforts and energy in locating Mr. Vigna. At best, this letter demonstrates that Compliance Technology had its own reasons for not wanting to press any criminal proceedings, but does not show that Dr. Vigna's actions were proper. Dr. Vigna's position would have been much more persuasive if the letter sent to Compliance Technology had actually been sent near the time it was dated (April 28), or if he had made contact with Dr. Cole to discuss pricing for what Dr. Vigna contends would have been Compliance Technology's efforts in arranging for final disposal of the Lyn-Rand material. It is strange that Dr. Vigna arrived at a price to charge Lyn-Rand without knowing what his price for disposal would be from Compliance Technology. That cost to Dr. Vigna was not relevant if Dr. Vigna intended merely to dump the material. The Department's characterization of the material as abandoned by Dr. Vigna is sustained by the evidence. Dr. Vigna acted as a transporter of hazardous waste. Because the drums were rusted, two bungs had to be replaced, and were leaking, Dr. Vigna is properly regarded as having caused pollution in transporting and leaving them at Compliance Technology. The Department incurred $2,936.58 as costs and expenses in tracing the pollution back to Dr. Vigna and arranging for its proper disposal.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Vigna and AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., be found guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, that a final order be entered directing them to refrain from the transportation of hazardous waste unless they first notify the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, obtain an EPA identification number, demonstrate their financial security, and comply with all standards and procedures required by rules of the Department and applicable federal regulations; it is also RECOMMENDED that they be required, jointly and severally, to reimburse the Department $2,936.58. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of April 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in Finding 1. Generally adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 12. Rejected as redundant of Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 16. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected, see Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings 10-15. Rejected, see Finding 11. It is in the nature of a manifest that it needs to be delivered with the material it is designed to accompany. A "manifest" which Dr. Vigna maintained as his own record is no manifest. Rejected because the material was left unsecured near a loading dock. Its location near the storm drain, and the obliteration of the labels lead to the conclusion that the way was it was left did constitute an imminent hazard. Rejected, see Finding 3. Rejected because the leakage from the bungs, while not severe, did present the risk of pollution through contamination of the Biscayne Aquifer if any of the contents of the nine drums had been introduced into the storm drain. Rejected, see Finding 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Steven N. Rosenthal, Esquire Suite 1040 City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Respondent’s use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities caused damages to Petitioners’ home, and, if so, the amount of damages to which Petitioners are entitled.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners reside in a single-family, one-story home located at 14699 Southwest 47th Street, Miramar, Broward County, Florida 33027. Petitioners are the third owners of the home, which was built in 1981. Petitioners have resided in the home since 1998. The home is approximately 3,000 square feet “under air,” and is composed of concrete block with stucco finishes, a shallow slab-on-grade foundation system, wood-framed interior walls, and ceramic tile flooring. Respondent engages in construction materials mining activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Specifically, Respondent utilizes explosives to procure construction materials (i.e., limestone) from quarries that are located in northwest Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent’s Blasting Activities The subject quarries are located within various geographic areas identified by different sections. Of particular relevance to the instant matter are sections 7, 6, and 4/5. Section 7 is approximately 2.6 or 2.7 miles from Petitioners’ home. Section 6 is approximately 2.3 or 2.4 miles from Petitioners’ home. Section 4/5 is approximately 1.6 miles from Petitioners’ home. Each of the sections have been utilized as a discrete location where blasting activities occur in order for Respondent to obtain construction materials. Section 7 was in operation from the mid-1990s through the end of 2015. Currently, no blasting activities occur in section 7. Section 6 was in operation from 2000 through 2015. Currently, no blasting activities occur in section 6. Section 4/5 began blasting operations in the first quarter of 2015 and halted in the fourth quarter while excavation was done. Blasting in section 4/5 resumed in January 2016. To monitor the impact of its blasting activities, Respondent utilizes the firm GeoSonics, Inc. (“GeoSonics”). GeoSonics has performed vibration measurement, evaluation, and reporting to Respondent since 1986. Jeffrey A. Straw is a seismologist with 39 years of experience and is employed by GeoSonics. As a seismologist, Mr. Straw is responsible for monitoring the impacts of vibration from Respondent’s blasting activities and analyzing their effects on structures. GeoSonics placed seismographs to monitor the impact of Respondent’s blasting activities. Peak particle velocity (“PPV”) is the speed at which a particle of ground oscillates as the vibration wave moves through the ground. The seismographs are used to determine if Respondent’s blasting activities are within the PPV limit of 0.5 inch per second established by the state of Florida. The seismographs must be located within one mile of each blast location to record the PPV resulting from the blasting activities. The seismographs are monitored and evaluated to ensure that their readings are accurate. The seismograph readings are evaluated by GeoSonics, which provides reports on the readings to Respondent and to the state fire marshall. Each seismograph undergoes testing to ensure that the instrument is working properly and providing effective and accurate readings. Every time a seismograph provides a reading concerning a blast, it sends a calibration pulse, which indicates whether the seismograph is working properly. Each seismograph instrument has an accompanying certification demonstrating that the instrument has successfully undergone testing and is working in accordance with the industry standards and specifications. There are six seismographs located within the vicinity of Petitioners’ home. The further the distance from the blasting location, the lower the blasting intensity. Each seismograph is located closer to the blasting location than Petitioners’ home. Thus, the PPV measured by the seismographs are greater than what the blasting intensity would be at Petitioners’ home. At no time have any of Respondent’s blasting activities reached or exceeded the 0.5 PPV limit. Petitioners Failed to Prove that Respondent’s Blasting Activities Caused Damages to Their Home In the instant case, Petitioners assert that Respondent’s quarrying activities caused damages to their home. Petitioners’ alleged damages center on “cracks” that exist throughout the home--specifically, cracks throughout the tile flooring inside the home; cracks on the cement flooring of the garage; cracks in the interior and exterior walls and ceilings; cracks in the semi-circular, stamp-concrete driveway and patio; and cracks around the surface of the windows. It is clear that cracks exist in Petitioners’ home. However, the issue to be determined in this case is whether the cracks were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. They were not. In support of Petitioners’ position, Mrs. Alfaro presented at hearing a home inspection report. The inspection was conducted on April 18, 2016, and was not performed by a general contractor or structural engineer. Although the inspector identified various cracks based on his visual observations, the inspector specifically excluded any opinion regarding the cause of any need for repairs. Petitioners were specifically advised to obtain an opinion from a general contractor or structural engineer as to the cause of the damages. Mrs. Alfaro is an electrical contractor. She is not a licensed general contractor or structural engineer. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro conceded that she does not have experience as a general contractor or seismologist. She has not had any training in seismology or blasting activities. Mrs. Alfaro’s testimony at hearing regarding the purported cause of the cracks is not credited and is unpersuasive. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro presented the testimony of Barbara Hagan. Ms. Hagan resides in Country Club, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is retired. She serves as the president of a civic association and secretary and treasurer of her homeowner’s association. She is not a general contractor, engineer, or seismologist. She has no experience in the use of explosives. She has never visited Petitioners’ home. At hearing, Ms. Hagan conceded that she has no opinion regarding the cause of any of the damages in Petitioners’ home. Mrs. Alfaro also presented the testimony of Paul Ingelmo. Mr. Ingelmo is a structural engineer who performed a visual inspection of Petitioners’ residence. Mr. Ingelmo did not review or analyze PPV data relevant to the blasts complained of by Petitioners. Mr. Ingelmo has no training or experience as to the appropriate threshold with respect to blasting activities and PPV. He is not familiar with how a wave behaves from a blast versus a seismic event. Mr. Ingelmo is not familiar with how PPV is measured or calculated. Importantly, Mr. Ingelmo could not give an opinion on whether the damages to Petitioners’ home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In fact, Mr. Ingelmo conceded that the damages could have been caused by any number of unspecified factors. Finally, Mrs. Alfaro presented the testimony of Ismailia Rashid. Ms. Rashid is a general and roofing contractor. Ms. Rashid visited Petitioners’ home, conducted a visual inspection, and observed cracks on the patio, interior floors, and driveway. Ms. Rashid is not familiar with PPV or ground vibration. She has never been in a home where she was present and there was blasting. Importantly, Ms. Rashid did not offer an opinion on whether the damages to Petitioners’ home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In sum, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages to their home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that the damages to Petitioners’ home were not caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned credits and finds persuasive the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses: Jeffrey A. Straw, David L. Teasdale, and Michael Schraeger. Mr. Straw visited Petitioners’ home twice: in April 2006 and January 2016. At those visits, Mr. Straw accompanied Michael Schraeger, a licensed general contractor with Diversified Services, Inc. On both occasions, Mr. Straw brought a camera and notepad with him to catalog the defects identified by Petitioners. Mr. Straw took extensive and comprehensive photographs detailing the cracks throughout Petitioners’ home and driveway. Mr. Straw testified that 90 percent of the alleged defects he observed in 2016 were items that he also observed in some format in 2006.1/ Mr. Teasdale is a civil structural engineer with Haag Engineering and serves as vice president of engineering and principal field engineer. Mr. Teasdale’s specialty focuses on the extent of damage to structures due to ground vibrations, explosions, and earthquakes. He is a licensed engineer in the state of Florida and 34 other states and has been a licensed engineer since 1988. He is extensively familiar with seismographs and has extensive experience installing and using them. Mr. Teasdale was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in structural behavior from ground motion and normal service loads, the influence of construction practices and environmental conditions on building features, soils and hardscape, the causes and conditions documented at the Petitioners’ residence, and lot features including the suitability of existing safe blasting standards in the state of Florida. Mr. Teasdale testified that there are substantial differences between an earthquake and quarry blasting. Mr. Teasdale explained that the fundamental difference between an earthquake and a quarry blasting is the amount of energy being released by the activity. Quarry blasting is a localized source event. An earthquake involves a fault line, which can extend for many miles and become mobilized. There is a direct correlation between the length of a fault line ripped versus the magnitude of an earthquake. Mr. Teasdale also explained that the measurement for quarry blasting, unlike the Richter Scale used for earthquakes, is a direct measurement; meaning that a PPV of 1.0 is twice the impact of a PPV of 0.5. Mr. Teasdale testified that for blasting to cause damage to a structure, distortion must occur. Distortion occurs where the foundation of a structure is accelerated laterally and causes the upper-part of the building to lag in response, which causes the building to shift back-and-forth and mimic a parallelogram shape. He explained that when distortion occurs, cracks will emanate from the corner of the walls and that those cracks will be mirrored on the opposite walls (inside and outside the structure). Mr. Teasdale explained that there was no damage to the foundation of Petitioners’ home, and the foundation and floor of a home would not experience distortion at 0.5 PPV or below because those limits are too low to produce the energy necessary to cause a structure to become mobilized. According to Mr. Teasdale, Petitioners’ home exhibited a variety of horizontal and vertical cracks and separations in the finishes, which are typical of environmental stresses in those materials. Mr. Teasdale also testified that distortion causes diagonal cracks, while thermal environmental stresses cause cracks vertically and horizontally. He explained that cracks caused by environmental conditions do not correlate on the inside and outside, while cracks caused by distortion do correlate on the inside and outside. He emphasized that the absence of corresponding cracks on the inside and outside of the structure generally precludes blasting as the cause of damages. Mr. Teasdale explained that from the moment the concrete is cast, it begins to shrink and develop cracks. Mr. Teasdale further explained that stucco, which is essentially the same material as concrete, is also prone to cracks due to normal environmental conditions. Mr. Teasdale testified that at the level in which Respondent has blasted below 0.5 PPV, it is impossible for Respondent’s blasting to have caused damages to Petitioners’ home. Based on his review and analysis of Petitioners’ home, Mr. Teasdale concluded that he would exclude blasting to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as the cause of damages to Petitioners’ home. Mr. Schraeger is a general contractor and building inspector. He is self-employed through his company Diversified Services, Inc., and serves as the owner/operator. Mr. Schraeger has approximately 30 years of experience in commercial and residential construction. He has been licensed as a general contractor for 22 years and specializes in repairs, remodeling, and renovations of commercial and residential structures. He has 20 years of experience performing inspections of buildings relating to determination of material, construction failure, and defects. Mr. Schraeger was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in construction practices and environmental effects on materials and structures. Mr. Schraeger inspected Petitioners’ home in 2006 and 2016. He testified that 90 to 95 percent of the alleged defects he observed in Petitioners’ home in 2016 existed when he inspected the home in 2006. Mr. Schraeger testified that the cracks that he observed on the tile floor inside Petitioners’ home are very typical in a South Florida home because concrete typically cracks within all concrete structures. These types of cracks can be caused by poor installation of the tile or shrinkage of the monolithic slab over time. There was no evidence of foundation damage.2/ Mr. Schraeger further testified that in his professional opinion, some of the cracks in Petitioners’ home are the result of poor construction practices. For example, he explained that most of the cracks in the interior of Petitioners’ home are due to poor construction practices because of the use of an inappropriate method for finishing the joints in the drywall. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger observed tape on some of the joints, which either had no joint compound under them, or the tape was applied after the compound started to dry, causing a bond failure. Some of the cracks generating from the corners of openings appeared to be from improperly secured corner bead. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger also observed a crack in the master bedroom approximately eight feet in length, which appeared to be a joint in the drywall. This was apparent to Mr. Schraeger because the crack was visible on both sides of the joint tape, which had failed. According to Mr. Schraeger, the cause of this failure was moisture from a roof leak. Staining due to moisture on the ceiling in the area and a repair of the roof above this area indicated a previous leak. Notably, other areas of the home indicated roof leaks, including stains on the ceiling of the office area and staining around the skylight in the hallway. Mr. Schraeger further testified that the patio tile and driveway lack sufficient control joints, thereby making the stamped-concrete driveway and patio prone to crack. Mr. Schraeger also identified issues of poor maintenance by Petitioners. For example, he noted that the caulking around the windows was brittle and almost nonexistent. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro acknowledged that in the 17 years she has owned the home, the windows have never been re-caulked. According to Mr. Schraeger, several cracks were observed on the stucco exterior walls of the home. With the exception of a severe crack on the wing wall on the rear of the patio, all of the cracks in the exterior walls of the home were attributed to common aesthetic cracks caused by the lack of control joints, dissimilar materials, bond failure, and improper maintenance. The crack on the wing wall of the patio, which ran along the bottom of a large tie beam, was attributable to poor construction methods.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida designated, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate solid waste management in Florida. BFI is a corporation which is engaged in the business of solid waste collection and disposal in Florida, and operates at least one curbside recyclable materials collection program in Florida. In 1988, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 403.706(2), Florida Statutes (1989), as part of the comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act. This section requires counties to institute recyclable materials programs. Counties and cities are urged to form cooperative arrangements for implementing recycling programs. The Solid Waste Management Act requires that, at a minimum, "a majority of the newspaper, aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles must be separated from the solid waste stream prior to final disposal at a solid waste disposal facility and must be offered for recycling" by the end of 1994. Section 403.706(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). To implement the requirements of the Solid Waste Management Act, both Alachua County and the City of Gainesville have instituted curbside recycling programs. BFI has entered into contracts with both of these local governments to implement their curbside recycling programs. These programs include a number of elements, such as: the separation of specified recyclable materials by the homeowner and the placement of these materials in bins; the collection of these recyclable materials from bins at curbside; the further separation of these materials and placement in separate compartments in specially-designed recycling vehicles; the transportation of the materials to a central recycling facility; the further separation and processing of these materials at the central facility; and the transportation of these processed materials to other facilities where they are returned to use in the form of raw materials. Each home in the area served by the curbside recycling programs is provided with a blue recycling bin. The bin comes with a set of instructions that provides information concerning the types of recyclable materials that may be placed in the bin, as well as the day of the week on which the recycling bin is to be placed at the curbside for collection. Recyclable materials to be separated from other solid waste and placed in the recycling bin include plastics, newsprint, three colors of glass, and metals including aluminum and bi-metal cans. On the specified weekday, BFI personnel collect recyclable materials from the bins that have been placed at the curbside. The driver of the recycling vehicle picks up the bin, places it on a specially-designed hook on the side of the vehicle, and transfers each type of recyclable material into one of six compartments on the side of the vehicle. For example, newspapers are taken from the recycling bin and placed in the side compartment for newspapers, and the same process is repeated for plastics, metal, and each of the three colors of glass. When the bin has been emptied, the driver returns the bin to the curbside for future use. When these side compartments are filled, they are dumped over the side and into the body of the truck. The side compartments and the interior walls of the truck are designed so that the materials remain segregated. The side compartment and walls also are designed so that they may be adjusted to accommodate the relative quantity of recyclable materials that will be collected on a particular route. This design thus provides for the efficient collection and transportation of recyclable materials. The side compartments and interior walls are designed to insure that the recyclable materials remain segregated so that mixing of the recyclable materials is prevented. This is important since recyclable materials that are contaminated with other materials may not be suitable for recycling. For example, newspaper mixed with glass or aluminum will be rejected by a paper mill. Similarly, colors of glass cannot be mixed, since there is no market for mixed glass. The dumping of the side compartments over the side and into the interior of the truck results in the breakage of the glass and effects a volume reduction. When the driver and recycling truck have serviced all of the recycling bins on a route, they return to BFI's central recycling facility in Gainesville. The truck is weighed, and then the first (or rear) interior compartment is opened, the truck is hoisted (or tilted) and the contents are emptied into a separate concrete bunker. For example, the compartment containing newspapers is emptied into the bunker containing newspapers. This weighing and emptying process is repeated for each of the six interior compartments, with each compartment being emptied into a separate concrete bunker. The emptying of the three compartments containing glass results in the further breakage of the glass. A front-end loader is used to transfer the materials from each of the concrete bunkers. The newspaper is transferred from its bunker and placed into a roll-off container. Periodically, the roll-off container is transported to Southeast Paper, where the newspaper is returned to use as a raw material for the manufacture of newsprint. The plastics are transferred from a concrete bunker to a piece of equipment that compacts the plastics into bales of approximately 1,000 pounds each. Periodically, these bales of plastic are transported to Wellman Plastics, where the plastic is returned to use as a raw material for the manufacture of new plastics. The three types (or colors) of glass are transferred from their respective concrete bunkers to heavy-duty cardboard containers that hold approximately 3,000 pounds of glass. Periodically, these containers are transported to Owens- Illinois, where the glass is returned to use as a raw material for making new glass. The dropping of the glass into and from the recycling vehicle breaks the glass into small pieces. For this reason, BFI has not had to purchase and install glass crushing equipment. The bi-metal cans and the aluminum cans are transferred from a concrete bunker to equipment that is used to separate the bi-metal cans from the aluminum cans. The aluminum cans are crushed and blown (or separated) into a trailer. Periodically, these aluminum cans are transported to Anheuser-Busch, where they are returned to use as a raw material for making new aluminum cans. After the bi-metal cans are separated from the aluminum cans, they are crushed and transported to a metal can company, F. Joseph and Company, where they are returned to use as a raw material for metal cans or other types of metal products. BFI's curbside recycling programs constitute a process by which solid waste, or materials which would otherwise become solid waste -- i.e., newspaper, plastics, three types of glass and metals -- are collected, separated, processed and returned to use in the form of raw materials. The curbside recycling programs also constitute a process by which these same materials are recovered from solid waste. The recycling vehicles are specially-designed in accordance with the contracts with the City of Gainesville and Alachua County. The vehicles are used exclusively in the curbside recycling programs. The recycling vehicles are integral to the curbside recycling programs because the programs require the use of vehicles to transport recyclable materials from the "curbside" to a central recycling facility. The recycling vehicles also are integral to the actual process of recovering materials from solid waste because, as a result of the convenience they provide the homeowner, they effect a substantial increase in the recovery of materials from solid waste. Each month, the curbside recycling programs in Alachua County and the City of Gainesville collect and process approximately 500 tons of recyclable materials that otherwise would (and previously did) go into a local landfill. Now these materials are returned to use in the form of raw materials. BFI has purchased and paid sales or use tax on the recycling vehicles and bins that are used in the curbside recycling programs described above. "Resource recovery equipment" that is "owned and operated by or on behalf of any county or municipality, and certified by the Department of Environmental Regulation under the provision of Section 403.715," is exempt from the sales and use tax. Section 212.08(7)(p), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 403.715, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-704, Florida Administrative Code, DER certifies to the Department of Revenue (DOR) that certain equipment is "resource recovery equipment." DOR then determines whether that equipment is "owned and operated by or on behalf of any county or municipality." DOR's determination is not at issue in this case. Rule 17-704.420 set out the criteria for the examination and certification of resource recovery equipment. Presently, paragraph (1)(c) of Rule 17-704.420, provides in pertinent part, as follows: equipment (1) Resource recovery equipment includes all or machinery exclusively and integrally used in the actual process of recovering material or energy resources from solid waste, [and which is purchased after July 1, 1989.] Resource recovery equipment does not include: * * * (c) Equipment used to transport materials or energy resources from solid waste <<to or>> from the site where the recovery process takes place. (Emphasis added.) The existing rule prohibits only the certification of equipment used to transport materials or energy resources that already have been recovered from solid waste from the site where the recovery process takes place. For example, DER previously has refused to certify equipment used to take ash residue from a resource recovery facility off site for disposal since the recovery process already had been completed. The proposed amendment would amend paragraph (1)(c) of Rule 17-704.420 as follows: equipment Resource recovery equipment includes all or machinery exclusively and integrally used in the actual process of recovering material or energy resources from solid waste, and which is purchased after July 1, 1989. Resource recovery equipment does not include: * * * Equipment used to transport materials or energy resources recovered from solid waste to or from the site where the recovery process takes place. [Additions are underscored and deletions are stricken.] On its face, the proposed rule amendment prohibits the certification of equipment used to transport materials or energy resources recovered from solid waste to the site where the recovery process takes place. Expert witness, Jan Clark, agreed that this language "doesn't make sense," and she testified that she interprets this provision to prohibit the certification of equipment used to transport recovered materials or energy resources to a place where further resource recovery takes place. In summary, paragraph (1)(c) of Rule 17-704.420 presently does not expressly prohibit certification of equipment that is used to transport recovered materials to the site where further resource recovery takes place. According to DER, the proposed amendment to paragraph (1)(c) would change this by expressly prohibiting the certification of such equipment. DER's position is that the proposed amendment is intended to codify existing policy that equipment used for transportation of recovered materials does not qualify for certification as resource recovery equipment unless the equipment is used solely "on site" or at a "fixed location." This policy is unwritten and is not explained in other documents. In addition, this policy has never been applied to a curbside recycling program. DER's witness was unaware of any statute that expressly authorizes this "on site" or "fixed location" requirement. DER relies on the requirement that resource recovery equipment be "integrally used" in the actual process of recovering material from solid waste. DER in turn interprets the "integrally used" equipment to require that the equipment be located "on site" or at a "fixed location" based on its understanding of the "integrated plant theory" espoused by the Department of Revenue in the so-called JEA case. 1/ DER's witness Clark had little familiarity with the "integrated plant theory" and the rationale for the holding of the JEA case. DER's position is that the requirement that resource recovery equipment be "integrally used" in the actual "process" of "recovering" materials from solid waste authorizes DER to refuse to certify equipment that simply transports materials to a place where further resource recovery takes place. Expert Clark, in reference to the definition of "processing" in Section 403.703(36), suggested that transportation equipment is not used in the actual "process" because it does not result in any physical change in the materials being transported. However, DER has previously certified equipment, the sole function of which is the transportation of materials to a place where further resource recovery takes place. For example, DER previously has certified front-end loaders, conveyor belts, refuse cranes and similar equipment that performs solely a transportation function. In addition, DER has proposed to amend Rule 17-704.600(3) to create a presumption that similar materials handling equipment will be routinely certified. DER's witness Clark admits that this equipment would not result in any physical change in the material and therefore would not meet the definition of "processing" in Section 403.703(36). Moreover, BFI's recycling vehicles do change the physical characteristics of the materials being processed. For example, the vehicles do break, and thereby change the physical character of the recovered glass so as to reduce its volume and render it amenable to recycling. BFI has submitted applications to DER for the final examination and certification of the recycling vehicles and bins purchased and used in these curbside recycling programs. DER has not yet taken final action on these applications. (Composite Exhibit No. 1.) DER interprets the proposed amendment to require the denial of BFI's applications for certification of the recycling vehicles because they are "equipment used to transfer materials recovered from solid waste to ... the site where" further resource recovery takes place. If the certification is denied, BFI will not be eligible for a refund of the sales or use tax paid on these vehicles. BFI therefore will be substantially affected by the adoption of the proposed amendment to Rule 17- 704.420(1)(c).
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 1979, Respondent Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners filed an application with the Northwest Florida District Office of Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a solid waste resource recovery and management facility near Baker, Florida at the intersection of State Road 4 and State Road 4B. The proposed facility would be a sanitary landfill approximately 36 acres in size which would receive solid waste for disposal from the municipalities of Baker, Milligan, Holt, Crestview, and Blackman. Approximately six to eight additional acres at the site were previously used by the County as a dump for household trash and garbage for a period of approximately eight years. Some of the waste was burned and the remainder was buried. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 1) The proposed landfill is located in a rural area primarily used for agriculture which is sparsely populated. The site is surrounded by forested lands but some recent removal of trees has opened a portion of the site to public view from State Road 4. The land at the site slopes gradually in a west- east direction, and the slope is more pronounced on county land adjoining the east border of the site for a distance of about 900 feet. At this location, several springs form the headwaters of Mill Creek which flows cast through two lakes located on about 224 acres of private property owned by Petitioners Donald C. and Mary Ann Long. Mill Creek becomes a defined water course after leaving the Long property and flows into the Yellow River which is approximately two and one-half miles from the Mill Creek headwaters. The Yellow diver flows some 10 to 20 miles into Blackwater Bay near Milton. A shallow well from which potable water 15 obtained is located on the Long property but not within 1,000 feet of the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2) The applicant intends to use the trench method in disposing of solid waste. Trenches will be excavated to a depth of about 15 feet, but in no case will the bottom of a trench be underlain by less than two feet of the "fine sandy loam" which occurs in a layer of varying depth beneath the overlying Lakeland sand soil. Test holes dug in the landfill site indicate that the bottom of the "fine sandy loam" layer in depths of some three to twelve feet is located about eighteen feet below the surface of the ground. The applicant intends to check at 100 foot intervals while digging trenches to insure that at least two feet of that material underlies the trench bottom. If not, sufficient additional amounts of the material will be placed in the trench and compacted to make a two-foot thick layer. There will be a distance of 50 feet between centers of trenches. The trenches will be 30 feet wide at the top and 15 feet wide at the bottom. The bottom of each trench will have a slope of less than 5 percent designed to drain the trenches and lifts of rainwater before they are filled. The upper lift will vary in depth from 5 to 7 feet depending upon the final contour desired. Wastes will be deposited either at the top or bottom of the working face of the trench and will be spread by a crawler tractor in two foot layers and then compacted. Compacted waste will be covered daily with one foot of soil and a final cover of at least two feet of sandy clay material will be obtained from a county borrow pit adjacent to the landfill and placed over trenches to prevent the movement of water into the buried solid waste. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Exhibits 1-2) The applicant plans to construct a barrier to contain the movement of leachate along the eastern border of the landfill which will be a minimum of five feet wide and as deep as necessary to "tie-in" with the existing layer of "fine sandy loam" beneath the site. The barrier is designed to prevent leachate from moving horizontally downslope toward Mill Creek. The barrier material will be compacted, but not the sides of the trenches. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten) The groundwaters under the site are from 55 to 65 feet below the surface of the land. Although the elevation of groundwaters normally will follow the contour of the land surface, borings at the site have not been made to the depth of the watertable. The approximation of the depth of the groundwaters was obtained from data of two monitoring wells located on county land directly east of the proposed landfill site. Twenty-four holes were dug across the site to determine the location of the "fine sandy loam" soil layer which exists below the surface. Eight additional holes were dug to obtain samples of the material for a texture analysis. In its natural state, this material has a permeability rate of about 2.5 to 5 inches per hour. After compaction, the permeability rate will be about .02 to .2 inches per hour. No permeability rate is required by pertinent DER regulations for liner material. Recent soil tests of material taken from the county borrow pit some 200 yards west of the landfill site showed a permeability rate of .004 inches to .0027 inches per hour. A recent sample taken from the bottom of an existing pit at the landfill reflected a permeability rate of .01 inch per hour. Proposed guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contemplate a permeability rate of only .00014 inches per hour for liner materials to restrict the rate of flow of leachate from the bottom of a landfill. The material proposed to be used by the applicant for liner material therefore will permit fairly rapid movement of leachate through the sides and bottoms of trenches, and under the eastern barrier. Further, the coarser sand underlying the "fine sandy loam" liner layer has a much higher permeability rate. As a result, an unknown amount of leachate will eventually reach the groundwater table and flow laterally downslope in an easterly direction. Leachate generation will be impeded by the vegetated, relatively impervious final top layer over the landfill, the wedge of soil located between each trench, and the eastern barrier. These measures will serve also to attenuate suspended solids in the leachate, but not organic materials and most metals. There will also be a certain amount of dilution after any leachate reaches the groundwater table. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Meister, Tomlinson, Exhibits 1-2, 5, 7) Water samples taken from in and around the area of the springs located both on county and private property to the east and from wells in the general area show that the water generally is of high quality. There is no indication that past landfill operations at the site have degraded the water quality in the vicinity of the nearby creeks, ponds and wells. (Testimony of Meister, Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2, 8-9) The applicant plans to control surface runoff and any consequent erosion by means of terraces, berms, and swales. However, other than notations on engineering plans of provision for a highway drainage swale, no design of such items is shown in the application. Prior erosion in the area has been satisfactorily corrected in the past by the county by the use of similar methods to those planned for the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 2) The application was reviewed by DER's Southwest District permitting engineer. He found that the application and supporting documents met the statutory and regulatory criteria for the issuance of a construction permit. However, soil borings did not extend at least ten feet below the proposed excavations. (Testimony of Diltz, Exhibit 2) By letter of March 27, 1979, the Northwest District Manager of DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue a construction permit for the proposed sanitary landfill under standard and special conditions. The special conditions required construction of two approved monitoring wells east of the landfill and analysis of water samples from the wells and from a surface water sampling point in the headwaters of Mill Creek prior to issuance of an operation permit. A further condition required the applicant to submit verification that the bottoms of trenches contained at least two feet of the material specified in the application. At the hearing, DER and Okaloosa County submitted a stipulation wherein they agreed that additional monitoring wells should be placed upgradient from the site, at the downstream boundary of the first trench, at the north end of the clay barrier, and immediately east of boring number 8 prior to issuance of an operation permit. The conditions further required that well logs will be kept on all monitoring wells and reports on soils, geology and groundwater elevation he submitted to DER prior to issuance of an operating permit. Further, any identification of leachate contamination in the wells by a method to be spelled out in any operation permit will require extension of the earthen barrier west to State Road 4. Finally, a special condition required that the bottom lining material of all trenches and the barrier must be compacted prior to the issuance of an operating permit. (Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That the requested permit be issued to the Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners as herein specified. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wright Moulton, Esquire Post Office Box 591 Pensacola, Florida 32593 John R. Dowd, Esquire Okaloosa County Attorney Post Office Box 1964 Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548
The Issue Whether Respondent's explosives license should be revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 4A, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated June 9.1981, as amended. This proceeding arises under an Administrative Complaint filed by the State Fire Marshal, Department of Insurance, against Respondent, F. R. Jahna Industries, Inc., alleging that on or about February 26, 1981, Respondent violated Rules 4A-2.19(6) and (8), Florida Administrative Code, by detonating explosives in such a manner that rocks, dust and blast debris encroached on Highway 491 and residences in Beverly Hills, Florida. Violation of the aforesaid rules is predicated upon the allegation that the blast was done in a congested area, in close proximity to structures and highways, without using a mat to prevent fragments from being thrown, and by failing to block off adjacent roads. The State Fire Marshal seeks to revoke Respondent's explosives license issued under Chapter 552, Florida Statutes, or to impose any appropriate lesser penalties. Respondent filed a petition requesting a Section 120.57 (1), F.S., hearing and the petition was referred to this Division for the appointment of a Hearing Officer. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of seventeen witnesses, including deposition testimony of two witnesses. Respondent called seven witnesses and submitted ten exhibits in evidence. Proposed recommended orders filed by the parties have been fully considered, and those portions thereof which have not been adopted herein are considered either to be unnecessary, irrelevant or unsupported in fact or law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc. is licensed by Petitioner Department of Insurance under Explosives License No. 0463570178-00, for the operations of its limerock mine located on Highway 491 four miles north of Lecanto, Florida. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Pleadings) Respondent's Lecanto mine or quarry is comprised of approximately 100 acres where blasting operations are conducted for the purpose of producing limestone aggregate in various sizes for use in asphalt, concrete block, and ready-mix concrete. Blasting takes place along the "face" of the quarry and each "shot" is designed to dislodge and move a predictable amount of limestone. The Respondent routinely follows standard industry "state of the art" procedures in conducting its blasting operations under the supervision of state licensed "blasters" employed by the firm. The customary procedure employed is to decide on the desired location of a blast, strip the soil from the top of the rock deposit, and lay out the shot pattern on the ground with red marking paint to designate the holes into which the explosives will be placed. A. specified number of holes are drilled to a predetermined depth, after which the explosive material and detonating devices are inserted into the holes, leaving enough room at the top for "stemming" material which consists of the drill cuttings which are tamped by a wooden rod. Stemming is designed to hold pressure in the hole for a long enough period to achieve maximum blasting force for movement of rock. Too little stemming can cause "fly-rock," which are uncontrolled pieces, to fly out of the top of the hole in a ballistic trajectory at great speed. Such an occurrence would almost always be due to the negligence of blasting personnel in failing to insert sufficient stemming material for the particular blast. In quarry blast operations, it is customary to use a plastic "sleeve" in the drilled hole into which the explosive material is poured. A sleeve is used in order that the powder will not concentrate in a fissure or other void and thus cause a "blowout" of the explosion through the face of the quarry. (Testimony of Day, Froedge, Respondent's Exhibit 10, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 8-9) Respondent's rock mine is directly across Highway 491 from the Beverly Hills residential development. A forested buffer area lies between the housing development and Highway 491. (Testimony of Hubbard, Connor, Respondent's Exhibits 1-4 a-c) On February 26, 1981, at 4:50 P.M., Respondent's personnel conducted a blasting operation at the mine. The location of the blast was 1065.32 feet in a straight line direction west of Highway 491, and 1660.21 feet from Washington Street in Beverly Hills. The shot pattern consisted of 22 holes 30 feet deep placed 14 feet apart in three rows. There was a 12 foot separation between each row. Two hundred and fifty pounds of explosive material consisting of nitrocarbonitrate was poured into a plastic sleeve inserted into each hole. Nitrocarbonitrate is ammonium nitrate fertilizer with 6 percent diesel fuel. Total explosive material for the shot was 250 pounds per hole for a total of 5500 pounds. Two primers per hole were used for a total of 44 pounds. The holes were tamped with eight feet of stemming material each. Preparation for the shot and the loading of the explosive materials was supervised by Respondent's general manager, Aggregates Division, who is a licensed blaster, and by the mine superintendent, Willard Thompson. The head foreman was Billy McCranie, a licensed blaster who supervised the drilling and loading of the holes, and personally wired and stemmed the shot. A tape measure with a weight was used to insure that each hole contained eight feet of stemming. The manner in which the shot was prepared and detonated followed customary practice and was appropriate under the prevailing conditions for the amount of rock intended to be moved from the face of the mine. Although in prior mining operations, blasts had been conducted some 750 feet closer to Highway 941 than the shot on February 26th, there had never been an incident where fly-rock or other material had reached the highway. At the time the February 26th shot was laid out, there was a prevailing northwest wind of approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour which was gusty, but would not normally have impacted significantly on the blast. The wind did increase considerably at the time of the blast, but the superintendent did not consider it sufficient to warrant postponing the shot with the requisite notification to the State Fire Marshal. It is hazardous to leave explosives in the ground overnight unless it cannot be avoided. However, wind does not blow rock particles larger than a "BB" in size for any distance. Larger particles or rocks would simply be blown up and come down in the same locale, regardless of the strength of the wind, unless on a ballistic trajectory due to negligence in stemming of the shot. In such cases, rocks would travel at great speed and ultimately be imbedded in the earth. (Testimony of Day, McCranie, Thompson, Froedge, Respondent's Exhibits 5-6) At the time of the blast, general manager Day was located approximately 800 feet away from the site of the shot, foreman McCranie was approximately 400 feet away underneath a loader, and Thompson was at the front entrance of the mine. All three individuals observed that the rock was displaced in a normal manner as a result of the explosion and that no rocks reached their positions. They saw a large dust cloud drift across the area toward Highway 491 which was somewhat farther than normal due to the prevailing wind. At no time, did any of them believe that unusual precautions were necessary such as blocking off the highway. They did not consider the use of a blasting mat to cover the explosion. Such a mat, which is usually constructed of steel cable or chain, is not feasible for use in industrial mining operations due to the great size and weight required, and because an explosion would simply disintegrate the steel material and create a hazardous condition. Blasting mats are primarily used for small shots in heavily congested urban areas. Experts in the field of blasting are of the opinion that blasting mats are totally inappropriate for use in mine blasting operations. They further are of the opinion that the conditions of the shot on February 26th did not warrant any unusual precautions such as road closing, due to the location and type of blast, plus the fact that it could not be reasonably anticipated that any material would be thrown by the explosion more than three to four hundred feet from the blast site location. (Testimony of Day, McCranie, Muldrow, Thompson, Younginer, Froedge) The impact of the blast on various residents of Beverly Hills was varied, but there was general agreement among those who testified at the hearing that they heard a loud blast which shook the ground and was followed by a large grey or black cloud which drifted across Highway 491 into the Beverly Hills development at a height of several hundred feet. The cloud contained dust particles of salt size which peppered a number of the residents who were standing in their yards. One individual, Sidney Holt, who lives on the second street of the housing area from Highway 491, observed several pebbles fall in his yard which looked like sandstones, including one as big as a "pullet egg" which imbedded itself about a half inch in the sandy soil. Another resident, H. R. Hubbard, who lives on Washington Street, which is the first street of the development, was in his yard at the time and heard stones falling close by. Although he did not personally see any rocks fall, he later found three large stones bearing greyish marks lying on the surface of an open ground area behind his house toward Highway 491. The largest of these stones was approximately the size of a grapefruit and the other two were somewhat smaller. Although Hubbard testified that he had raked that area the day before and the rocks had not then been present, expert opinion testimony of blasting experts rules out the probability that the rocks were thrown or otherwise resulted from the February 26th blast, due to the distance involved and the fact that ammonium nitrate would leave a white rather than gray powder burn. Insufficient evidence was presented to warrant a finding that the rocks found on ground as described by Hubbard resulted from the explosion. (Testimony of Froedge, Connor, Hubbard, J. Baffuto, Holt, Rospierski, Neison, Muldrow, Pease, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) Other manifestations of the explosion experienced by Beverly Hills residents included chandeliers shaking and one falling from its mounting in a home three-quarters of a mile east of Highway 491. Another home owner approximately one-half mile east of the highway observed his awning windows open and close slightly from the blast. An individual who resides some one and three-quarter miles west of Respondent's mine saw his sliding glass patio doors "whip" or vibrate against the door frame several times. One Beverly Hills resident who lived two blocks east of the highway noticed that a pot on her stove vibrated onto the adjacent kitchen counter. Occupants of two motor vehicles traveling near the mine entrance at the time of the blast felt a strong concussion and observed the large dust cloud cross the highway into Beverly Hills. They also saw rocks the size of a fist and as large as a grapefruit in the air. One individual, Robert H. Martin, heard a rock hit his car and he also observed rocks falling on the highway. He slowed down and stopped at the time due to poor visibility caused by the dust cloud. He later found that there was a dent in his right front fender. The other automobile driven by Andrew Pustay was near the entrance of the mine at the time of the explosion. He continued driving although the blast caused him almost to lose control of his car and the dust obscured his visibility to approximately twenty or twenty five feet. He later observed a number of marks or dents on the hood, fenders and doors of his car -- several about the size of a dime --- where the paint had been removed and which had not been present prior to the explosion. The blast effect on residents would have been similar to lightning striking the ground. (Testimony of Jay Baffuto, DeMarta, Tripp, C. Baffuto, Martin, Schuster, A. Pustay (Deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit 3), M. Pustay Petitioner's Exhibit 2)), Froedge) Respondent has maintained a seismograph near the mine site for the past several years to measure ground vibrations and over-pressure from blasting operations. The seismograph was operating on February 26, 1981 at the time of Respondent's blast and failed to register any vibration. Such a failure is indicative of the fact that vibration as a result of the blast was minimal and not sufficient to cause damage in the surrounding area of Beverly Hills. (Testimony of Straw, Respondent's Exhibit 7) James R. Vereen, Petitioner's Chief, Bureau of Explosives, expressed the agency policy as to the use of blasting mats to be that the use of mats should be considered by the explosives user any time there is a possibility of fly-rock and consequent property damage or personal injury. However, he has never seen a blasting mat used in a quarry operation. (Testimony of Vereen)
Recommendation That Petitioner impose an administrative fine of $500 against Respondent, E. R. Jahna, Inc., pursuant to Section 552.161(1), Florida Statutes, for violation of Rule 4A-2.19 (8), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 9th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32201 Jack P. Brandon, Esquire Post Office Box 1079 Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Don Bradshaw, Esquire 204 West Main Street Inverness, Florida 32650 Honorable Bill Gunter Treasurer and Insurance Commission and State Fire Marshal State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should issue a solid waste construction permit to the David J. Joseph Company (Applicant) to construct lined cells at its existing Class I solid waste landfill in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. It is the position of the applicant and the Department that all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of said permit have been met, while Mr. & Mrs. David Brenner (Petitioners) contend that the application fails to meet the criteria for the issuance of this permit.
Findings Of Fact The applicant filed an application for a solid waste construction permit with the Department on May 2, 1988. This application was given permit number S029-77041. The applicant proposes to expand its existing solid waste Class I sanitary landfill located near Kingsway Road and Interstate 4, east of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, through the construction of a lined addition. This entire site consists of approximately 16 acres, but the lined portion for which this permit is sought comprises about eight acres. This site was purchased by the applicant in 1978, to landfill shredder waste, or "fluff", produced at its Tampa shredder. In fact, the applicant has operated this site as a landfill since 1978, under two previous permits issued by the Department in 1978 and 1983, and approximately nine acres of the site have already been filled. The Department gave notice of its intent to grant this permit on September 23, 1988, subject to specified conditions. The Petitioners, thereafter, timely requested this administrative hearing. The applicant is engaged in the ferrous scrap business at fourteen locations throughout the United States, and provides steel mills with raw material for their use in the production of new steel. It operates a large shredding plant in Tampa, Florida, which consists primarily of an automobile shredder and related equipment. The shredder is a large crushing and grinding piece of equipment which, in approximately 20 seconds, grinds scrap autos into small chunks of scrap the size of a man's fist. A conveyor system separates the scrap produced in the shredding process into three streams. The first stream consists of steel scrap that is sold to a steel mill. Approximately 80% of automobile scrap is steel. The second stream consists of non-ferrous material, primarily aluminum, zinc, copper, brass and other non-steel items found in autos, which are then sold to dealers in that particular type of metal. The third stream is waste material, or "shredder fluff". Approximately 17% of the material in automobile scrap is fluff. Guidelines have been established by the applicant which limit the type of material which will be accepted at the shredder facility as feedstock for the shredder operation. These guidelines prohibit acceptance of lead-acid batteries, gas tanks, tires, catalytic converters, and loose mufflers and tail pipes. Automobiles which are accepted by the applicant at its Tampa plant have already been crushed at separate locations by other companies engaged in the car crushing business prior to their purchase by the applicant. In the crushing process, most automobile fluids are liberated, but oil and other fluids not liberated during the crushing process are then liberated in the shredding process, and are intermingled with all three product streams produced at the shredder mill. Shredder fluff consists largely of automotive components such as upholstery, plastic, glass, rubber, dirt, and other non-magnetic and non-ferrous materials. The applicant's shredder operation in Tampa generates approximately seven to eight tractor trailer loads of fluff per day which are deposited at their current landfill. During 1988, the fluff from approximately 200,000 autos was disposed at this site. The existing landfill is located approximately 550 feet off of the roadway, and is accessible by an entrance road leading to the main gate of the site. The landfill is completely fenced with barbed wire around its perimeter, and there is a locked gate at the access road. There is a full time manager on site. Only shredder fluff produced by the applicant's Tampa shredder is deposited at this site. The applicant delivers its waste to this landfill using its own equipment and personnel. The applicant has taken reasonable steps to insure that only authorized persons enter the landfill site, and that there will be no unauthorized dumping. In order to continue using this landfill site, the applicant proposes to construct a liner system and leachate collection system for the remaining unfilled portion of the landfill, and also to establish a stormwater management system serving the entire site. A geotechnical and foundation investigation has been performed on the site to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of site soils, and the ability of those soils to support the landfill construction. The potential for movement in foundation soils was specifically addressed. It is to be noted that the applicant has been operating a landfill at this site for ten years without any sinkhole or foundation problems. There are no active sinkholes on the site, nor was there competent substantial evidence that any sinkhole had historically existed on this site. While the site geology is complex, the soils and subsurface geology will support the proposed project. Thus, the site is suitable for construction of lined Class I landfill cells. Beneath a surficial sand layer of approximately 30 feet in depth, lies an interbedded layer of sands, clay and heavily weathered limestone lenses approximately 40 feet thick, under which lies the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant will excavate below the level of the existing pit floor to remove any limestone protrusions which could adversely affect liner integrity. A dense clay layer, graded to remove rocks and other protrusions, will be used as a secondary barrier to retard the movement of contaminants into groundwater, and to further minimize the potential impact from limestone pinnacles upon liner integrity. The primary containment system will be a liner system constructed of a thick, high density, 60 millimeter polyethylene membrane, applied to both the bottom and sides of the landfill. Below-grade portions of the landfill will be lined completely. A layer of geotextile material is placed between the synthetic liner and clay layer to act as a cushion against stresses on the liner. The liner will be constructed in 30 foot wide strips with welded seams, every inch of which is vacuum tested. Laboratory testing is also conducted on sample coupons of welded seams to insure that the seams are as strong, or stronger, than the original material, and the areas from which coupons are taken are then extrusion welded and vacuum tested. The liner system is designed to withstand stresses, and any differential settlement, that are reasonably expected to occur at this site. It will minimize the risk of leakage of leachate to the environment, as was recognized by Dr. Richard Strom, an expert in hydrogeology called by Petitioners, who stated this is an improvement in the previous unlined operations at this site, and decreases, although it does not completely eliminate, the possibility of ground water pollution. The applicant's project design includes a leachate collection system which will allow leachate generated in the landfill to flow through a 12 inch thick gravel layer, which will act as a drain in the base of the landfill. Fluids will run to low spots and will then be channeled to sumps, where leachate is collected so that it can be disposed of by pumping away from the liner system and spraying onto the active face of the landfill. Natural evapotransporation will then reduce the volume of the leachate. An approved groundwater monitoring program is currently in place, and is being operated at the applicant's existing landfill. It consists of an upgradient well in the northeast corner of the site, and three down gradient wells, one in the southwest corner, one on the west and one on the south sides of the property. These down gradient wells are adequately placed to intercept groundwater flow from the site since the predominate groundwater flow is from the northeast to southwest. These wells all monitor the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant's groundwater monitoring program is adequate and appropriate to detect any leachate or other contaminates emanating from the landfill which might pollute the groundwater, and provides reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated by the landfill operations. The applicant has proposed a stormwater management system for the entire site which is designed to separate non- contact stormwater from that water which actually falls on, or comes into contact with, the waste material. All rainwater coming in contact with waste will be treated as leachate, and handled through the leachate collection system. The non-contact stormwater will be collected in a series of bermed drainage ditches around the site, and will be drained away to retention ponds for infiltration. During times of normal rainfall, there will be sufficient capacity in retention ponds to store all non- contact stormwater on site until it either evaporates or percolates into the ground. During extreme storm events, excess stormwater can be channeled off site to a nearby sinkhole for discharge. Routine monitoring will be conducted to ensure that water in the system has not been contaminated with leachate. The Department has delegated stormwater plan approval authority to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which reviewed and approved the applicant's stormwater management system through the issuance of a permit in 1988. Noxious odors do not emanate from the existing landfill operations, although there is a slight odor similar to an auto garage service bay close to the disposal materials. This is not a sickening or noxious odor, as acknowledged even by Dr. Strom. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that leachate sprayed on the active face of the landfill, after having been collected through the leachate collection system, will not result in, or cause, noxious odors at the landfill site. The applicant has established that this project to enlarge its existing landfill with a lined addition will not release contaminants into the underlying soils and groundwater.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental regulation enter a Final Order approving the application of the David J. Joseph Company and issuing permit number S029-77041. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-6009) Rulings on the Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected in Findings 1, 9-12. Rejected in Findings 10-14. Rejected in Finding 16. Rejected in Finding 16, but Adopted in part in Finding 13. Rejected in Findings 10-12. Rejected in Finding 15. Rejected in Finding 14. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings 1, 2. 2-3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 7. 11. Adopted in Finding 8. 12-15. Adopted in Findings 9-11. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 13. 19-21. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Findings 9 and 16. Adopted in Finding 17. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Wilcox, Esquire Katherine Harasz, Esquire 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 1650 Tampa, FL 33602 William D. Preston, Esquire Thomas M. DeRose, Esquire 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale Twatchmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File following the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by the Petitioner. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DCA10-GM-056 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this 23-4 day of March, 2010. U.S. Mail: The Honorable D.R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Melvin Wolfe, Esq. Town of Medley 7777 N.W. 72nd Avenue Medley, Florida 33166 Jeffrey S. Bass, Esq. Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 S.W. First Street, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Hand Delivery: Richard Shine, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Paula Ford Agency Clerk Douglas M. Halsey, Esq. White & Case, LLP Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131 Barbara J. Riesberg, Esq. 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33131
