Findings Of Fact The site of the proposed landfill is located near Seffner, Florida, and is northwest of and adjacent to two previously used landfill sites. The proposed site meets all zoning requirements, is not located in the vicinity of an airport so as to be subject to Federal Aviation Administration regulations, and no natural or artificial body of water is located within 200 feet of the site. Inasmuch as the operation of the earlier used landfills created much of the opposition presented at this hearing, a short history of Hillsborough County's landfill operation follows. Hillsborough County opened the old Taylor Road landfill, a tract containing 42 acres, in 1976 and closed it in 1980 when it became full. The old Taylor Road landfill site abuts to the southeast the site being applied for it these proceedings. In 1977, pursuant to a consent decree between the City of Tampa and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (petitioners' Exhibit 14) , the City of Tampa's incinerator, at which most of the solid waste in Hillsborough County was disposed, was ordered closed by 1979. The City of Tampa engaged consultants to locate an acceptable site for use as a sanitary landfill. In 1978, Hillsborough County, pursuant to an agreement with the City of Tampa (Petitioners' Exhibit 15), assumed the responsibility for solid waste disposal throughout Hillsborough County. Thereafter, it was determined that the best site, from an ecological point of view, was adjacent to the old Taylor Road landfill. Prior to obtaining DER approval to expand this site, the selection of which the County Commission approved in April 1979, time for closing the incinerator was running out and the County was given permission to utilize a 10.6 acre borrow pit, adjacent to and west of the old Taylor Road site, which bad been given to the County by the State Department of Transportation. This approval was given by DER in January 1980. When Hillsborough County assumed the responsibility for waste disposal throughout the County, waste from Temple Terrace and Plant City was added which waste had not been disposed of by the City of Tampa incinerator. The County entered into a contract with Waste Management Inc., a large company specializing in developing and operating waste disposal facilities in many parts of the United States and abroad, to design and operate Hillsborough Heights Sanitary Landfill. The 10.6 acre site would quickly be filled so it was necessary for the County to `reapply to DER for a permit to operate a landfill capable of serving the County until 1984. At that time, modification to the incinerator to comply with clean air standards and operate as an energy recovery unit will be complete and it can be restored to operation. Before that hearing was held the 10.6 acre site filled, and it became necessary for the County to request an emergency permit from DER to operate a landfill on part of the proposed site. Following a hearing on this request, DER issued an order in July 1980, authorizing Hillsborough County to operate a sanitary landfill on 41.5 acres adjacent to the old Taylor Road landfill and the 10.6 acre borrow pit site. By the application here under consideration, as modified by Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Petitioners are seeking to expand this 41.5 acre site to 64 acres, thereby adding 22.5 acres to the already approved site. Two thousand tons of solid waste are deposited at this site daily, six days a week. The primary concern respecting a sanitary landfill in the proposed location is the potential for pollution of the Floridan aquifer which underlies this site and the fact that the site is located in a karst area. Unless an impervious surface lies naturally or is constructed between the base of the proposed landfill and the Floridan aquifer, pollution of the aquifer could occur should leachate from the site accumulate and percolate to the aquifer. All of Hillsborough County and much of Florida is underlain by limestone containing karst features. One unfortunate characteristic of the karst formation is the potential for the limestone to dissolve thereby creating cavities into which the surface overburden falls to create a sinkhole. Some liquids, including leachate, will dissolve limestone, thereby creating cavities into which the overburden can fall. This risk is reduced by the thickness of the clay layer over the limerock which inhibits the entry of surface water into the aquifer. The proposed site has a basal clay from five feet to twenty feet thick above the limerock. However, this base clay is not believed to be continuous throughout the site to this minimum thickness due to sand columns, pinnacles and other anomalies that have formed. Petitioners propose to remove some 35 to 45 feet of the overlying sand and intermediate clay down to the base clay to form the pit into which waste will be deposited. The thickness of this base clay over the limerock will then be tested. If at least five feet of clay is not over the limestone, Petitioners will install a minimum of five feet of recompacted clay liner with a density of at least 2.5 - X 10 (to the seventh power) cm/sec. over the bottom of the landfill. Impervious sidewalls around the edges of the landfill will be constructed of either a minimum of five feet of compacted lay or of Hypalon, a synthetic sidewall liner material, in accordance with the Stipulation Agreement. If Hypalon is used, it will be covered with at least two feet of soil before waste is put in the landfill. Petitioners will install a leachate collection system for monitoring and removing, if necessary, leachate that may collect in the bottom of this landfill. Perimeter ditches will be constructed around the bottom of the landfill with the floor of the landfill sloped toward the perimeter ditches. These ditches will contain perforated pipe to conduct leachate to sumps from which the leachate can be removed. Should leachate be generated before the landfill is closed, the leachate will be extracted by pumping; and discharged for absorption by solid waste at the landfill, or trucked to a treatment plant for processing. After each day's operations at this landfill, at least six inches of soil will be placed over the compacted solid waste accepted that day. This should provide reasonable protection for rodents and insects. Final soil coverage to be used as a top liner for this landfill will consist of at least eighteen inches of compacted clayey soil overlain by six inches of loosely compacted soil in order to provide a final cover to minimize infiltration of surface water runoff. The final surface of the landfill will be graded and sloped so rainfall will not puddle on the landfill but run off to the perimeter of the landfill. Thus, when completed, the deposited waste will be encased in a relatively impermeable container on all surfaces. Perimeter ditches will be installed to keep surface waters out of the landfill, and these ditches will be lined with 18 inches of clay to inhibit seepage of water to the landfill from these ditches. The ditches will discharge into holding ponds located south and southwest of the site. Surface waters in this vicinity flow south to southwesterly. Access to the landfill will be controlled by a perimeter fence and entry gate which will be manned during all hours of operation and locked when not manned. Disposal of hazardous or infectious waste will not be allowed. Spotters will be stationed at the dump site to inspect waste entering the site and to detect any hazardous or infectious waste that may reach the landfill. Household wastes will be accepted and these may include small quantities of paints, insecticides and other material that in large quantities would be considered hazardous. Litter will be controlled by temporary fencing or portable litter fences. Bare limestone exposed by excavation will be protected from flow of water from the active landfill area by berms until such time as the limestone is covered by the five feet of compacted base clay. During excavation of the landfill, a geologist or hydrologist will be stationed at the site by the operator of the landfill to determine the nature and extent of earth materials encountered. Anomalies found during excavation will be recorded and reported. This will serve to insure the impervious five feet clay base between the landfill and the limestone. Methane gas control will be provided by the base clay underlying the landfill, the liners to be constructed around the landfill perimeter, and the clay soil cover. Rising gas will vent through the soil cover. If odor problems occur, gas vents will be installed at the high point of the landfill to provide a controlled path for these gases which can then be flared. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed around the perimeter of the site to detect any leachate which may escape. Wells upgrade of the site will be installed to determined whether metals or other impurities detected in the downgrade monitoring wells come from the landfill or are in the groundwater before it gets to the landfill. The geology of the site is complex. Numerous test borings have been taken in the 218.6 acre tract, sinkholes in the area have been studied, special photographs of the site have been taken to show where changes and moisture in soil occur as well as other geologic features. All available information shows the 64 acre parcel in the southern part of the 218.6 acre site to be the safest in the site from a catastrophic subsidence (sinkhole) Although the Intervenors contend that the site is subject to sinkholes, no credible evidence was presented that this site is more subject to a catastrophic subsidence than is the remainder of Hillsborough County. Competent evidence was presented that a sinkhole is less likely to develop at the proposed 64 acre site than in other areas of Hillsborough County. Intervenors' and the public witnesses' primary complaint and vehement opposition to the granting of the permit here requested stem largely from the manner in which the predecessor landfills in this area have been operated; and rightly so. Infectious waste has been dumped on the site on several occasions; inadequate daily cover has been provided; dogs have roamed the site; birds have been killed by insecticides dumped on the site; papers have blown over the site; surface waters from the site have been pumped outside the site in such a manner that well water could be contaminated; inadequate precautions have been taken to prevent rodent and insect infestation of the site; and unpleasant odors have emanated from the site. These complaints go to conditions that existed in the past; they are not necessarily harbingers of things to come. Hillsborough County's lease law should preclude dogs roaming the site. Strict adherence to the conditions of the permit will eliminate the vast majority of those complaints.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Gleason Brothers and Company (Gleason), as stipulated, is a small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Gleason owns real property in Brevard County, Florida, specifically described as Sections 28 and 33, Township 27 South, Range 36 East. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is a state agency with jurisdiction to issue wetland resource permits and management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permits pursuant to Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes. The Permit Proceeding On June 18, 1993, the Brevard County Solid Waste Management Department (Brevard County) applied to DEP for wet land resource and MSSW permits required for the county's landfill expansion and new construction. Part of the landfill project consisted in a proposal for off-site mitigation which was required to offset wetland impacts by the landfill expansion. The off-site mitigation property is several miles from the landfill site and is described as west of Interstate 95, north of State Road 500, Sections 27 and 34 Township 27 South, Range 36 East. The off-site mitigation property lies adjacent to, and east of, the subject Gleason property. Both Gleason's and the off-site mitigation property are east of the St. John's River, with Gleason's property lying between the river and the off-site mitigation property. In its 1993 application, Brevard County proposed to restore the historic natural grade of the mitigation property by removing certain dikes or berms and by filling some ditches, which berms and ditches were created many years ago by the former owners, the Platts, to improve the property for agricultural use. Some of those ditches and berms run along the property line between the Gleason and mitigation property. In August and September 1993, Brevard County requested Gleason's permission to enter its land to install two piezometers as part of a scope of work to monitor impacts of the proposed off-site mitigation project. The county provided a copy of the scope of work and a map to Gleason's attorney, Robert Riggio. On October 21, 1993, Riggio responded, by letter to Richard Rabon, Director, Brevard County Solid Waste Management Department, that Gleason would not allow permission to enter its land for hydrological monitoring. Furthermore, Riggio stated, Gleason was concerned about the effects of potential flooding and an artificial increase in the area's water table which could "upset the value and continued usability of its land". On November 15, 1993, Riggio wrote to DEP staff person, Ann Wonnacott (now, Ann Ertman) requesting notice of intended agency action on the county's landfill permits, and expressing Gleason's concern that the proposed project, including filling of ditches and removing berms, would artificially raise water levels, flood and devalue Gleason property. On February 11, 1994, Riggio sent DEP a map of Gleason's property and a legal description. On November 18, 1994, Riggio again wrote to Ann Wonnacott and objected to the landfill project on Gleason's behalf. Again, Riggio stated that the off- site mitigation plan included filling ditches which provided a flow of water in which Gleason asserted "legally recognizable rights". In the meantime, in response to Gleason's concerns, in November 1993, DEP asked Brevard County to provide reasonable assurance that the off-site mitigation project would not flood surrounding property. Brevard County's licensed professional engineers then undertook a groundwater modeling analysis and gathered information and performed testing for a stormwater modeling analysis. In reports provided in April 1994 the engineers concluded that the project would not increase flooding on Gleason's land. DEP's expert in surface water management reviewed the engineering reports, data and reports on the area from the St. Johns River Water Management District, USGS quadrangle maps and aerial photographs, and he agreed that the project would not increase flooding on Gleason's land. DEP staff review of the Brevard County applications revealed that the applications met relevant rule and statutory criteria, and on February 7, 1995 DEP issued its Notice of Intent (NOI) to issue a wetland resource permit for the onsite and off-site parts of the project, and an MSSW permit for the onsite part of the project only. The draft permit provided that no work could commence prior to issuance of the MSSW permit for the off-site mitigation work. DEP staff considered the off-site mitigation MSSW permit the "linchpin" of the entire project: without it, no work on any part of the project could commence. Gleason, though its attorney, Robert Riggio, timely filed a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes petition for formal administrative hearing challenging DEP's intent to issue permits to Brevard County. The petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Gleason's petition raised several material issues: that the removal of the berms and filling of the ditches (called "drainage canals" by Gleason) would alter the "natural and historic hydroperiod" of Gleason's property, increasing water levels and enhancing the growth of weeds and other noxious vegetation; that it appeared that some of the ditches to be filled were actually within the boundaries of Gleason's property; and that DEP failed to adequately assess the effect of the proposed permitted action on the property of others. Discovery commenced and Gleason continued to object to Brevard County's requests to enter Gleason's land for inspections and testing. From Brevard County's perspective, the main function of filling in the ditches was to obtain additional mitigation credits for the area of the ditches. Relying on its engineers, the county did not consider that the ditches performed a significant hydrological function. At some point in time after Gleason's petition was filed, Brevard County agreed to not fill the ditches and submitted a modified application to DEP. In July 1995, Brevard County submitted to DEP its application for the MSSW permit for the off-site mitigation project (the "linchpin" permit). The application included removing the berms but did not propose filling in the ditches. In August 1995, DEP issued notices of intent to grant the revised permit and the off-site mitigation MSSW permit. Gleason, Brevard County and DEP signed a joint stipulation and motion to relinquish jurisdiction in the Division of Administrative Hearings case on December 21, 1995, The motion was granted, and Division of Administrative Hearing's files were closed. On January 3, 1996 DEP entered its final order and issued the permits, as revised. "Prevailing Party" From the time when it was first informed of the project, Gleason's primary concern was the county's proposal to fill the ditches. Whether this concern was misguided or whether it was legitimate, it was not until the petition was filed, and some time thereafter, that the county changed its application. Gleason's February 22, 1995 petition specifically requested the alternative relief of an order modifying the subject permits by leaving the "drainage canals" intact. When it obtained its relief by settlement prior to an evidentiary hearing, Gleason became a "prevailing party". A Reasonable Basis in Law and Fact Ann Wonnacott Ertman reviewed Brevard County's permit application, including the off-site mitigation project and she visited the mitigation site. By walking along the ditch between the site and the Gleason property she was able to view both properties, although obviously not the entire two sections owned by Gleason. The Gleason property viewed by Ms. Ertman was flat, and predominately dominated by wetland vegetation. She saw some cattle grazing, but no other uses or improvements to the property. As understood by Ms. Ertman, the purpose of the off-site mitigation project was to reestablish the hydrology which existed prior to the Platts' construction of the berms and ditches. Those berms prevented some flood waters from the St. Johns River and Lake Washington from flowing onto the Platt property. Removal of the ditches and berms would therefore allow the flood waters collecting on Gleason's property to sheet flow into the mitigation site. Both the Platt property and Gleason property are considered to be within the mean annual and ten-year floodplain of the St. Johns River. As viewed by DEP and Brevard County, the off-site mitigation project would reduce, not increase water, on the Gleason property. On the other hand, Gleason and its consultant conjectured that stormwater runoff flowing from the slightly higher elevations on the Platt property would flow unimpeded onto the lower Gleason property if the ditches were removed. This conjecture was based on an assumption that the ditches served a significant hydrological function by draining water off the property and transporting it away somewhere. When Gleason, through its attorney, made its concerns known to DEP, Brevard County was required to respond and its consultants were required to perform further studies and tests. Based on their studies and tests and computer modeling, Brevard County's consultants concluded that removing the ditches would not increase, but would rather slightly decrease, the amount of impervious surface area at the mitigation site and there would be a slight decrease in the volume of stormwater runoff flowing from that land to Gleason's land. Brevard County's consultants also determined that, notwithstanding the size of the ditches, the soil types in the area acted as a barrier to the water and the ditch could not exert a significant drawdown effect. All of the information available to the DEP staff who reviewed the application competently supported the conclusion that filling the ditches would have no negative effect on Gleason's adjacent property. This information included observations from staff site visits, detailed information from Brevard County's consultants, U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps, aerial photographs, and uniquely relevant documents published by the St. Johns River Water Management District. This information properly outweighed the unsupported conjectures expressed by Gleason and its consultant, and after finding the application otherwise met the statutory and regulatory criteria, DEP had a reasonable basis to issue its intent to grant the permit. DEP was never apprised of Gleason's claim that some part of the ditches were on its property until Gleason's petition was filed in response to the notice of intent to issue the permit. In its initial application Brevard County represented to DEP that it was the record owner of the land where the project was proposed. DEP does not require a detailed land survey with the application, as that is an expense that would be unnecessary if the project were ultimately disapproved. Instead, the survey is a condition of the permit; that is, it must be accomplished prior to commencement of an approved project. DEP does not authorize trespass on property not belonging to an applicant. Nor did Brevard County intentionally include Gleason-owned ditches in its project. There was no incentive for it to do so, as no mitigation credit would be allowed for such extraterritorial works. Nominal Party or Special Circumstances As the agency responsible for reviewing and acting on the applications at issue, DEP was more than a "nominal party" in this proceeding. However, in this instance, it was in the peculiar position of not being entirely in control of the outcome of the proceeding. The applicant, and not DEP, determined the project for which the permit was sought. Brevard County, and not DEP, initially chose to fill ditches, and Brevard County chose to delete that work from its amended application and from the "linchpin" application, the off-site mitigation MSSW permit. In either case, with and without the ditch filling work, DEP determined the applications met relevant criteria and merited approval. Reasonable Fees As stipulated, the fees and costs of $13,193.50 incurred by the Gleasons in the underlying action are reasonable.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Angelo's Aggregate Materials, LTD ("Angelo's") is entitled to permits from the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") to construct and operate a Class I landfill in Pasco County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency with the power and duty under chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to review and take action on applications for permits to construct and operate solid waste management facilities, including landfills. Angelo's is a Florida limited partnership authorized to conduct business under the name Angelo's Recycled Materials. Angelo's filed the permit applications which are the subject of this proceeding. Angelo's owns the property on which the proposed landfill would be constructed and operated. Crystal Springs Preserve is a Florida corporation that owns approximately 525 acres in Pasco County, Florida on which is located Crystal Springs, a second magnitude spring that flows into the Hillsborough River. The property is about 10 miles south of Angelo's proposed landfill site. Crystal Springs Preserve's primary business activities are selling spring water for bottling for human consumption and operating an environmental education center that focuses on Crystal Springs and the Hillsborough River. Crystal Springs Preserve hosts approximately 50,000 visitors annually at the environmental education center. Crystal Springs Preserve holds a water use permit which authorizes it to withdraw up to 756,893 gallons of water per day (annual average) from Crystal Springs for production of bottled water. The water is transported about three miles to a water bottling facility operated by Nestlé. Nestlé is a private corporation engaged in the business of bottling and selling spring water. Nestlé purchases spring water from Crystal Springs Preserve. Nestlé's "Zephyrhills Spring Water" brand is composed of approximately 90 percent Crystal Springs water and 10 percent Madison Blue Spring water. The only water treatment applied by Nestlé is filtering the water to remove gross contaminants and passing the water through ultraviolet light or ozone to kill any potential bacteria before bottling. Nestlé has established "norms" for its spring water and would not be able to use the water from Crystal Springs if its chemical composition varied significantly from the norms. WRB is a Florida corporation that owns 1,866 acres in Pasco County known as Boarshead Ranch. Boarshead Ranch is adjacent to the east and south of Angelo’s property and is approximately 3,000 feet from the proposed landfill at its closest point. Boarshead Ranch is currently being used for agricultural, recreational, residential, and conservation purposes, including wildlife management. Nearly all of Boarshead Ranch is subject to a conservation easement held by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The conservation easement allows WRB to continue agricultural operations. Numerous agricultural water wells are located on Boarshead Ranch. WRB holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal of 820,000 gallons per day (gpd) (annual average) for a number of uses, including production of agricultural products, animal drinking water, and personal use. The City of Zephyrhills is located in Pasco County and is a municipal corporation. Zephyrhills' water service area encompasses Zephyrhills and portions of Pasco County. Zephyrhills owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Zephyrhills holds a water use permit which authorizes nine potable water supply wells with a combined withdrawal of 2.9 million gallons per day ("mgd") (annual average). Zephyrhills has two new production wells located about two miles southeast of the proposed landfill. The City of Tampa owns and operates the David L. Tippin Water Treatment Plant, the Hillsborough River dam, and the City of Tampa reservoir on the Hillsborough River. Flows from Crystal Springs make up a substantial amount of the water in the Hillsborough River, especially during drought conditions when the spring flow accounts for about 50 percent of the flow. The City of Tampa holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal 82 mgd (annual average). The City of Tampa owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Carl Roth, Marvin Hall, and Louis Potenziano own property in Pasco County near the proposed landfill site. Roth's property is 3.5 miles west of the proposed landfill site; Hall's property is located approximately one mile southwest of the site; and Potenziano's property is 1.6 miles to the south/southeast of the site. Roth, Hall, and Potenziano have water wells on their properties. The record does not establish that John Floyd owns property in the area. Floyd and Associates, Inc., owns about 55 acres in the area and holds a water use permit authorizing the withdrawal of water for agricultural uses. The Stipulated Agreement On March 1, 2010, Angelo's filed with DOAH a "Stipulated Agreement" signed by all parties. The Stipulated Agreement states in relevant part: Angelo's shall provide a final design, revised complete permit application and site investigation (referred to jointly as "Revised Submittal") to DEP with copies to all Parties and DEP shall make a completeness determination prior to this proceeding being set for a new final hearing date. * * * Angelo's shall not revise its permit application or supporting information beyond the Revised Submittal prior to or during the final hearing except in response to issues raised by DEP. It appears that the Aligned Parties did not remember the Stipulated Agreement until the commencement of the final hearing. They did not object before then to any of the evidence which Angelo's had prepared or intended to prepare for hearing on the basis that it violated the terms of the Stipulated Agreement. At the commencement of the hearing, Nestlé argued that the Stipulated Agreement barred Angelo's from revising its application or presenting new support for its project at the final hearing. The Stipulated Agreement is unusual and the necessity for Angelo's to make any concessions to the Aligned Parties in order to obtain their agreement to an abeyance was not explained. Allowing an applicant time to amend a permit application is usually good cause for an abeyance. The Stipulated Agreement allowed Angelo's to continue to respond to issues raised by the Department. Angelo's contends that all of the evidence it presented at the final hearing qualifies as a response to issues raised by the Department. The Proposed Landfill Angelo's applied to construct and operate a Class I landfill with associated buildings and leachate holding tanks. Application No. 22913-001-SC/01 corresponds to the construction permit application and Application No. 22913-001-SO/01 corresponds to the operation permit application. A Class I landfill is a landfill authorized to receive Class I waste, which is solid waste from households and businesses. Class I waste does not include hazardous waste, yard waste, or construction and demolition debris. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(13) and (14). The proposed landfill would be approximately 30 acres in size. It is part of a 1,020-acre parcel owned by Angelo's that is west of County Road 35 and south of Enterprise Road in Pasco County. The site is currently leased for cattle grazing and hay and sod production. There are also spray fields, orange groves, and a pond on the 1,020-acre parcel. Angelo's would construct the landfill by first clearing the 30-acre site. It would then excavate and fill to create the design subgrade or floor of the landfill with slopes required for the liner system. The subgrade would be compacted with a vibratory roller. After the subgrade compaction, the grouting plan would be implemented. The grouting plan calls for grouting 39 subsurface locations on the site that have voids, loose soils, or other unstable characteristics. A liner system would be installed after the grouting is completed and the subgrade is finished. From the bottom upward, the liner system would begin with a 12-inch layer of clay, over which a reinforcement geotextile would be installed, followed by another 12-inch layer of clay. This reinforcement geotextile is in addition to the double liner system required by Department rule. Its purpose is to maintain the integrity of the liner system in the event that a sinkhole occurs beneath the landfill. Installed above the reinforcement geotextile and clay layer would be a 60-millimeter high-density polyethylene ("HDPE") geomembrane, followed by a HDPE drainage net. These last two components comprise the secondary leachate collection system. Above the HDPE drainage net would be the primary leachate collection system, consisting of another 60-millimeter HDPE geomembrane and HDPE drainage net, followed by a geotextile, then a 12-inch sand layer for drainage, and an additional 12-inch sand layer for protection against puncture of the HDPE liner. A 48-inch layer of selected waste, free of items that could puncture the liner, would be the first waste placed over the primary leachate collection system. "Leachate" is "liquid that has passed through or merged from solid waste and may contain soluble, suspended, or miscible materials." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(66). Leachate would be collected through a system of perforated pipes that empty into a sloping trench with a leachate collection pipe. The leachate collection pipe would run down the center of the landfill to the lowest point where a pump would send the collected leachate through a force main 0.25 miles to storage tanks. Five above-ground storage tanks would be installed on a concrete pad with capacity to store 90,000 gallons of leachate. The stored leachate would be periodically transported to an offsite location, such as a wastewater treatment facility, for disposal. Sinkholes and Karst The terms "sinkhole" and "sinkhole activity" are not defined by Department rule, but the statutory definitions in chapter 627, a chapter dealing with insurance coverage for homes and other buildings, are generally consistent with the scientific meanings of these terms. The term "sinkhole" is defined in section 627.706(2)(h) as: a landform created by subsidence of soil, sediment, or rock as underlying strata are dissolved by groundwater. A sinkhole forms by collapse into subterranean voids created by dissolution of limestone or dolostone or by subsidence as these strata are dissolved. The term "sinkhole activity" is defined in section 627.706(2)(i) as: settlement or systematic weakening of the earth supporting the covered building only if the settlement or systematic weakening results from contemporaneous movement or raveling of soils, sediments, or rock materials into subterranean voids created by the effect of water on a limestone or similar rock formation. Sinkholes occur throughout Florida. There have been many reported and confirmed sinkholes in Pasco County. The more common type of sinkhole that has occurred on the Brooksville Ridge is a "cover subsidence" sinkhole, which is caused by voids in the limestone and the downward movement--"raveling"--of overlying soils into the cavity. Eventually, the loss of soils in the raveling zone will propagate upward until the soils at the ground surface also move downward and a depression is formed at the surface. Cover subsidence sinkholes develop slowly and are usually small, less than ten feet in diameter. Less common are "cover collapse" sinkholes, which can form in a matter of days or hours as the result of the collapse of the "roof" of a dissolved cavity in the limestone. These sinkholes are usually large and deep. The occurrence of a sinkhole does not always mean that areas near the sinkhole are unstable. However, the occurrence of a sinkhole is reasonable cause for concern about the stability of nearby areas and a reasonable basis for the Department to require thorough geologic investigations. "Karst" refers to limestone that is undergoing dissolution and it is common in Florida. A sinkhole forms in karst. "Epikarst" is limestone that was weathered while exposed above sea level millions of years ago before being submerged again. It is generally softer and more permeable than unweathered limestone. "Paleokarst" refers to karst that is very old in geologic time. Paleosinks are old sinkhole features in the paleokarst. A paleosink may no longer be unstable because it has been filled in for thousands or millions of years. A "lineament," or a "photolineament," is a relatively straight line seen in the topography or aerial photographs of the ground surface in an area. It might be defined by soil color, sloughs, ponds, wetlands, or other land features that follow a linear path. Lineaments are sometimes, but not always, associated with subsurface fractures in the bedrock where one would expect to also find active karst, sinkholes, and relatively rapid groundwater flow. Even where there is no lineament, there can be fractures in limestone that, when extensive enough, will allow for "fractured," "preferential," or "conduit flow" of groundwater. Fractured flow can occur in a small area or may go on for miles. Springs in Florida are usually associated with fractured flow or conduit flow that allows groundwater to move through the aquifer a long distance relatively rapidly, in weeks rather than decades. Geotechnical Investigation The Department's rules require subsurface conditions to be explored and described, including soil stratigraphy, soft ground, lineaments, and unstable areas, but the rules do not require the application of any particular geologic testing technique. An applicant's testing program is primarily a function of the professional judgment of the applicant’s geologist in cooperation with Department staff. The amount of geological testing done by Angelo's during its initial testing was similar to what was done for recent landfill applications. Angelo's conducted additional testing to respond to Department concerns and to prepare for the final hearing in this case, making the total amount of testing at Angelo's proposed site more extensive than is usual for a proposed landfill. The geologic investigation conducted by Angelo's experts to determine subsurface features, including any sinkholes, employed several technologies. Split Spoon Penetrometer Test (SPT) or SPT borings were drilled with a drill rig that advances a split spoon sampler into the ground with a 140 pound hammer. The hammer is dropped 30 inches and the number of blows required to drive the sampler each successive 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and indicates soil strength and density. The higher the N value, the denser the soil. When the material is so dense the drill rod cannot (essentially) be hammered deeper, the N value is shown as "R," which stands for "refusal." SPT Bore logs also note any observed "weight of hammer," "weight of rod," or "loss of circulation." These terms describe areas where the drilling encounters very soft material or voids. Weight of rod, for example, means the weight of the drilling rod, by itself, with no hammer blow, was enough to cause the rod to fall deeper through the soil or rock. Cone Penetrometer Test ("CPT") borings were also conducted. CPT borings are relatively shallow, performed with a hand-held rod and special tip that the operator pushes into the ground. The CPT equipment continuously measures and records tip resistance and sleeve resistance as the rod moves downward through soils. It is helpful in some applications, but is less precise in determining soil type, strength, and compressibility than SPT borings and cannot be used to explore deep zones. Ground penetrating radar ("GPR") studies were used. GPR equipment transmits pulses of radio frequency waves into the ground. The manner in which the radio waves are reflected indicates the types of soil and rock encountered. It can also detect cavities and other features that would suggest karst activity. When the GPR identifies geologic features of interest, they can be further investigated with SPT borings. Another investigative tool used by Angelo's was Multiple Electrode Resistivity ("MER"). MER uses a grid of wires and electrodes and the equipment interprets the resistivity of electrical signals transmitted through the subsurface. MER data can be displayed in a two dimensional or three dimensional format, depending on the software program that is used to process the data. Like GPR, MER is useful for indentifying geologic features of interest that can be further explored with SPT borings. However, GPR generally has good resolution only near the ground surface, while MER has good resolution to a depth of 100 feet. The Regional Geology The proposed site is in a geologic transition zone on the eastern flank of a regional, geological feature known as the Brooksville Ridge. It is a transition zone for both the Suwannee Limestone and Hawthorn Group. The Brooksville Ridge was formed when it was part of the coastline. In its geologic past, the Brooksville Ridge experienced sea level changes, weathering, erosion of sediments, and beach reworking. The general layering of geologic features on the Brooksville Ridge, from the top down, begins with topsoil and a layer of sand. Under the sand layer is the Hawthorn Group, an older geologic layer consisting of a heterogeneous mix of limestone, clays, and sands which generally range in depth from slightly under 60 feet to 80 feet or more. It was formed by river and wind erosion, flushing, and re-deposition in a beach dune environment. Below the Hawthorn Group is the Suwannee Limestone Formation, which is present throughout eastern Pasco County. The upper surface of the Suwannee Limestone Formation is undulating, due to a gradual chemical weathering of its upper surface, representing a "paleokarst environment." Underlying the Suwannee Limestone Formation is the Ocala Limestone Formation. It extends throughout most of Florida. It is composed of nearly pure limestone and is considered the Floridan Aquifer. It extends across the site’s subsurface. Angelo's used the Florida Geologic Survey's data base to determine there are six sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. A seventh sinkhole, not in the data base, is the 15- foot sinkhole at the Angelo's Enterprise Road Facility landfill, a Class III landfill (yard waste and construction and demolition debris) about a mile northwest of the proposed site. Angelo's contends that the sinkhole at its Class III landfill was "induced" during construction of the facility by the diversion of stormwater runoff to an area where overburden had been removed. The average diameter of the seven sinkholes is 11.9 feet. The Geology of the Proposed Site Rule 62-701.410(2)(c) requires a geotechnical site investigation and report, which shall: Explore and describe subsurface conditions including soil stratigraphy and ground water table conditions; Explore and address the presence of muck, previously filled areas, soft ground, lineaments, and sinkholes; Evaluate and address fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas as described in 40 C.F.R. 258.13, 258.14 and 258.15; Include estimates of the average and maximum high ground water table across the site; and Include a foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the landfill. It may include geotechnical measures necessary to modify the foundation to accommodate the imposed loads and stresses. The foundation shall be analyzed for short-term, end of construction, and long-term stability and settlement conditions. Considering the existing or proposed subgrade conditions and the landfill geometry, analysis shall include: Foundation bearing capacity; Subgrade settlements, both total and differential; and Subgrade slope stability. Angelo's conducted a geotechnical site investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below and in sections I. and J. The proposed landfill site is geologically complex, having features that are discontinuous horizontally and vertically. The site has karst features or areas where the limestone has dissolved. There is a clay layer in some areas, but it is not continuous and its depth and thickness vary. There are deposits of hard and soft sands at various depths. There are pinnacles of limestone surrounded by softer materials. Photographs from a quarry called the Vulcan Mine, located on the western flank of the Brooksville Ridge, show exposed features in the top 20 to 30 feet of the Suwannee Limestone in the region. The features at the Vulcan Mine are roughly similar to features at the Angelo's site. There are a number of shallow depressions on the surface of the ground on the Angelo's site. The origin and significance of these depressions was a matter of dispute. The Aligned Parties believe they represent sinkhole activity, but the evidence presented did not rise to the level of proof. However, Angelo's did not prove they were unassociated with geotechnical issues that could affect the proposed landfill. Angelo's offered no reasonable explanation for the depressions. Determining the exact cause of the depressions may not be possible even with more extensive investigation, but it was Angelo's responsibility as the permit applicant, pursuant to rule 62-701.410(2)(c), to make a greater effort to account for them. Angelo's initial permit application identified two intersecting lineaments on Angelo's property, based on aligned lowlands, enclosed valleys, and ponds. Angelo's contends the lineaments do not reflect an unstable subsurface or fractured limestone. The Aligned Parties contend that the lineaments are regional features and reflect fractures in the bedrock. They also contend that the onsite pond, which is located along the lineament, is an old sinkhole. The Aligned Parties did not prove the proposed landfill site is above an area of fractured bedrock, but the evidence presented by Angelo's was incomplete and insufficient to show there are no fractures. The limestone on the site was not adequately investigated for voids and fractures. Angelo's did not refute the possibility that the lineaments reflect a significant subsurface feature that could affect both site stability and groundwater movement. The Regional and Local Hydrogeology Rule 62-701.410(1) requires a hydrogeological investigation and site report, which shall: Define the landfill site geology and hydrology and its relationship to the local and regional hydrogeologic patterns including: Direction and rate of ground water and surface water flow, including seasonal variations; Background quality of ground water and surface water; Any on site hydraulic connections between aquifers; For all confining layers, semi-confining layers, and all aquifers below the landfill site that may be affected by the landfill, the porosity or effective porosity, horizontal and vertical permeabilities, and the depth to and lithology of the layers and aquifers; and Topography, soil types and characteristics, and surface water drainage systems of the site and surrounding the site. Include an inventory of all the public and private water wells within a one-mile radius of the proposed landfill site. The inventory shall include, where available: The approximate elevation of the top of the well casing and the depth of each well; The name of the owner, the age and usage of each well, and the estimated daily pumpage; and The stratigraphic unit screened, well construction technique, and static water levels of each well. Identify and locate any existing contaminated areas on the landfill site. Include a map showing the locations of all potable wells within 500 feet of the waste storage and disposal areas to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 62- 701.300(2)(b), F.A.C. Angelo's conducted a hydrogeological investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below. Angelo's and the Aligned Parties disputed the hydrogeological characteristics of the proposed landfill site and region. The principal disputes related to the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. Angelo's contends that groundwater flows from the landfill site to the west, making the proposed landfill site part of the Withlacoochee River groundwater basin. The Aligned Parties contend that groundwater flows south toward Crystal Springs and, therefore, the site is within the "springshed" of Crystal Springs. A United States Geological Survey map of the Crystal Springs springshed shows Angelo's proposed landfill site within the springshed. A springshed study done for SWFWMD also indicates the site is within the Crystal Springs springshed, but the District has not always been consistent in its statements about the groundwater basin boundaries in this area. A water chemistry analysis of the groundwater in the area of Angelo's proposed landfill indicates that the site is an area of higher recharge and within the Crystal Springs springshed. The springshed boundary can shift, depending on rainfall. Angelo's hydrogeological evidence was not sufficient to refute the reasonable possibility that the proposed landfill site is within the Crystal Springs springshed. Therefore, the Department's determination whether Angelo's has provided reasonable assurances must account for the threat of contamination to Crystal Springs and the other public and private water supply sources to the south. There are no creeks or streams and only a few lakes in the area between Crystal Springs and the Angelo's site. The absence of surface runoff features indicates it is an area of high recharge to the groundwater. Crystal Springs is in an area of conduit flow. The hydrologic investigation conducted by Angelo's was not thorough enough to characterize surficial aquifer flow and flow between aquifers. The preponderance of the evidence shows more groundwater recharge to the Floridan Aquifer in the area than estimated by Angelo's. Angelo's hydrogeological investigation was inadequate to refute the possibility of fractured flow or rapid groundwater movement at the proposed landfill site. Angelo's contends there is a continuous clay confining layer that would prevent contamination from moving into deep zones, but the preponderance of the evidence shows discontinuity in the clay and large variations in thickness and depth. The landfill's impermeable liner will impede water movement downward from the landfill, but groundwater will still recharge from outside the landfill to carry any contaminants deeper. If fractured flow or conduit flow extends south from the proposed landfill site, any leachate released into the groundwater beneath the landfill could travel rapidly toward the water supply sources of the City of Zephyrhills, Crystal Springs, Nestlé, and the City of Tampa. Whether the Proposed Landfill is in an Unstable Area Rule 62-701.200(2)(a) prohibits the storage or disposal of solid waste "[i]n an area where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the solid waste." However, the Department has adopted by reference a federal regulation, 40 C.F.R. 258.15, which allows a landfill to be constructed in a geologically unstable area if the permit applicant can demonstrate that engineering measures are incorporated into the design to ensure that the integrity of the landfill’s structural components "will not be disrupted." The parties presented evidence on many disputed issues of fact at the final hearing, but most of the case involved two ultimate questions: whether the proposed landfill site is unstable and, if so, whether Angelo's has proposed measures that would eliminate the unstable conditions and make the site suitable for a landfill. as: An "unstable area" is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 258.15 A location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from a landfill. Unstable areas can include poor foundation conditions, areas susceptible to mass movements, and Karst terrains. There is overwhelming evidence that the proposed landfill site is an unstable area. A considerable amount of evidence presented by Angelo's supports this finding. For example, Angelo's experts agreed there are loose soils, evidence of raveling, and sinkhole activity. These conditions make the site susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from the proposed landfill. The Department's landfill permitting staff requested a sinkhole risk assessment from the Florida Geologic Survey ("FGS"). The State Geologist and Director of the FGS, Dr. Jonathan Arthur, believes the potential for sinkhole formation at the proposed site is moderately high to high. That potential is consistent with the characterization of the area as unstable. Whether the Proposed Engineering Measures Are Adequate Because the site is unstable, Angelo’s must demonstrate that engineering measures have been incorporated into the landfill's design to ensure that the integrity of its structural components will not be disrupted. See 40 C.F.R. § 258.15(a). The engineering measures proposed by Angelo's are discussed below. Because it was found that Angelo's hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations were not sufficient to characterize all potentially unstable features of the subsurface, it was not demonstrated that the proposed engineering measures would overcome the instability and make the site suitable for a landfill. Roller Compaction Angelo's would use roller compaction on the graded floor of the landfill to compact the soils to a depth of about five feet and eliminate any voids within that depth. The Aligned Parties did not contradict Angelo's evidence that its proposed roller compaction will be done in a manner exceeding what the Department usually requires as far as roller force and the number of roller "passes." However, roller compaction will not affect deep voids. Liner System In order to ensure that the landfill’s liner system components will not be disrupted in the event of a sinkhole, Angelo’s proposes to include the reinforcement geotextile discussed above. The Department previously approved the use of geotextile reinforcement, combined with grouting, to demonstrate site stability for the Hernando County Northwest Landfill, which had a comparable risk of sinkhole formation according to the Department. The reinforcement geotextile can span a 15-foot diameter sinkhole without failure. As found above, the average diameter of the seven sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill is 11.9 feet. Angelo's proved that the proposed liner system meets all applicable criteria, except the requirement of rule 62- 701.400(3)(a) that the liner be installed upon a geologically stable base. Grouting Plan Angelo's grouting plan would be implemented to fill voids and stabilize areas of loose or weak material. The grouting plan was first designed to grout all locations where there was a Weight of Hammer, Weight of Rod, Loss of Circulation, or loose sands, as indicated by a low blow count. Angelo's revised the grout plan to include several more areas of concern identified later, for a total of 39 locations. Each grout location would have seven grout points, one in the center and six others equally-spaced on a ten-foot radius from the center. If more than ten cubic yards of grout is needed, additional grout points further outward would be injected until the void or loose soils are filled or stabilized. Although Angelo's proposes to grout every boring of concern, that still ties the integrity of the grouting plan to the thoroughness of the borings. The geologic evidence indicates that there are unstable areas which the grouting plan does not address. The Aligned Parties' MER analysis was persuasive in identifying potential areas of instability that were omitted from Angelo's investigation and from its grouting plan. There are other unstable areas existing on the site that should be grouted or otherwise engineered to provide support for the landfill. The grouting plan does not provide reasonable assurance that the integrity of the structural components of the landfill will not be disturbed. Other Issues Raised by the Aligned Parties The Aligned Parties raise a number of other issues, some of which begin with the assumption that the site is unstable and a large sinkhole would form at the landfill. This sometimes mixes issues inappropriately. It has been found that Angelo's did not provide reasonable assurance that the site will support the proposed landfill, but other project elements must be reviewed on their own merits where possible, assuming the site was engineered for stability. Leachate Collection System There is a single leachate collection trench in the center of the two landfill cells, which makes the landfill operate much like a single cell. The two halves of the cell slope toward the center, so that leachate will drain to the leachate collection trench, and the entire landfill slopes to the west, so that the trench will drain to a sump from which the leachate is pumped to storage tanks. At full capacity, the landfill will generate about 40,000 gallons of leachate per day. Careful cutting and grading of the earth is necessary to create the slopes that are essential to the proper functioning of the project’s leachate collection system. Settlement analyses are necessary to assure that the slopes are maintained. Rule 62-701.410(2)(e) requires a foundation analysis which must include a study of "subgrade settlements, both total and differential." "Total settlement" refers to the overall settlement of a landfill after construction and the loading of solid waste. "Differential settlement" compares settlement at two different points. Angelo's did not meet its burden to provide reasonable assurance on this point. The settlement analysis conducted by Angelo's was amended two or three times during the course of the final hearing to account for computational errors and other issues raised by the Aligned Parties. The analysis never came completely into focus. The final analysis was not signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The settlement analysis is dependent on the geologic analysis, which is inadequate. Without adequate settlement and geologic analyses, it cannot be determined that leachate collection would meet applicable criteria. Storage Tanks The Aligned Parties contend that the leachate storage tanks cannot be supported by the site. Because it was found that Angelo's geologic investigation was not adequate to identify all unstable areas, it is also found that Angelo's failed to provide reasonable assurance that the site would support the leachate storage tanks. In all other respects, the Aligned Parties failed to refute Angelo's demonstration that the storage tanks would meet applicable criteria. Groundwater Monitoring Plan The Aligned Parties contend that there is an insufficient number of monitor wells proposed by Angelo's to detect a leak from the landfill and the wells are too shallow. Because it was found that Angelo's did not adequately characterize the geology and hydrology of the proposed landfill site, the monitoring plan does not provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable criteria. Cell Design The Aligned Parties contend that the "mega-cell" design proposed by Angelo's provides less flexibility to respond to and isolate landfill problems than other landfill designs with smaller cells, and the mega-cell design could generate more leakage. No evidence was presented to show whether Angelo's design was one that had been approved or rejected in the past by the Department. Although it is not the best landfill design, the Aligned Parties did not show that the proposed design violates any permitting criteria. Operation and Closure The evidence presented by the Aligned Parties in support of their issues regarding the operation of the proposed landfill, such as noise, odor, and traffic, was not sufficient to refute Angelo's evidence of compliance with applicable criteria, with one exception: Angelo's has not provided an adequate contingency plan to show how it would respond to a sinkhole or other incident that required the landfill to be shut down and repaired. Assuming the site was engineered to support the landfill, there is nothing about the Closure Plan that the Aligned Parties showed does not meet applicable criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection deny Angelo's Permit Application Nos. 22913-001-SC/01 and 22913- 002-SO/01. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 28th day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Roth, Qualified Representative 8031 Island Drive Port Richey, Florida 34668-6220 Christopher M. Kise, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. Suite 150 245 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 Janice M. McLean, Esquire City of Tampa 7th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 Joseph A. Poblick, Esquire City of Zephyrhills 5335 8th Street Zephyrhills, Florida 33542-4312 Doug Manson, Esquire William Bilenky, Esquire Brian A. Bolves, Esquire Manson Bolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1547 David Smolker, Esquire Smolker, Bartlett, Schlosser, Loeb and Hinds, P.A. Suite 200 500 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-4936 Stanley Warden, Esquire Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether WACOC has given reasonable assurance that the landfill it proposes to build would comply with applicable requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1987), and rules promulgated thereunder?
Findings Of Fact A mile east of the intersection of U.S. Highway 90 and State Road 393, south of Dorcas in eastern Okaloosa County, WACOC has assembled some 1,760 acres on U.S. Highway 90 --- only 160 acres shy of three square miles. WACOC proposes to use as much of the land as possible for the disposal of solid waste, and "would like to use the proposed landfill as a regional landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p.8. (T.68) The company does not own all the land outright but, with the conveyance of a parcel on the morning the final hearing began (T.77), WACOC had obtained (an encumbered) fee interest in the 55 acres on which it proposes to put Phase I, "a hole-in-the-ground landfill which can come into contact with the groundwater table," (T.737) and the subject of the pending application. WACOC has a "whole lot of option money out there," (T.86) although none of WACOC's stockholders has previous experience in the landfill business. Private Enterprise Chris Cadenhead owns stock individually and "is 100 percent owner of SRD, Incorporated" (T.93), itself an owner of WACOC stock. Serving with Chris Cadenhead and Larry Anchors on WACOC's board of directors, at the time of the hearing, was James Ward, formerly a legislator and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. (T.48) Like Mr. Anchors, Mr. Ward originally owned 24% of WACOC's stock. The only shareholder who testified at the hearing was Arthur Frederick Schneider. Before he succeeded Mr. Cadenhead as president of WACOC, Mr. Schneider had had a distinguished career as a naval officer, and later tried his hand at farming, but this venture ended in bankruptcy. "SRD has been funding this thing." (T.86) Where SRD, Inc. obtained more than three-quarters of a million dollars is not clear from the record. As far as the evidence showed, Chris Cadenhead's father, Rhett, had no interest in WACOC, although he did appear on behalf of the company at a county commission meeting in June of 1987. Larry Anchors, a WACOC shareholder and formerly an Okaloosa County Commissioner, contributed $35,000 a few days after the Okaloosa County Commission awarded the waste disposal contract. (T.87) Nothing has been paid the company under the agreement WACOC entered into with Okaloosa County on June 18, 1987, Citizens' Exhibit No. 1, which was reduced to writing on or before July 10, 1987. WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1. Under the contract, WACOC undertakes to move solid waste from transfer points in the southern part of the county and deposit them in the landfill it proposes for a per ton "tip fee of $17.70 (Present value as of 6/16/87)," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 13 (emphasis in original), which is to be "adjusted automatically upward or downward to reflect the change in Consumer Price Index." Id. The County guarantees WACOC 275 tons per day and pledges to "exercise its best efforts to insure that all the Solid Waste generated within the County will be delivered to one of the designated transfer stations or the landfill," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 8, for the next thirty years. At present, the County generates "including the municipality . . . about 525-550 tons a day." (T. 61) The County agrees to cooperate "to obtain financing of the real property and equipment necessary [for WACOC] to perform . . . by a proposed bond issue." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 14. To this end, the county commission adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of industrial revenue bonds in accordance with Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000. Alternatively, and perhaps more in keeping with current tax law, "it's going to one of the larger financial institutions like Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith or someone like that and actually a bond issue through them, non-industrial," (T.74) or so WACOC intends. Phase I Designed to receive Okaloosa County's solid waste for five years, Phase I is to occupy a site on the eastern slope of a small hill between the east and west branches of Mare Creek, which converge in Fawn Lake, north of the property on which WACOC has options. Water flows out of Fawn Lake into a no longer bifurcated Mare Creek (which was dammed to create the lake), and ultimately into the Shoal River, more than 3,000 feet from the site. By rule, DER has designated Shoal River outstanding Florida waters. Fawn Lake and Mare Creek are Class III surface waters. The Phase I site is "zoned for agricultural uses, which was determined by the Okaloosa County attorney to be appropriate for a landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p. 7, No. 5. "The county attorney's determination has not been ratified by the County Commissioners." Id. Site Geology "Subsurface conditions have obviously a tremendous effect on the design of the landfill." (T.592) "[A] site's geological and hydrological characteristics are relevant to its potential for contamination." Prehearing Stipulation, p.7, No.4. Throughout the 1760-acre site, beneath a thin topsoil and root mat layer, the site soils consist of clean loose sands to an average depth of about 8 feet below ground surface. . . . From a depth of about 8 feet to 18 feet, a layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand (with some coarse sand and fine gravel) covers most of the proposed landfill site. . . . Beneath the clayey sand unit are loose and dense . . . sands . . . . WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B. The clayey sand unit occurring underneath the loose, Pliocene sands on the surface is part of the Citronelle formation, which "characteristically changes abruptly over very short distances." (TB. 29) The Citronelle consists "principally of quartz sand, with numerous beds, stringers and lenses of clay and gravel." CCE's Exhibit No. 21, p. 33. "The soils on the site standing alo[ne] would not be sufficient for a liner." I.T. 559 WACOC's expert reported an "average vertical hydraulic conductivity for [the upper Citronelle of] . . . 6.2 x 10-7 cm/sec (1.7 x 10-3 feet/day)." Laboratory tests on soil samples, taken more than eight and less than 18 feet below the surface of the site proposed for Phase I, demonstrated the variability of the sands making up the upper portion of the Citronelle formation on site. The percent finer than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve (silt and clay size fraction) . . . ranges between 17.5% to 41.7% . . . . "Vertical hydraulic conductivities for . . . [deeper] sands [on which waste disposal cell liners are to be laid] range from approximately 2.7 x 10-5 cm/sec to 5.8 x 10-4 cm/sec (0.08 to 1.62 feet/day)." Id. The variability of fines contents among samples reflects variability in hydraulic conductivity in the upper Citronelle, as well. This variability explains why an average permeability or vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle is of limited use in predicting how quickly rainwater will move through it, if these sands are used to cap the landfill after its completion, as proposed. Samples taken from eleven borings made throughout the entire 1,760-acre site were the basis for the applicant's average vertical hydraulic conductivity number. Only one of the borings was done on the Phase I site itself. If a ten-foot thick, continuous layer of clayey sands with a vertical conductivity of 6.2 x 10-7 centimeters per second occurred eight feet beneath the surface, the overlying Pliocene sands would hold a water table year round, given the high rainfall in the area. In fact, the applicants' consultants reported a water table on the Phase I site 21 to 30 feet down, beneath or within, but not above, the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle, in February of 1988. (T.595) The higher water tables observed in October of 1988 were also below the loose surficial sands. This demonstrates a vertical hydraulic conductivity for the upper Citronelle beneath the site proposed for Phase I well above the reported average. A borrow pit, off site but nearby, illustrates the fallacy of relying on average conductivity values to predict the movement of water. At the upper end of the excavation, a seep emerges from the sand to form a stream that flows 40 or 50 feet across red clayey materials resembling those on site, then sinks, disappearing into the earth. Even the value assigned to a particular split spoon sample may be a misleading average. B.T.126-7. Preliminary Plans Drawn In Phase I, WACOC proposes to excavate three different areas or cells for solid waste disposal "to approximately 20 feet below natural grade." (T.116) Accepting information they were furnished, the design engineers made the important (T.172) but erroneous assumption that the water table on site fluctuates only within a range "from five to fifteen feet" (T.132) below that. The plan is to fill each cell with solid waste and covering layers of various soils to a height 90 feet above existing grade. Trees growing within the 300- foot green belt planned for the perimeter of the 1,760-acre site would shield the landfill from the view of motorists on U.S. Highway 90. Separated from each other by berms, cells 1 (520' x 520') and 2 (520' x 650') would abut each other south of cell 3 (480' x 1170'), with another set of berms circumscribing all three cells. The bottom of each cell is to have a gradual V-shape, sloping "approximately one percent in the longitudinal direction and two percent in the traverse direction[s]," (T.116) toward the centerline. The plans call for compaction of the soils, once excavation has been accomplished, and for "root pickers" to remove rocks, roots and any other sharp objects. The plans do not contemplate the use of sieves. WACOC proposes to line these pits by covering the naturally occurring, compacted soils with a 1.5 millimeter (60 mil) layer of high density polyethylene, a plastic which has been manufactured for use in land fill liners at least since 1982. (T.401) The purpose of lining landfills is to contain contaminated water that would otherwise escape into the environment. Rain percolating through solid waste, together with moisture already in the solid waste at the time it is deposited in the landfill, leaches chemicals from the waste, producing a toxic solution called leachate. Products of industry make their way into household garbage and the municipal waste stream. About two percent of waste that reaches municipal sanitary landfills consists of materials which, if generated industrially in quantity could not lawfully be disposed of, except as hazardous waste. Scientists have "found municipal waste landfill leachates that were as toxic as those from Love Canal." (IT.696) Gundle Liner WACOC has decided to obtain a liner which meets minimum requirements of the National Sanitation Foundation Standard Number 54, Flexible Membrane Liners, November, 1983, from Gundle Lining Systems, Inc. (Gundle). "All Gundle materials are available in 22 1/2' widths with no factory seams " WACOC's Exhibit No. 7. Gundle's own employees would unroll the plastic, position it using "tack welding" to form a continuous sheet, join the strips with extrusion welds, inspect the seams visually, perform destructive "shear and peel tests . . . by random selection no less than the [to be] agreed [but unspecified at hearing] frequency . . . . [and conduct v]acuum testing [which] follows no specific standard." WACOC's Exhibit No. 7, Enclosure 6. (T.403, 411- 2) As a condition of the permit (No. 26), DER would require that an independent third party, a registered professional engineer, participate in quality assurance. High density polyethylene's "chemical resistance and durability. . . . enable[ Gundle] . . . to offer a 20-year warranty . . . for both the product and installation." (T.404) Gundle's liability under the warranty depends on how many years remain under warranty and "shall in no event exceed the amount of the sale price." (IT.434) The warranty excludes "any liability for consequential damages arising from the loss of . . . product owing to the failure of the material or installation," id.; CCE's Exhibit No. 3, and any liability whatsoever in the event of acts of God, including floods, and "excessive pressure or stress from any source." CCE's Exhibit No. 3; (IT.432). While the material may well outlast the warranty, perhaps by decades, in "geological time," it will inevitably fail. In the short term, too, the integrity of liners like that proposed is highly problematic. Past problems have included "mechanical damage . . . of one form or another such as with the bulldozer, or if somebody drops something." (IT.429) Here, before the first lift of solid waste (which would not include construction or demolition debris) is placed, four feet of sand (stockpiled during excavation) would be piled on top of the disposal cell liner. A bulldozer's gash might not go unnoticed, but small holes along seams can be missed, despite rigorous quality control measures. At the Ocean County landfill in New Jersey, "there was more liquid . . . than would have been true from the calculated moisture vapor transmission data," (IT.427) but Gundle's chemist testified this might have been "condensation on the soils on the back side of the liner." Id. Leachate Collection Embedded within the sand layer, in the crotch of the V, six-inch, perforated, schedule 80 PVC pipe, wrapped in filter cloth, is designed to collect leachate. The top of the pipe is to be eight inches above the liner, according to the leachate underdrain detail on sheet 15 of WACOC's Exhibit No. One pipe running the length of cell 3 and another running through cells 1 and 2 would move leachate to the leachate trunk line, another (intact) PVC pipe which would, in turn, empty into a paved flume in the leachate collection pond. The pond has been sized to contain the amount of leachate WACOC's consultants originally predicted a 25 year return 24-hour storm would generate, together with the rainfall such an event would deposit in the leachate collection pond, and still leave a foot of freeboard. "You have room below that major storm elevation that holds 60 to 70,000 cubic feet of leachate." I.T. 127. Except for the flume, the leachate pond is to be lined, like the disposal cells, with high density polyethylene. In the leachate collection pond, only 18 inches of sand would overlie the synthetic liner. From time to time, leachate would be pumped from the pond into tank trucks for removal to the Garnier wastewater treatment plant, which has a capacity of 6,500,000 gallons per day. Garnier is specifically permitted to receive only domestic wastewater, but the permit does not forbid industrial wastewater, and the plant now accepts leachate from the Wright landfill. DER has not classified landfill leachate either as domestic or as industrial wastewater. Before accepting it for treatment, the plant might require pretreatment of the leachate, whether on account of its anticipated acidity or for other reasons. If leachate causes sludge from Garnier to exceed standards for heavy metals, the sludge can be deposited in a Class 1 landfill like the one proposed here. WACOC has not yet entered into a contract with Garnier's operator for treatment of leachate. Not until leachate is removed from the leachate collection pond are pumps to be employed. Leachate would have to accumulate on the waste disposal cell liners and enter a pipe, in order to leave the cells. The design specifies perforations along the whole length of leachate collection pipe, around the bottom of the pipe. If the pipes clogged west of the cell walls, leachate could flow through sand and reenter the pipe further downslope. Outside the waste disposal cells, manholes have been planned, to afford access for cleaning the pipes out. The applicant did not demonstrate with calculations that gravity would induce flow through the pipes at a rate sufficient to remove leachate deeper than 12 inches. In the leachate collection pond, which is to be roughly 200 by 500 feet, leachate might attain a depth of several feet, before being pumped into a tank truck. The pond sides are to be lined with high density polyethylene to a height nine feet above the pond bottom. As far as the evidence showed, the depth of leachate in the pond would never fall below 18 inches anywhere on the pond bottom, once leachate began filling the leachate collection pond. Only if leachate were extracted from the sand covering the liner could the leachate head in the pond fall below one foot. The plan is for tank truck operators to place their hoses on "a concrete flume on top of that sand." I.T. 127. Stormwater Management Berms encircling the solid waste disposal cells, together with a series of ditches and culverts, are intended to direct stormwater away from the solid waste to a retention pond for temporary storage and treatment, before discharge offsite. To the extent stormwater which would otherwise flow into solid waste disposal cells can be diverted elsewhere, the volume of leachate can be diminished. The berms also serve to prevent rain falling on solid waste from reaching the stormwater retention pond, or polluting stormwater that does. Lined with relatively impermeable soils, the stormwater retention pond, "a football field wide and two and a half football fields long," (T.201) is designed to be big enough to hold the runoff from a 100 year return storm, leaving two feet of freeboard. In practice, some stormwater would percolate into the ground through unlined ditch bottoms, never reaching the pond. Stormwater that did reach the pond would either evaporate or drain through sidedrains, which are to consist of perforated six-inch PVC pipe, encased in gravel and covered with permeable sand excavated on site. Lining most of the pond's perimeter, this sand would filter water seeping through it from the pond into the side drains. After collecting in an outfall pipe, water draining from the pond would travel 300 or 400 feet, before discharging above grade, near the east branch of Mare Creek. If, as would be likely, sea gull droppings regularly end up in the stormwater retention pond, phosphorous and nitrogen levels in the east branch of Mare Creek and downstream would increase in time. Other Measures Decomposing solid waste produces methane gas. When cell I is completed, vents are to be installed to direct methane gas into the atmosphere above the center of the cell. I.T.140; WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, p.23 and No.9, p.15. "[T]he wind will disperse any gas within the site." I.T.191,221. If sufficient quantities were generated, a gas collection system would be installed. I.T.140. 31 Spotters will try to divert hazardous or infectious waste, and should succeed in the event a hauler tries to dispose of an accurately labelled 55- gallon drum of a hazardous liquid or red-bagged waste from a hospital, but small quantities of gasoline, paint, paint thinners, cleaning fluids and other hazardous materials cannot practically be diverted. At the end of every working day, solid waste is to be covered with a six inch layer of soils from the site. Fences are planned downwind from the working face to collect windblown debris. Closure A landfill is a long-term proposition. Pollutants still leak from Roman landfills dating to 400 A.D. Contemporary landfills and their regulators recognize the importance of capping landfills to minimize infiltration by rainwater (and so production of leachate.) Even though the plans may be revised later, DER requires applicants for landfill construction permits to make plans for closure, before a construction permit is issued. Landfill operators must also make annual contributions to a trust fund to be used to close the landfill and to bear post-closure expenses, which include trucking leachate and monitoring groundwater. WACOC has already established the trust fund and deposited $100. As a condition of operating the landfill over the five years it proposes, WACOC must deposit one fifth of estimated closure and post-closure costs in the trust fund 60 days before beginning to fill, and another fifth annually (30 days after the anniversary date of the initial payment). The cost estimates are subject to revision annually. (I.T. 384, 843-4) Before closing a landfill, the operator must obtain a closure permit. The trust fund is not expected to absorb the costs of cleaning up polluted groundwater, if that should prove necessary. Local governments, which operate many landfills themselves, sometimes step in when problems with privately run landfills develop. ...A leak develops or something that would cost millions of dollars to address it and you don't have the insurance, you're out of business instantly. ...[WACOC's ability] to address a catastrophic situation that could develop with this is limited to how much capital they have. * * * ...[I]f you don't have some insurance, even if its $500,000 deductible,...if the problem occurs, you're gone. And if you don't have the capital to handle it, it will fall back in the taxpayer's lap which is typically what happens... . (II.T. 70-71) As WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12 concedes, WACOC's "liabilities are considerably in excess of its assets." Landfill operators are under no obligation to contract for environmental liability insurance, which is not readily available, in any event. WACOC proposes to cap Phase I with clayey sands excavated on site. The clay required to cap Phase I amounts to "ten acres of the surface by four feet deep, or one acre 41 feet deep." (II.T. 36) WACOC proposes to spread this quantity over all three cells, covering them with an 18-inch clayey sand blanket. On top of that, WACOC would place 18 inches of surficial sand and, finally, six inches of topsoil. The sands are readily available on site, but there is no topsoil to speak of. The clayey sand WACOC proposes to use as a foundation for the cap is too permeable to constitute an effective barrier. (B.T. 149,158), but WACOC could mix it with clay from off site or some other agent to render it less conductive of rainwater. The present plans do not call for mixing, however. High Density Polyethylene WACOC is proposing the synthetic liner underneath waste disposal cells and the leachate collection pond not as one component of a composite liner, (T.158) but as "the state of the art," (T.153) in and of itself. But "flaws in liners are a common occurrence." (IT. 698) After a liner has been laid down and covered with sand, "inadvertent cuts and nicks of unexplained origin" (IT.699) can and do occur. However conscientious, laborers hired as "root pickers" may miss an occasional rock. The plans only call for removal of objects larger than a quarter inch. High density polyethylene is a plastic. If laid over stone or other protuberances, "the plastic will flow away from that pressure point and eventually you will have a hole in the plastic." Id. An investigator examining 60 mil high density polyethylene used as landfill liner "found six pin-holes per acre, mostly associated with the seams, [an] average of 9.4 cuts [per acre] of unexplained origin, [and] 110 [perforations attributable to] rock protu[bera]nces per acre." (IT.705) In an EPA sponsored study, a liner manufacturer installed and third parties "did a careful job of inspecting," id., twelve "rather small" (IT.706) waste disposal cells. Eight of the twelve leaked. Even if holes did not let leachate escape, several carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic organic constituents of municipal waste leachate dissolve in liners like the one WACOC proposes, "diffuse through and are released on the other side." (IT.699) High density polyethylene is practically impervious to water: water vapor can move through it only at a rate of 1 x 10- 13 centimeters per second. But certain hydrophobic substances, including chlorinated hydrocarbons such as trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride, move readily through high density polyethylene, itself a "very hydrophobic material." (T.807) William T. Cooper, a chemistry professor who participated in developing DER's drinking water standards, appearing in this case as a witness for the objectors, testified: [O]ne of the major problems in doing this work [concerning organic pollutants in groundwater] is establishing . . . standards. In other words, we had to pollute water in a well defined way so that our machines would tell us there was a certain amount of pollution in the water. . . . . . . [W]e started using [p]olyethylene tubes into which we would put several different organic molecules for the very reason that these molecules diffuse so readily through the [p]olyethylene tubes that we could control the rate in which we were contaminating water for laboratory purposes. (IT.806) In order to calibrate their instruments, the scientists who developed drinking water standards for Florida relied on polyethylene containers' ability to transmit organic pollutants in solution inside a container to the water outside at a steady, predictable rate. Chemists think of polyethylene "as a condensed liquid . . . . [because] it has the ability to absorb molecules." (T.807) Water and polyethylene do not mix, however, just as oil and water do not; they are said to be immiscible and to form separate phases. When a third substance is dissolved in either of two immiscibles occurring together, the additive's molecules move between the two phases until equilibrium is reached. The concentration in one phase will differ from the concentration in the other, and both concentrations will depend on the amount of the additive introduced (until saturation), but the ratio of the two concentrations (the "distribution ratio" or "partition coefficient") will always be the same, at equilibrium. A chemist in Gundle's employ testified that any "organic solvents in the leachate . . . would tend to float on the aqueous phase." (T.406) But some hydrophobic organics, including trichloroethylene, are denser than water and would not float. (IT.831) Mr. Cadwallader, Gundle's chemist, conceded that organic materials are soluble in water "to a point of saturation, which typically is not very high . . . ." (T.425) The leachate's nonaqueous phase would occur to some extent, perhaps entirely, within the polyethylene liner. In this connection, the objectors' chemists' opinion, which Dr. Brown also shared, has been credited. For the same reasons Mr. Cadwallader "agree[d] that a liner would gain weight when it is immersed in a pure organic solution," (T423) the liner would swell, as a variety of organic pollutants diffused into it from the leachate. Such swelling has been reported in low density polyethylene. WACOC's Exhibit No. 18. With groundwater in contact with the outside of the liner, the organic pollutants with which the liner was swollen would diffuse into the groundwater, until groundwater touching the liner acquired organic pollutants in the same concentrations in which they occurred in the aqueous phase of the leachate standing on the liner. It is even possible that concentrations of certain hydrophobic organics would be higher outside the liner than inside. (IT.818) If indeed a nonaqueous phase floated on top of the leachate, it would serve to replenish the aqueous phase, as hydrophobic organics diffused into the liner to replace those diffusing out of the liner into the groundwater or soils on the other side. (IT.831) Site Hydrogeology Groundwater flow "mirrors the topography of the site." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B, p.6. On the Phase I site, it flows to the north and the northeast, toward the east branch of Mare Creek. At monitoring well 1, the flow is "about a 45-degree angle down and to the east northeast." B.T.119. Lining the disposal cells and the leachate collection pond with high density polyethylene would curtail recharge (and evapotranspiration) under the cells and the pond. The plan is to line the stormwater retention pond with the same clayey sands that fail to hold a water table. B.T.175 Percolation from stormwater ditches or, despite its lining, even from the retention pond might cause slight mounding of the groundwater under those structures. But construction of Phase I would not appreciably alter the general direction of the groundwater flow. To the extent mounding occurs beneath the stormwater retention pond, groundwater table elevations under proposed cell 3 would be higher than they otherwise would have been. Elsewhere, the cell liners should have the effect of lowering groundwater elevations below what they would otherwise have been, ignoring infiltration from stormwater ditches. Any changes may be very slight, since groundwater from recharge areas upslope apparently flows under the site. In February of 1988, piezometers were used to measure water table elevations on the Phase I site. Distance between elevations proposed for liners and the February 1988 water table varied, but were no less than nine feet at any point measured. Based on the February 1988 measurements, the design engineers assumed an unsaturated zone 25 to 30 feet thick. But, on October 11, 1988, the second day of hearing, the same piezometers (B.T. 19) disclosed much higher water table elevations. Near the creek, the water table had risen only 4.92 feet higher than it had been in February, but in the wells closest to cell 1, the October water table exceeded the February elevations by 11.33 and 11.41 feet. (B.T. 40) On October 11, 1988, the water table was "above the bottom of the liner of the proposed landfill in cell two, portions of cell two, a lot of it, portions of cell one and a corner of cell three," (B.T. 44) with "about two feet of water above the proposed liner in the corner of cell two." Id. The levels may have been considerably higher in September. Since periodic measurements have not been taken over the requisite year or two, the seasonal high water table on the Phase I site has not been determined. The height of the groundwater table depends on how quickly rainwater percolates down to the water table to replace groundwater lost to evapotranspirtation or subterranean flow offsite. Groundwater under the Phase I site discharges into the east branch of Mare Creek. The timing as well as the amount of rainfall figure in, because once the soils are saturated, rain runs off instead of infiltrating. Still monthly rainfall is a good indicator of how much water has percolated down to recharge an aquifer. No records of rainfall on the site itself exist, but statistics from sites not far away show that extraordinarily high rainfall in September of 1988 contributed to the groundwater elevations measured on October 11, 1988. At one or more wells on site, the water table dropped another foot between October 18 and October 26, 1988. CCE's Exhibit No. 36. Rainfall data suggest that in most years, "the actual peak high for a water table probably would be towards the end of August." (B.T. 95) At present, the surficial aquifer beneath the proposed landfill site contains potable water. People living in the area draw water from the surficial aquifer for drinking water purposes, in one case from a well only some 30 feet deep. The nearest well to Phase I is 3,000 feet away, on the other side of the east branch of Mare Creek. The surficial aquifer goes all the way down to the Alum Bluff group, 75 feet below ground. Saltwater intrusion threatens in southern Okaloosa County. By 1995, if its growth continues at the present rate, the City of Destin will require another, supplementary water supply. Plans to tap the Floridan in northern Okaloosa County include well fields in the Eglin Air Force Base area and north of Freeport. But the Floridan "won't supply all the future projected needs." (II.T. 16) Desalinization is expensive. Eventually Okaloosa County is "going to have to look further toward the use of surficial water," (II.T. 13) as a public water supply. Leachate Characteristics Leachate from municipal landfills has high biological oxygen demand, high salt content, and significant concentrations of metals and organics. (I.T. 699) Cleaning solvents, oil-based paint, furniture polish, spot removers, xylene, toluene and benzene are among common constituents of municipal waste. Lisa Stewart, who picks up garbage in northern Okaloosa County four days a week, has noticed "containers containing a substance" (II.T.137) bearing such labels as naphtha, methylene chloride, toluol, burnt motor oil, insecticides, fungicides, trichloroethane, oxalic acid, xylol, petroleum distillates, polyglycol ether, plasticizers, sulfuric acid, methanol, ethanol and sodium hydroxide. Scientists have found every chemical DER lists on its "primary or secondary water quality standard numeric list" (I.T. 697) in municipal leachate, as well as "about 20 chemicals that are known to [b]e carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic which are not on that list." Id. At least some of this latter group can be anticipated at the proposed landfill, if it is built. The organic materials degrade only slowly; they have half-lives ranging from 20 to 50 years. (I.T. 698) Biochemical oxygen demand accounts for most of the stench to be expected from leachate standing in the leachate collection pond. The "combination . . . of hazardous waste from small quantity generators and from households we would expect to be somewhere in the range of five to 10,000 tons per year." (T.T.148) In order to predict the amount of leachate to expect, experts on both sides resorted to a mathematical model, known acronymically as HELP, for "Hydrological Evaluation Landfill Program." (T.689) These experts made assumptions about annual rainfall, the permeability of the cap materials which, after their initial excavation and stockpiling are destined to do double duty as a final cover for the landfill, and other factors, in order to calculate the amount of leachate likely to accumulate above the liner. WACOC's consultants calculated a head of 2.4 inches, assuming annual rainfall of 68 inches, and an unrealistically low permeability for the clayey sands under the Phase I site which are to be used for capping the Phase I cells as they attain their design heights of 90 feet above grade. Using WACOC's average vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands of 6.2 X 10-7, without changing any other assumptions WACOC made in running the HELP model, yields a leachate head of 8.5 inches. Even if it were appropriate to use an average, this figure is low, because the permeability of materials recompacted in a laboratory is ordinarily ten times less than when the same material is compacted in the field. Here compaction "in the field" would occur on top of a mound of garbage. "[T]he system will be spongy." (I.T. 752) The HELP model makes no allowance for cracks in the cap, which are bound to occur, if WACOC closes the landfill as it proposes. As garbage degrades, it settles and sinks. This would cause shear planes or faults in the clayey sand cap, which cannot readily be detected, buried beneath sand, topsoil and vegetation. Estimating conservatively, "we could be dealing with twice as much water as we're calculating from the HELP model due simply to cracks in the facility." (I.T. 692) During those periods when the groundwater table is above the bottom of the disposal cell liners, groundwater infiltration through such imperfections as exist in submerged portions of the liners will increase leachate volume. Ignoring groundwater intrusion, cell 1 alone should produce 5,000 gallons a day of leachate the first year after closure. (I.T. 510-1). The applicant's own revised HELP model calculations put the leachate head at more than eight inches in a year in which rainfall on the site exceeded the annual average at Crestview by only eight percent (68 inches vs. 63 inches). A foot or more of head annually can be expected, taking into account cracks in the clay cap. Water Quality Monitoring WACOC's groundwater monitoring plan calls for a single well south and upgradient of the Phase I site to monitor "background" groundwater conditions, and a series of monitoring wells east and north of the site designed to detect any groundwater contamination the landfill may cause. WACOC's Exhibit No. 9, Sheet 11. Four of these downgradient wells would be placed by the eastern perimeter of the zone of discharge to measure compliance with DER's numeric water quality standards at that edge of the zone. Four other wells are planned within the zone of discharge. In addition, surface waters are to be monitored at seven points, five on the east branch of Mare Creek and two on the west branch, but none further south than the berm separating cell three from cells one and two. WACOC's own employees would take samples, arrange for their analysis and report the results to DER. Among the specified parameters are iron and chloride. As far as the record reveals, testing for sodium in addition would not make for earlier or more reliable leak detection. CCE's Exhibit No. 20. The suggestion that groundwater be tested for calcium assumed montmorillonite in the clayey sands, which the evidence did not show to be present. I.T. 988. According to a DER chemist, however, groundwater samples near landfills should be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 601/602. Since VOCs always appear to be present in landfill leachate and they can be detected in the subparts per billion (ppb) range, the test is a particularly sensitive indicator for the presence of organics in landfill leachate. (CCE's Exhibit No. 20, p.2.) Also among the specified parameters is fecal coliform, which makes any other routine testing for bacteria superfluous. Given the economic consequences for WACOC if a leak is discovered, it might be well to require WACOC to contract with an independent third party to monitor, in the event the landfill is built. Since groundwater flow on site has a vertical as well as a horizontal component, monitoring requires appropriate placement not only of wells, but also of screens. One approach is to cluster wells so that a succession of screens covers the entire thickness of the aquifer. Monitoring well screens should not exceed 15 feet in length, in order to avoid dilution that might render contaminants indetectable. CCE's Exhibit No. 2. But a hydrogeologist with sufficient information could place screens within transmissive zones through which groundwater flowing underneath the disposal cells or the leachate pond is likely to move. B.T. 136 With respect at least to leachate constituents that do not diffuse through liners, monitoring groundwater to detect pollution is more difficult if a landfill is lined than if it is not, because contaminant plumes are larger if they emanate from larger sources. CCE's Exhibit No. 19. Unless monitoring wells were sunk at ten-foot intervals east and north of where leachate is to collect, it would be easy to miss the plume from a small leak, which might be destined to become a large leak. But even the objectors' experts do not "consider that very practical financially." (B.T. 135) Groundwater Pollution Both through imperfections in the synthetic liner and, as regards hydrophobic organic pollutants with low molecular weights, by diffusion directly through even flawless portions of the liner, pollutants in the leachate will escape into the environment, if WACOC builds the landfill it has proposed for Phase I. As far as can be told from the evidence, the groundwater table would never reach the bottom of the leachate collection pond, so that adsorption and diffusion in soils underneath the pond would attenuate the effect of any leakage there, before it could enter the groundwater. But the soils on site have very low adsorption capacity and very low biological activity. I.T.719 Leachate leaving unlined, northwest Florida landfills five feet above the water table have caused serious pollution problems. The evidence showed that the groundwater table would rise above portions of the lined bottoms of all three waste disposal cells, on which leachate will also be standing. This may occur infrequently, would not necessarily happen every year, and would last for only a few weeks and days at a time, but it was the condition that obtained at the time of the hearing, two months later than seasonal high groundwater should normally occur. When it does happen, "it's entirely possible the leachate will be the same concentration as the groundwater in contact with the bottom of the liner." I.T. 701. In any case, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic agents (I.T. 697), including up to 20 for which DER has not established numeric limits, would occur in the leachate, and some would enter the groundwater, violating the DER "free from" requirement. I.T. 777. Precise concentrations have not been forecast but, at least at times, over the course of the landfill's existence, the leachate would contain certain mutagenic substances for which no safe lower limit has been established. Nor did the evidence give reasonable assurance that violations of DER's numeric standards pertaining to the trichloroethylenes, the tetrachloroethylenes and vinyl chloride would be unlikely outside the zone of discharge. I.T. 771,781-2. It depends in part on the volume or rate at which leachate or these constituents leak. B.T. 94. The evidence showed they will leak at some rate, even where there are no flaws in the liner. In a test involving higher concentrations of trichlorethylene and other organics than are anticipated here, experimenters observed a "flow rate . . . on the order of 125 gallons per acre per day from concentrated organics." I.T. 702. In 27 acres of plastic, flaws are to be expected. Good intentions notwithstanding, the evidence showed holes in the synthetic liner should be anticipated, and taken into account in designing a landfill. The rate at which leachate will leak through these imperfections depends on their number, shape and size; and, as to each, the depth of the leachate above it and the permeability of the medium below it. A circular hole with a diameter of one- sixteenth of an inch will discharge liquid, standing on top of it a foot deep, at the rate of 70 gallons a day, into air, gravel or porous sand. The rate for a similar hole with a diameter of one-eighth of an inch is 192 gallons per day. In the event of a leak above or near an area like the one into which the seep sank in the borrow pit, the soil would not slow the rate of leakage. (I.T. 718) Otherwise, for a given leachate head, the conductivity of the soil (if unsaturated) would determine the leakage rate. "[T]here will be less depth higher up the liner." I.T.760. But where the liner is lowest and the leachate deepest, the liner will lie over the loose sands that occur beneath the clayey sands. Rating tests demonstrated considerable variability in the hydraulic conductivity of all of the sands tested. Piezometer readings on October 18 and 26, 1988, showed how they transmit water as a unit. In eight days the water table (which is only at atmospheric pressure) fell a foot. The clayey sands would not prevent leachate's leaving the waste disposal cells and entering the groundwater, although in some places (where the leachate has less depth), they would slow the rate of leakage. "We could get tens of thousands of gallons [annually] leaking out of a 27-acre site which this is through holes." (I.T. 707) With groundwater in contact with portions of the liners, the leakage rate there would depend on the relative elevations of the groundwater table and the leachate standing on the liners. If the groundwater table were higher, upward pressure might push groundwater into the disposal cells, disminishing or even preventing leachate leakage until the water table fell below the height of the surface of the leachate. But, when that happened, direct discharge of undiluted leachate can be expected, directly to the groundwater, as long as groundwater abutted a flaw in the liner. DER's rules do not apply the numeric standards underneath or within 100 feet of waste disposal cells, which the rules denominate a "zone of discharge." Whether numeric standards are violated at the edge of the zone of discharge depends not only on the leakage rate, but also on where the leak occurs, on the velocity of the groundwater, and on pollutant concentrations in the leachate. Calculations taking all these factors into account have not been done for WACOC's Phase I. But credible expert testimony predicted such violations would eventually occur outside the zone of discharge. I.T.771. Synthetic liners like the one WACOC proposes are usually placed on top of three feet of highly impermeable, mineralogically suitable clay. "A clay liner...will retain organics to a greater extent than a synthetic liner." I.T. 823. Using it as proposed here, where it would come into direct contact with groundwater, does not give reasonable assurance that groundwater pollution will not occur.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER deny WACOC's application for a permit to construct a class I landfill in Okaloosa County. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 23, 24, 25, 32 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 50, 52, 54, 56 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 except for the sentence "DER has no rule prohibiting contact of the liner with ground water," 63, 65, 66 except for the second clause which is rejected, 67, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 and 85 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the intent to issue is dated April 1, 1988. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, financial feasibility was not demonstrated but is not material under the rules. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4, 5 and 6, closure cost estimates assume the suitability of the clayey sands on site as a cap, which the weight of the evidence did not establish to be the case. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, the use of a high density polyethylene membrane, without more, to keep hydrophobic organic materials out of abutting groundwater is not proven technology, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the rules do not require environmental liability insurance. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 10, 19, 20, 26, 35, 37, 44, 55, 61, 71, 74, 75, 77, 82, 86 and 87 are rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13, the fact that a synthetic liner separates solid waste from the groundwater does not make it permissible to deposit solid waste in groundwater. While the October readings did not prove that groundwater would rise above the sand in which the leachate will collect to touch the solid waste itself, September's rainfall, the rate at which the water table dropped between October 18 and 26, 1988, and the probability of defects in the liner showed that this was a realistic possibility. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 16, two percent of the materials disposed of in municipal sanitary landfills are hazardous in a chemical, if not legal, sense. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the "state of the art" use of high density polyethylene liners is as one component of a composite liner, or even as part of a double liner system, at a hydrogeologically suitable location. This material works well for some purposes and not at all for others. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 28, there was no showing that any other Florida landfill has been placed so as to come into contact with the groundwater table, or that a synthetic liner has ever been used for a landfill without clay; synthetically lined landfills have only recently been installed in Florida, and detection of leaks from lined landfills is difficult. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 29, since uncontaminated water is not a pollutant, it is not a permeant of concern. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 30, the evidence showed that under ideal, test conditions, 8 of 12 liners leaked. Under actual field conditions leaks exceeded 100 per acre. The weight of the evidence makes it unreasonable to conclude that 27 acres of plastic can be laid down in Okaloosa County without any flaws. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the rate of 192 gallons per day assumed gravel or porous sand which offers essentially the same resistance as air; there is no sandy clay anywhere on site, as far as the evidence showed; more than 18 feet below the surface, where most of the liner is to be laid, there are not even clayey sands, according to WACOC's own expert; the sands that do occur there include loose sands with a permeability greater than 4.9 X 10-4; and include numerous gravel beds; the .00022 gallons per day calculation assumes a hole a quarter as large (half the radius of Dr. Brown's) and ignores horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The fact that the water table dropped a foot in about a week demonstrates that the soils cannot be counted on to contain the leachate underneath flaws in the liner. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 33 and 34, Haxo's results were consistent with their conclusions but explicitly not the only basis for them. Gundle's chemist conceded that hydrophobic organic materials diffuse through high density polyethylene. His opinion that an accumulation in the soils on the other side would equalize concentrations and stop further diffusion did not take into account groundwater abutting the liner, and flushing the soils. The liner absorbs materials; but adsorption does not take place there. Transportation and dispersion need not be known as to "free froms." On page I.T. 777, Dr. Brown testified that diffusion would cause violations of DER's regulations, and this testimony has been credited. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 36, the swelling of the liner with organic materials is evidence of the diffusion which would result in organic materials' entering the groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 39 and 41, one inch of leachate in all three cells amounts to 2.25 acre feet, which is more than a "little." Calculations have not been done. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 40 and 42, no allowance was made for cracks in the cap material (which cannot be seen under the vegetation, topsoil and drainage sand layer.) With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 43, a much greater leachate head than within the waste disposal cells may occur depending on where the marker is placed, but hydrophobic organics diffusing through the liner and absorbing in the soils would not be flushed out by groundwater. Except for the last sentence, this proposed finding of fact reflects the weight of the evidence. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 47, some water will evaporate. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 51, monitoring wells 8 and 9 are both more than 100 feet from waste disposal areas. The evidence did not show that the monitoring wells "can be expected to detect any contamination." With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 53, DER's experience also suggested testing for volatile organic chemicals. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the rate of decline also suggests that the water table was as higher elevations than those measured. An applicant must give reasonable assurance that pollution in violation of DER rules will not occur under foreseeable, recurring conditions, including during those times the liner is submerged. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 65, the proposed finding is adopted, as regards physical tears. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 68, the proposed finding is adopted, except for leakage through the liner, sometimes directly to groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 76, clayey sands were not reported below 18 feet. The difficulty with the groundwater monitoring plan is not the soil characterization, but the number of wells. Because synthetic liners leak, clay mineralogy is important to know. No clay is proposed here, however. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 84, effective odor control would also entail emptying the leachate pond regularly. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45 50, 58, 61, 64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 75, the first sentence of No. 76, Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, and the first sentence of 113 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the current tonnage figures appear in the application but their accuracy has not been established by competent evidence. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12, projected profits depend on various problematic assumptions. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the initial payment was $100. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 18, the cost estimate's reasonableness depends largely on what it would cost to obtain suitable material for a cap, which is not clear. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 20, Scott had independent knowledge of the availability and cost of clay. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the proposed finding accurately reflects the evidence, with the qualification that the layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand also contains some coarse sand and fine gravel. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 22, the water table will be below the liner most, but not all, of the time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 28, see the discussion of DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 29, 59, 63 and 78 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 30, hazardous materials will end up in the landfill. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 39, the liner's permeability depends on the permeant. Although it is almost impervious to water, hydrophobic organics move readily through. Clay is a much better liner for those materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the Gundle liner by itself is not the state of the art in Florida or anywhere else for municipal sanitary landfills. Proposed conclusions of law are addressed elsewhere. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 41, in the puncture test, the liner withstood a probe exerting 270 ponds of pressure. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 44, there are no clayey sands at the depth proposed for the deeper portions of the waste disposal cell liners, as WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21 and 27, taken together reflect. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 46, as the manufacturer's representative said, "these liners are a part of the quote unquote state of the art requirement for lined hazardous waste facilities." I.T. 404 (emphasis supplied). The other part is three feet of clay, not sand, underneath. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 47, it depends on the hazardous waste facility. A DER chemist, Mr. Watts, recommended monitoring groundwater near a municipal landfill for volatile organic chemicals. While most municipal garbage is not toxic, leachate from municipal waste is toxic. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 48, the testimony was that the groundwater pollution at Wright landfill was "most likely" from unlined cells. No lined landfill in DER's Northwest District has been built below the groundwater table as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 49, While municipal leachate constituents should not corrode the liner, many can diffuse through it. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 50, some two percent of the waste stream will still be hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 51, some organic materials will sink, rather than float. The sand within which the leachate will accumulate will not extract or absorb organic constituents of the leachate, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 52, removal is first to the leachate collection pond, also lined with high density polytheylene. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 53, it is wholly improbable that 27 acres of plastic will be installed "without physical flaws." Leakage could exceed 10,000 gallons a year. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 54, not all organic materials diffuse though high density polyethylene. Dr. Haxo's views on WACOC's proposal are not a matter of record. The 448-page EPA Study discusses containment techniques. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 55, the Haxo studies are pertinent although they do not purport to replicate a landfill precisely. In some studies he used concentrations of a single organic that were comparable to the concentrations of organics as a whole in municipal leachate. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 56, direct discharge of leachate into the groundwater, even in small quantities could violate the "free from" standards as could diffusion into the groundwater of carcinogenic, teratogenic or mutagenic, hydrophobic organic materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 57, CCE's experts' views about synthetic liners coincided in important respects with those of Gundle's chemist. There is no clayey layer where much of the waste disposal cells' liners are supposed to go. Given the certainty of leakage directly to the groundwater, it is the applicant's burden to do quantative analysis. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 60, there are no data for the site itself. The available data are incomplete. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 62, the February water level is likely to be more common than the October water level. The weight of the evidence did not establish that "under normal conditions the water level should fluctuate no more than five feet." With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the proposed finding reflects the evidence except for the final sentence. *** With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 67, 68 and 69, it is inappropriate to schedule pumpout times at this stage. But it is appropriate to consider above average annual rainfall. Annual leachate production differs from the amount of head at any one time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 73, the design engineer suggested Roto-Rooter. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 74, intersection should not occur. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 77, municipal landfills are not viewed as hazardous waste generators under federal law. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 82, the second sentence was not proven. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 84, there may be some infiltration. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 89, it would be very expensive to place enough monitoring wells to assure detection of any leaks. Placement of screens should be less of a problem than sinking enough wells. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 91, the Watts memo's suggestion of testing for volatile organic chemicals should give additional assurance. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 95, two percent of the waste stream can be anticipated to consist of hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109, the proposed clayey sand materials used in the thickness proposed would not create the barrier claimed. Modifications not proposed in the application are possible. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 110, 111 and 112, WACOC has not given reasonable assurance that pollution of the groundwater in violation of DER water quality standards would not occur; or that no more than a foot of leachate would stand on the liner. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert H. Huelsman Anna M. Huelsman 608 Ironwood Drive Fort Walton, FL 32548 Debra Swim, Esquire 1323 Diamond Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire Post Office Box 887 Mary Esther, Florida 32569 William L. Hyde, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, Laface & Richard Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Chris McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248 may be recovered from Petitioners pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Spill Response, Inc. (Spill Response) is a corporation which was formed in approximately 1986 or 1987, and is presently inactive and without any assets. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the sole owner, president and director of Spill Response, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. Spill Response was previously in the oil spill response business, as its name suggests. At such time, it had an office in Port Everglades and stored its equipment on fenced and gated property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida, on which approximately a dozen large aboveground petroleum storage tanks (surrounded by concrete containment areas) also were situated. At all times material to the instant case, the property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida (FPR site) has been owned by Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc. (FPR), an inactive corporation that previously was in the waste oil recovery business. The FPR site, which is presently FPR's only asset, is the subject of a pending foreclosure action initiated by Charles Green, who, at all times material to the instant case, has held a first mortgage on the property. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the president and director of FPR, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. In the latter part of 1994, the storage tanks on the FPR site were no longer in commercial use. At that time, Gordon, on behalf of FPR, hired Fred Rice to clean and maintain the site in preparation for its closure. Rice was instructed to remove the petroleum residue and sludge from the tanks and from the containment areas. Rice engaged in these petroleum and sludge-removal activities on a part-time basis until the spring of 1995, when he stopped working on the project after not having received timely payment for work he had performed. Rice placed the petroleum residue and sludge that he had removed, as well the rags and other materials that he had used in the removal process, in 55-gallon drums. He filled approximately six or seven such drums. A number of other 55-gallon drums containing petroleum residue and sludge (that some person or persons other than Rice had filled) were already on the FPR site. Rice put the six or seven drums that he had filled on a truck that was parked on the site and had “Spill Response, Inc.” and “Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc.” markings on its sides. The truck was owned by Spill Response and had been on the site for some time. It had no battery and was inoperable. Rice told Gordon that he had put the drums he had filled with petroleum residue and sludge on the Spill Response truck. The next time Gordon went the FPR site, in late May of 1995, he discovered that the locks on the gates had been changed and that there were vehicles and equipment on the property that did not belong there. Gordon telephoned the Davie Police Department to complain about the unauthorized use of the FPR site. A police officer was dispatched to the site to investigate. When the officer arrived on the scene, he encountered Gordon outside one of the gates. Although the gate was locked, Gordon and the officer gained access to the site by squeezing through an opening in the gate. Upon entering the site, they looked around. Based upon what they saw, they correctly "figured out" that Certified Crane and Rigging, Inc., d/b/a Certified Equipment Management Company (Certified) was storing its crane equipment and trucks on the site. At all times material to the instant case, Certified has been owned and operated by William "Skip" Walton. Walton is an acquaintance of the aforementioned Charles Green, the holder of the first mortgage on the FPR site. Certified's telephone number was painted on the equipment and vehicles it was storing on the FPR site. The police officer called the number and spoke with Walton. Following his telephone conversation with Walton, the officer informed Gordon that Walton had indicated, during the conversation, that he was leasing the FPR site from Green. Gordon advised the officer that he did not want to press criminal charges (for trespassing) against either Certified or Walton. Gordon subsequently telephoned Green. Green told Gordon that it was true that he had leased the FPR site to Walton. Green explained to Gordon that he "needed to earn some money from the property." (It had been some time since Green had received any mortgage payments from FPR or Gordon.) Gordon contacted his attorney to discuss with her what legal action, if any, he could take to regain possession of the FPR site and be compensated for the unauthorized use of the property. Gordon's attorney advised him that he "would have recourse if [he] wished to pursu[e] the matter in court," but that it might not be cost-effective for him to do so. Gordon took no action, "in court" or otherwise, to regain possession and control of the FPR site; nor did he take any action to retake possession and control of the Spill Response truck or the filled drums that were in the truck and elsewhere on the site. Furthermore, he made no effort to make sure that the drums and their contents were stored and disposed of properly, believing that the proper storage and disposal of these items were now the responsibility of the new occupant of the site. He did not return to the FPR site for over a year. On or about June 6, 1995, the Department was notified (after its regular business hours) that the Spill Response truck had been discovered abandoned on the side of the road a few blocks from the FPR site. The following day,1 Ann Meador, an Environmental Specialist III with the Department, went to the location where the truck had been abandoned and served as the Department's on- scene coordinator. The truck was in poor condition and still inoperable. It had been brought (not driven) to the location by someone other than Gordon. The truck contained 37 sealed 55-gallon drums, which were in poor condition (but not yet leaking) and had oil residue on the outside. It could not be reliably determined exactly what was in the drums without removing them from the truck and examining and analyzing their contents. Meador made arrangements for OHM Remediation Services Corporation (OHM), with whom the Department had a contract to perform such services on an emergency basis, to assist in the removal of the drums from the truck. OHM personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene and removed all 37 drums from the Spill Response truck. After the drums were unsealed, their contents were examined and sampled to the extent possible2 (as were the contents of three additional drums which were filled with the "Level B" protective clothing and equipment that OHM personnel had used during the cleanup operation and then discarded). Each of the drums was assigned a number for identification purposes. To save time and money, samples from some of the drums were composited. The drums were then overpacked and taken to the Department’s hazardous waste storage facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Department paid OHM $7,046.93 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services OHM performed. In requesting OHM to perform these services and in paying OHM $7,046.93 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid OHM was not excessive. The Department hired Laidlaw Environmental Services (Laidlaw) to analyze the samples that OHM had collected and to then properly dispose of the drums and their contents. Laidlaw's analysis revealed the following: drums numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 contained oily sludges, oil, oil mixed with water, or oily residues; drum numbered 6 contained benzene and had a flash point between 73 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit; drum numbered 29 contained benzene and lead and had a flash point of less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit; drums numbered 10 and 11 contained benzene and lead; drums numbered 7, 8, 31, 32, 33 and 39 contained benzene, lead, and cadmium. Laidlaw properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Laidlaw $21,163.90 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services it performed. In requesting Laidlaw to perform these services and in paying Laidlaw $21,163.90 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Laidlaw was not excessive. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $129.82 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the Spill Response truck. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the drums on the truck properly removed and disposed of was $28,340.65. It was not until Gordon received a letter from the Department advising him of the costs the Department had incurred and requesting that Spill Response and he reimburse the Department for these costs that Gordon became aware of the fact that the truck and the drums had been moved from the FPR site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Petitioners, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $28,340.65 in costs the Department reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Department (DER) is the regulatory agency of Florida charged with the duty and authority to administer and enforce Chapter 403 and Sections 376.30-376.319, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Hendry is a Florida corporation that has been conducting business in excess of 60 years. The two main aspects of its business are the dredging operation and the shipyard. Hendry's site can be loosely described as an industrial site. The shipyard division performs approximately one-half its work for governmental entities, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard, which operations are largely ship refurbishing. Hendry has a Coast Guard certificate enabling it to receive mixtures containing oil and oily water waste. A significant portion of Hendry's ship refurbishing work involves repairing/replacing steel on ships which has deteriorated due to salt water exposure. That work frequently requires cutting, welding and burning. Prior to commencing the refurbrushing work, the ships must be certified as safe. In certifying a ship as being safe, the bilge area is pumped of used oil or waste oil which collects in standing waste water and oil. Also, before that works commences, the ship is defueled. Currently, Hendry's practice is to subcontract the pumping of waste oil from the ships bilge, which waste oil is pumped directly into the tanker truck of the subcontractor. Hendry no longer pumps or stores waste oil on site. In the past, the waste oil and water from the ship's bilge was pumped from the ship through a pipeline from the dry dock across the property to a 10,000 gallon above-ground storage tank. During December 1987, the U.S. Coast Guard observed a fuel spill on the water at Petitioner's facility. Based on that observation, Respondent conducted site inspections of Petitioner's facility during March and April 1988. The fuel spill was occasioned by Petitioner's refurbishment of a tuna boat at its site. Petitioner subsequently received a warning notice regarding alleged violations in its petroleum storage tanks and contamination. The transfer pipeline is of steel construction. Between 1980 and 1984, the pipeline leaked. In 1984, the pipeline was rerun with PVC line and in 1986, it was refitted with 4 inch steel pipe. The 10,000 gallon above-ground tank is located in Area 1. The removal of waste oil occasionally resulted in accidental spills. After 1985, a smaller, above-ground tank was installed adjacent to the 10,000 gallon tank to provide a storage tank for draining off water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The small tank was used to receive only water drained from the 10,000 gallon tank. Prior to installation of the small tank, a retention pond was used to drain water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The retention pond had a 2 foot berm with a visqueen liner. In October 1988, Hendry submitted an EDI Program Notification Application, a prerequisite for EDI reimbursement eligibility, under the program for costs associated with cleanup of certain petroleum contamination. In May 1989, Hendry submitted a document entitled Preliminary Contamination Assessment III Specific Areas--Task IV Rattlesnake Terminal Facility--Westshore Boulevard, Hillsborough County prepared by Mortensen Engineering, Inc. That document included reports of analysis of oil and groundwater samples taken from the site in January, March and April 1989, demonstrating extensive contamination of soil and groundwater including "free product" in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-4A. By letter dated November 9, 1989, the Department informed Hendry of its determination that the facility had been denied EDI reimbursement based on specific enumerated findings. Hendry entered into a stipulation with the Department on October 16, 1990, "regarding the conduct of this case and the basis for denial. " Attached to the stipulation is a sketch of the facility grounds showing a rough division of the area into four separate areas. Area 1 has two waste tanks. One was a large 10,000 gallon closed tank approximately 20 feet high and 12 feet in diameter; the other contained a volume of approximately 1,500-2,000 gallons and was an open tank. Petitioner's practice was to pump bilge in the dry dock area, located west of "Area 2" and direct the waste through underground pipes to the 10,000 gallon tank. The smaller tank was used to "bleed" water from the larger tank. Bilge waste is approximately two-thirds water. Area 2 was the location of Hendry's diesel tank farm. In the stipulation, the Department agreed to withdraw two of the seven specific grounds for the denial, namely denial of site access and failure to report discharges. Likewise, Hendry agreed to withdraw "Area 4" from its application for EDI eligibility. In the stipulation, Hendry was informed of a then recent amendment to Section 376.3071(9), which offered certain applicants who had been earlier determined ineligible for participation in the EDI program, standards and procedures for obtaining reconsideration of eligibility. The amendment required the facility to come into compliance, certify that compliance and request reconsideration prior to March 31, 1991. Additionally, compliance was to be verified by a Department inspection. Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the stipulation, these standards and procedures were specifically to be applied to Areas 2 and 3 at the facility. Hendry did not make a written request for reconsideration of the denial of eligibility with respect to Areas 2 and 3 on or before March 31, 1991 or at anytime subsequently. Hendry also did not come into compliance with the underground or above-ground storage tanks system regulations on or before March 31, 1991 in that Hendry failed to register a 560-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank which was onsite on that date as required by Rule 17-762.400, Florida Administrative Code. Hendry also failed to notify the Department of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC), as the administrator of a designated local program at least thirty days prior to closure of the storage tank system, pursuant to Subsection 376.3073, Florida Statutes. These determinations were made on April 1, 1991 by Hector Diaz, inspector in the HCEPC tanks program. Hendry submitted a registration form for the 560-gallon tank on November 18, 1991, which was of course subsequent to the March 31, 1991 deadline. Hendry stored petroleum products and waste material including petroleum constituents in the above-ground tanks until approximately March 25, 1991 when it initiated tank removal. Hendry's above-ground storage tanks, which were in use at its facility for approximately three years after extensive soil contamination was documented, were without secondary containment. In November 1991, Hendry submitted a document entitled Supplemental Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, prepared by Keifer-Block Environmental Services, Inc. (Supplemental PCAR). The stated purpose of the study was solely to determine whether hazardous constituents were present in groundwater in Areas 2 and 3. The report included laboratory analysis of groundwater samples taken from the site in August 1991 including monitoring wells located in Area 3. The results of these analysis reflect that Area 3 is contaminated solely with heavy metals, lead and chromium. No petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in Area 3. In the area adjacent to Area 2, seven of eight monitoring wells show chromium or lead contamination. Hendry had, and continues to have, a practice of removing paint from vessels by blasting them with a gritty material known as "black beauty." This practice takes place in the dry dock area near Areas 2 and 3. The waste blast grit/paint chip mixture is vacuumed or shoveled into wheelbarrels or a frontend loader and dumped into an open pile. Occasionally, the waste blast grit/paint mixture is blown about or spilled. Waste "black beauty" has been observed scattered on the ground throughout the facility. Paints sometime contain heavy metals, specifically, lead and chromium. The concentrations and distribution of lead and chromium contamination at the site are consistent with Hendry's long-standing practice of grit-- blasting paint from ships and other vessels and allowing the metal-contaminated paint and waste mixture to fall to the ground. Areas 2 and 3 are contaminated with substances other than petroleum or petroleum products, namely heavy metals. Costs associated with cleanup of lead and chromium are not reimburseable under the EDI program. Paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation allowed Hendry an opportunity to establish eligibility for Area 1 by providing information regarding operating practices at two above-ground storage tanks and a retention pond in that area demonstrating that contamination in that area is predominantly from leaks or unintentional spills of petroleum products from the tanks in that area. Hendry did not provide the required information. On January 27, 1992, Hendry submitted to the Department an affidavit executed by its principal, Aaron Hendry, which Hendry contends fulfills the requirements of paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation. Hendry, the principal who executed the affidavit, is an affiant with a legal and financial interest in the outcome of the EDI eligibility determination. The executed affidavit did not contain specific information with respect to "operating practices at the tanks and retention ponds as required by the stipulation." Specifically, the affidavit is silent as to: What the tanks were made of; When, how and by whom they were installed; What piping, leak detection or overfill protection was associated with them; What repairs or alterations had been made to them; What inventory reconciliation methods were used; Where the materials came from which was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was removed from the tanks; Disposition of material removed from the tanks; When, how, by whom and why the retention pond was dug; How and for what period of time the retention pond was used; How, often and by whom inspections of the tanks were conducted; When and how leaks occurred and were discovered at the tanks; When and how spills occurred and were discovered at the tanks; What records, including reports to state or local agencies, insurance claims, newspaper accounts, and so forth were kept with respect to leaks or spills at the tanks; What cleanup efforts were made at the time of any leaks or spills; Documentation related to registration of the tanks with state or local agencies; and Documentation with respect to any removal of the tanks, including any description of the condition of the tanks when, or if, removed. For years, the facility's retention pit was used as a "waste pit" namely, a rectangular hole in the ground, approximately 30 feet by 120 feet by 3 feet, for direct discharge of bilge waste piped from vessels at the dry dock area to the waste pit, prior to installation of the storage tank systems. After installation of the large tank in Area 1, the retention pit was used to bleed water from the bilge tank. In the past, the Department has denied eligibility to facilities where a retention pond was used for disposal of petroleum related waste and cleanup of contamination resulting from use of a retention pond. Hendry's affidavit nor other documentation submitted to the Department prior to the EDI redetermination or at hearing establishes that the bilge waste taken from the storage tanks was "a liquid fuel commodity" or recycled into such a commodity. By letter dated June 9, 1992, the Department notified Hendry that reconsideration of its EDI eligibility request for Areas 2 and 3 was denied and that the affidavit of Aaron Hendry submitted with respect to Area 1 did not satisfy the requirements of the stipulation. Thereafter, Hendry challenged the Department's denial of reconsideration and EDI eligibility which joins the issue for this proceeding. The hazardous waste allegation discovered during an inspection of Hendry's facility on April 14, 1988, resulted in a consent order which was entered as a final order of the Department on November 21, 1990. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to demonstrate that not all areas at the facility were hazardous waste disposal areas and, thus, not all areas would be subject to closure and cleanup under the permitting requirements of Subsection 403.722, Florida Statutes and the remediation standards set forth in Chapter 17-730, Florida Administrative Code. To establish appropriate remediation standards and procedures which would be applicable to various areas, Hendry was required to prepare a property diagram designating areas at the property exhibiting any of the following types of contamination: Areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products or used oil which is not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by materials which are not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by the past or present disposal of hazardous waste. The consent order allows contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code, for areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 11.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the Department's corrective action and groundwater contamination cases for all areas at the facility contaminated by used oil which is not hazardous waste or by hazardous material. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 12.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to a closure permit with a contingent post-closure plan to close the areas at the facility contaminated by the disposal of hazardous waste. In response to the consent order to delineate areas on the property exhibiting various types of contamination, Hendry submitted the supplemental PCAR. By letter dated March 19, 1992, the Department responded to the supplemental PCAR with a determination that: Area 1 can be assessed and remediated through the standards set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code. Contamination in Areas 2 and 3 includes heavy metals, which are hazardous materials. Thus, Areas 2 and 3 should be assessed and remediated through the corrective action process for groundwater contamination cases. A hazardous waste facility closure permit application should be submitted for assessment and remediation of Area 4, which, because of the presence of Dichloroethylene, a hazardous substance and chlorinated solvent, should be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2. Hendry had a practice of cleaning electrical motors by placing such motors on the ground outside the electrical repair shop near Area 4. The motors were sprayed with Trichloroethylene, a waste solvent, which was allowed to runoff into the soil. At the time of this practice, the intention was to leave the solvent contamination unchecked. The Department, pursuant to directives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), characterizes the disposition of hazardous waste to the environment as a result of intentional, ongoing industrial practices as "disposal of hazardous waste" within the meaning of Subsection 475.703(21), Florida Statutes and 40 CFR 260.10. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to challenge the Department's determination with respect to delineation of the various areas by filing a petition per paragraph 21 of the order for formal administrative hearings. Hendry filed its petition with respect to the March 19, 1992 letter, which petition is the subject of DOAH Case No. 92-2312.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that 1) the contamination areas at issue herein are not eligible for EDI reimbursement under Subsections 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes; 2) that Petitioner cleanup the contamination in Areas 1, 2 and 3 under the guidance document entitled "Corrective Actions for Groundwater Contamination Cases"; and 3) that Area 4 be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2 and closed through a hazardous waste closure/post closure permit application process. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 14, partially adopted in Paragraph 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and speculative. Paragraph 20, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 21, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 24-28, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, partially adopted, Paragraphs 13 and 14, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, partially adopted, Paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 29, partially adopted, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 60, 62 and 73 rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 33, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 38, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 41, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and the two cases cited at hearing where Respondent exercises his discretion are distinguishable from Petitioner's failure to timely apply. Paragraph 43, rejected, unnecessary and/or argument. Paragraph 45, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 50, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 37-39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 54, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 55, rejected, not probative. Paragraphs 56 and 57, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 58 and 59, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 23 and 24, Recommended Order. Paragraph 61, rejected, speculative and unnecessary. Paragraph 63, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 67, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 68, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraph 69, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 70, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 72, rejected, irrelevant and not necessary to the issues posed. Paragraph 74, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and unnecessary. Paragraph 75, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 76, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 77, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 78 and 79, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 80, rejected, not probative. Rulings in Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 2 and 3, adopted in part, Paragraph 9, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted in part, Paragraph 32, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, adopted in part, Paragraphs 38 and 39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 30, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Patka, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT 200 South Orange Ave - Suite 2600 Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Lisa Duchene, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Pasco County's application for a permit to construct a Class III landfill should be approved by the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). Pasco County called Robert Hauser, Jr., who was accepted as an expert in sanitary landfills, and the Department called Kim Ford, who was accepted as an expert in professional engineering with expertise in solid waste. Petitioner Collins testified on behalf of the Petitioners. Two exhibits were received on behalf of Pasco County and two on behalf of the Petitioners. One exhibit offered by Petitioners (P-3) was rejected. No transcript of the hearing was filed. The parties were given ten days following the hearing to file their proposed recommended orders, including proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each timely filed proposed finding of fact is included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Pasco County filed an application with the department on or about January 29, 1983, to construct a Class III sanitary landfill. The location of the landfill would be near Hays Road and County Road 52, near Aripeka, in Pasco County, Florida. Pasco County owns the property on which the landfill would be located. After review, the Department issued an Intent to Issue on or about December 2, 1988, by which it proposed to issue Permit No. SC 51-144683 to Pasco County. The proposed landfill site is approximately 60 acres in size, with 20 acres to be used for disposal of household trash, yard trash consisting of grass clippings and other vegetative matter resulting from landscape maintenance or land clearing operations, construction or demolition debris, paper, cardboard, cloth, glass, street sweepings, vehicle tires, and other nonputrescible materials. Pasco County will install a 60 mil thick, high density polyethylene synthetic liner with a leachate collection system which is designed to eliminate discharge to the Floridan Aquifer within the landfill boundaries. An extensive geotechnical investigation of subsurface conditions at the site was conducted by the County's consultants in order to determine the suitability of the site for a Class III landfill, and to evaluate the ability of the site to provide an adequate foundation for the facility. Soil boring and ground penetrating radar were used. It was established that the site is of relatively uniform stratigraphy, characterized by a uniform layer of surficial sand, a reasonably continuous clay semi-confining layer from six to ten feet thick, under which lies the limestone groundwater bearing formation known as the Floridan Aquifer. The hydrogeological survey conducted by the County included a foundation analysis which demonstrates that the subgrade will support loads and stresses imposed by the proposed landfill. It also has a low potential for sinkhole development, and the synthetic liner and leachate collection system are reasonable mitigation steps which address sinkhole potentials. Pasco County's application includes a surface water management system, which has already received approval from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and which is adequate to control surface water discharged from the Class III landfill site. The groundwater monitoring plan included in the application provides for no less that 10 pairs of monitor wells to be located approximately 100 feet from the boundary of the proposed landfill area. This meets the requirements of the Department, and is adequate to monitor both the surficial and Floridan Aquifer, and to provide early detection of any discharges to the groundwater. Reasonable assurances have been provided, through site specific geotechnical analysis and enhanced design features, that the site can be developed and operated as a Class III landfill without adverse impact to the Floridan Aquifer, despite the fact that the site is located in an area designated by the Southwest Florida Water Management District as a high recharge area. The County has demonstrated that it has the financial ability to construct, operate and close this Class III landfill in accordance with the Department's rules. The operations plan included in the County's application establishes the County's ability to operate the proposed landfill in accordance with rules of the Department. The proposed design of Pasco County's proposed Class III landfill offers reasonable assurances that the Department's standards will be met, and in fact, the design as proposed by the County exceeds the standards required by the Department for a Class III landfill, in that this project includes a liner and leachate collection system which are not mandatory. Competent substantial evidence was not presented by the Petitioners to establish that they would be substantially affected, or affected in any way, from the construction and operation of this Class III landfill.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department issue Permit NO. SC 51-144683 to Pasco County. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of May, 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 23rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The Petitioners did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on Pasco County's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 2-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 6-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 10-11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 13-14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Rejected since this is a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5, 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Collins 1750 Blue Heron Lane Spring Hill, FL 34610 Robert D. Odell 12636 Box Drive Rolling Oaks Estates Hudson, FL 34667 J. Ben Harrill, Esquire 7530 Little Road, Room 203 New Port Richey, FL 34654 Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale Twatchmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's present solid waste-disposal system consists of the operation of six sanitary landfill sites. These sites are being operated in accordance with temporary permits issued by the Respondent. Four of the sites are not adequate sanitary landfill sites. Two of the sites, which are known as the "Sims Farm" and "Ephesus" sites can be developed into acceptable landfill sites. Petitioner has not developed any comprehensive plan designed to comply with the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act, and the rules of the Respondent respecting solid waste disposal systems. When its present temporary permits expire the Petitioner intends basically to continue operating the Sims Farm and Ephesus landfill sites, and to' locate at least two other acceptable sanitary landfill sites. Petitioner intends to comply with all of the Respondent's regulations, but it contends that it cannot comply with the regulation which requires that the landfills be covered every working day. Petitioner proposes to cover the landfills twice weekly rather than daily. Lafayette County is a large county in terms of area, but is very small in population, having less than 3,500 residents. Residents of the county are engaged primarily in agriculture. The county does not have a broad tax base. Estimated revenues for the 1977 fiscal year are $113,340. Thirty thousand dollars has been designated from the county's budget to operate a solid waste disposal system. The clerk of the County Commission is in charge of the county's present solid waste disposal system. The county does not have a full time employee designated to operate the system. The clerk of the County Commission has many duties other than operating the solid waste disposal system. Residents of the county are satisfied with the present system. Prior to the opening of the present sanitary landfill sites there was considerable dumping on private property, on highway right-of-ways, or in the river slough. The amount of waste deposited in the county's present landfills is very small in relation to counties with a higher or more concentrated population. There is very little industrial or commercial waste, and a smaller percentage of putrescible materials than would be found in more urban counties. Although there is a county ordinance prohibiting it, dead animals are occasionally deposited in the landfill sites and burning of trash does occur. Chemical agricultural waste is also deposited in the landfills. Lafayette County has utilized temporary permits to operate its present landfill sites. The permits require the submission of periodic reports. The county has not submitted these reports as required by the permits. Counties surrounding Lafayette County have had varying experiences in reaching full compliance with the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act, and the rules of the Respondent dealing with solid waste disposal systems. In Taylor County, a county with a population of approximately 14,500, approximately $120,000 was invested in equipment. Daily cover of sanitary landfills, including the dumping of green boxes utilized in Taylor County cost $6,512.42 in January, 1976, and $7,159.85 in January, 1977. Compliance with the statutes and regulations necessitated an increase in the county's tax rate. Compliance is being achieved in Gilchrist County, a small agricultural county at very low cost utilizing a single sanitary landfill site system. Compliance has been achieved in Dixie County, a small agricultural county through use of a green box system. Very little research has been performed by Lafayette County to determine how compliance could be achieved most inexpensively. Daily cover of sanitary landfill sites is desirable. Daily cover is the most effective means of preventing open burning in landfill sites, leachate of solid waste, flies and rodents. Daily cover does not totally alleviate these conditions, but it is the most effective means of combating them. Daily cover is much more necessary in areas where there are large amounts of solid wastes than it is in areas with small amounts. Daily cover is also more necessary in areas where there is a large proportion of putrescible versus non-putrescible materials than it is in areas with a smaller percentage. In order to comply with the Respondent's regulations when its present temporary permits expire, the Petitioner will need to purchase a tractor or bulldozer in order to provide a cover at the landfill sites. If daily cover is required, the county will need to hire a full-time individual to perform the cover. If twice weekly cover is permitted the county will be able to operate its system without the necessity of employing an additional person. Twice weekly cover would reduce the operating costs of the county's system by reducing fuel and maintenance costs of vehicles. In view of the fact that no detailed examination has been made of the cost of full compliance, it is not possible to determine from the facts presented whether it is practicable for the Petitioner to comply with the regulations, or whether the expense or cost of measures which the Petitioner must take in order to comply are so great that they should be spread over a considerable period of time. The most that can be determined is that daily cover would be more expensive than twice weekly cover, and that twice weekly cover would not have any profoundly negative environmental effects in Lafayette County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for variance. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P. O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347 Mr. Jay Landers, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
