The Issue The issue is whether Tir-na-n'og, Inc.'s application for renewal of an operating permit for the operation of a residuals management facility in Okeechobee County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 2, 2000, Respondent, Tir-na-n’og, Inc. (applicant), through its owner and operator, John G. Abel (Abel), made application with Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), to renew its domestic wastewater facility operating permit FLA016637 for a Residuals Management Facility (RMF). Although the existing permit’s expiration date was November 8, 2000, the application was filed at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the existing permit, and therefore the permit remains effective pending the outcome of this proceeding. Petitioners, Mark Hair (Hair), James and Brenda Burnsed (the Burnseds), and Jerry R. Holland (Holland), who all own property adjacent to or near the applicant's property, have challenged the renewal of the permit on the ground that the applicant is violating various statutes and administrative rules. It is fair to infer that an acrimonious relationship exists between Abel and his neighbors, including Petitioners, who have filed numerous telephonic and written complaints against Abel with the Department over the years. A Department witness asserted, however, that all "public" complaints were "unfounded." The facility is privately owned by Abel and is located on a 247-acre tract of land north of State Road 724 and just west of U.S. Highway 441 near Fort Drum in the northeastern portion of unincorporated Okeechobee County. Besides operating a RMF, Abel also uses the land as pasture to raise 150 head of cattle and award-winning horses, and to grow Callie Grass to make hay. Abel currently operates a 59,000 gallon-per-day lime stabilization facility (the RMF) for sludge, septage, and domestic food service wastes. Treatment of residuals consists of alkaline stabilization for 2.0 hours at a pH of 12 or higher followed by maintenance of a pH of 11.5 or higher for 22 additional hours. Treatment of septage consists of alkaline stabilization for 2.0 hours at a pH of 12 or higher or a pH of 12.5 for a minimum of 30 minutes. The pH is maintained at or above 11 until the septage is land applied, but is less than 12.5 at the time of land application. The RMF is a Type III facility consisting of one 1,250 gallon receiving/screening tank; one 1,250 gallon lime slurry mixing tank; nine 5,000 gallon stabilization tanks; two 6,500 gallon stabilization tanks; two 5,000 gallon emergency storage tanks; two blowers; one lime slurry pump; one irrigation transfer pump; and one tank truck loading pump. Under the proposed permit, flow will be measured in equivalent dry tons/year with a maximum of 242 dry tons/year. All physical components of the facility are in good working condition, are not leaking, and operate as intended. The engineering review concluded that there are no corrective actions required, no outstanding compliance issues, and the facility has no noted problems or deficiencies. The Department’s review concluded that there are no outstanding compliance issues or enforcement actions involving the facility. After treatment, the stabilized residuals are land spread on-site on Abel's property (the ranch) and an adjoining property of unknown size to the southeast known as the Fox property under Department-approved Agricultural Use Plans. Although the Fox property was sold to a third party sometime in 2001, Abel has represented that he has an oral agreement with the new owner to continue to use the land. Any changes in new, modified, or expanded land application sites call for a new or revised Agricultural Use Plan for the site that will be incorporated into the proposed permit as a minor permit revision. Treated, stabilized residuals from other RMF facilities are also land-spread at the site as described in the Agricultural Use Plan and the cumulative loading annual reports submitted to the DEP. Specific Condition II.33 requires the applicant to maintain records of application zones and application rates and to make these records available for inspection. Specific Condition II.34 requires the permittee to submit an annual summary of residuals application activity, including if more than one facility applies residuals to the same application zones. The pending application is for renewal of a permit issued in 1995, prior to the effective date of extensive amendments to Chapter 62-640, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the regulation of domestic wastewater residuals. The proposed permit contains updated reporting requirements and forms more particularly suited to the day-to-day operations of an RMF. Specific Condition I.A.3. of the proposed permit requires that incoming loads to the RMF be reported on Residuals Stabilization Reports or Septage Stabilization Reports and that incoming load manifests be maintained on-site and be readily available for Department inspection. These reports are to be submitted to the Department on a monthly basis as specified in Specific Condition I.A.9. Under the 1995 permit, the applicant is required to submit monthly reports on Discharge Monitoring Report forms (DMRs) to which is attached the DEP Form 62-640.900(3). That form is a Standard Domestic Wastewater Residuals Record Keeping Form and shows incoming load manifests and daily processing reports for the residuals and septage accepted at the RMF for treatment. Specific Condition II.18 of the 1995 permit requires the applicant to maintain records and have them available for inspection. Among other things, the records must include the amount of residuals applied or delivered. The applicant currently maintains these records on-site, and the information is provided to the Department as part of the annual summaries required under Specific Condition II.18. Rule 62-640.700(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that a minimum unsaturated soil depth of 2 feet above the water table level is required at the time the residuals are applied to the soil. The Agricultural Use Plan and the rule require that if the seasonal high ground water level will be within 2 feet of the surface or is undetermined, the permittee shall determine the groundwater level in one or more representative locations in each application zone prior to the application of residuals. When residuals cannot be applied due to the constraints of the rule, they must be stored in holding tanks at the plant. Under the 1995 permit the applicant must record water table levels at the time of application and cannot land- apply the residuals in a particular area if the unsaturated soil depth is less than 2 feet. To ensure compliance with the above rule, the applicant maintains 6 monitoring wells on-site in each application zone and near the RMF in order to check water table levels prior to spreading residuals in those areas. In addition, Abel has agreed to install 2 or more new monitoring wells "under lock and key" to be monitored exclusively by the Department. If the permit is renewed, such an agreement should be incorporated into the conditions. At the present time, the applicant operates on a rotation schedule based on ability to land-apply residuals, grow pasture grass, and allow the livestock to graze in a certain area after residuals have been applied in accordance with the applicable Department rules and the 1995 permit. To avoid runoff or erosion during rain events, which is proscribed by Rule 62-640.700(7), Florida Administrative Code, the land-spread residuals do not sit on top of the soil. Rather, they are disked into the soil after application using a mobile, self-retrieving, high-rate Rainbow irrigation system. The RMF facility uses lime stabilization to treat liquid residuals or septage for the purpose of meeting the pathogen (disease-causing organisms) and vector attraction (attraction of flies) reduction requirements of Rule 62- 640.600, Florida Administrative Code. These reduction requirements are met at the facility to the Class B level for use on restricted public access areas. The ranch is privately owned property and does not have unrestricted public access. Between 1997 and 1999, the Burnseds purchased 210 acres of land located immediately south of, and adjacent to, the ranch and the Fox property. Also to the south of the ranch and immediately adjacent to the west of the Burnsed property are 80 acres of land on which Roto-Rooter once spread residuals. After the Burnseds filed a complaint, Roto-Rooter ceased using the property for that purpose. The Burnseds desire to build a home on their land but are understandably reluctant to do so at this time given the nature of the activities on the ranch. To the north of the ranch is the Boggy Creek Branch and to the south of the Burnsed property is the Fort Drum Creek, both of which flow essentially northeast into the St. Johns River. The applicant's property varies in topography with the high point being in the northwest corner where the RMF is located and the low points being further south and southeast. Surface water generally flows south toward the Burnsed property. There is no ditch or other holding device to prevent runoff from the ranch or Fox property from going directly onto the Burnsed property during rain events. If the permit is renewed, such a device would be appropriate, given the topography of the land. The topographical map for the area shows a 65-foot contour on the ranch sloping down to a 60-foot contour on the Burnsed property to the south and the Fort Drum Creek and sloping down to a 60-foot contour to the north at Boggy Branch Creek. To the northwest of the ranch is a gated retirement community known as Indian Hammocks. Holland is a resident of that community and lives across the street from the ranch. Hair does not live directly adjacent to the ranch, but the trucks which haul residuals to the RMF use the road in front of his house. The Burnseds contend that the permit should not be renewed under the applicable renewal criteria in Rule 62- 620.335, Florida Administrative Code. More specifically, they contend that the applicant has operated the facility in violation of permit conditions and rule-reporting requirements, in violation of the 2-foot rule, and in violation of minimum setback requirements from surface waters. In addition, Holland contends that the site is not suitable for land-application of residuals, which endangers human health and the environment, and that Abel has violated the setback requirement for adjoining properties. Finally, Hair has contended that spillage or leaks from the trucks occur on the road where his children meet their school bus. The Burnseds first contend that the applicant has consistently and systematically underreported the amount of residuals applied and delivered to the property. To this end, they introduced evidence (Exhibit B1) consisting of a compilation and comparison of information gleaned from surveillance videotapes over the period from April 6, 2000, to May 9, 2001, compared with the information reported to the Department by the applicant in its monthly DMR reports. The tapes established that between April and December 2000, at least 285 trucks entered the facility that were not reported on the DMRs. In addition, for the first 5 months of 2001, at least 185 trucks were not reported on the DMRs. When annualized, the latter number is approximately 370 trucks per year. In response to this allegation, Abel pointed out that each year he receives around 280 truckloads of treated residuals under a contract with the Hutchinson Utility Authority (Authority) which are not carried to the RMF but go directly to land application areas. None of these shipments are required to be reported on the DMRs but rather are reported in the summary reports submitted to the Department on an annual basis. This explanation would account for virtually all of the unrecorded shipments in the year 2000, assuming that all of the Authority shipments occurred during the 9- month surveillance period. More than likely, however, these shipments were staggered throughout the year. In any event, there was no evidence (such as summary annual reports for the year 2000, or a copy of the contract with the Authority) to show the dates on which the Authority made deliveries, to demonstrate that the unreported trucks were actually carrying treated residuals, as opposed to untreated residuals, or to show that the claimed number of Authority shipments was accurate. Therefore, it is found that the applicant failed to report on his DMRs around 25 percent of the incoming loads of untreated septage or residuals during the year 2000. Likewise, even after giving credit for the Authority shipments, a significant underreporting would be occurring during the year 2001. These shipments collectively involved several million gallons of septage. Besides the Authority, there are 11 other facilities in the area which "might" transport treated residuals to Abel's property for land application only. There is no evidence of record, however, to show if any trucks hauling treated residuals were received from the other sources, and if so, the number. Moreover, as noted above, the annual summary reports were not made a part of this record so that those figures could be compared to the number of trucks identified in the surveillance tapes. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the applicant has violated a condition of his 1995 permit, namely, that he failed to accurately report all incoming loads on his monthly DMRs. The Burnseds further contend that the applicant is in violation of the 2-foot rule regarding the unsaturated soil depth, and therefore the property is no longer suitable for land application of residuals. To support this contention, the Burnseds sited 6 monitoring wells around the western and southern perimeters of the ranch and Fox properties and introduced into evidence the results of samplings taken in September 2001. These samplings showed unsaturated soil depths in each well of less than 2 feet, and that 4 of the 6 wells had depths of less than 1 foot. As discussed in findings of fact 14-16, however, the 2-foot rule is required at the time residuals are applied to the soil. Nothing in the permit documents or Department rule requires an unsaturated soil depth at all locations at all times before a site can be used for residuals application. Petitioners Holland and Burnseds further contend that the low areas on the ranch and Fox properties where surface water exists are subject to the minimum setback requirements in the Department’s rules. In general, a 200- foot setback is required in a residuals application zone from surface waters that are classified as waters of the state. Through recent aerial photographs, Petitioners established that standing water is now found in multiple areas of the Abel and Fox properties for much of the year due to an alleviation of drought conditions that previously existed. However, these surface waters are located completely within the Abel and Fox property boundaries and have not been classified as waters of the state by the Department. Therefore, the setback requirement does not apply. The Agricultural Use Plan for the ranch establishes buffer areas where residuals are not applied. The buffer areas include any required setbacks from property boundaries and occupied buildings. While the Department witness was unable to give a precise distance for the required setbacks from property boundaries (except whatever the "rules" called for), it can be inferred that at least some minimal separation is required. As recently as 6 months before the hearing, Holland personally observed a truck spreading residuals no more than 8 feet from the property line. Other testimony supports a finding that spreading of this nature has occurred on other isolated occasions. These acts constitute a violation of the existing permit. Holland also contends that the land application of residuals at the ranch and Fox properties, over time, endangers human health and the environment. In support of this contention, he presented testimony from a physician who resides in Indian Hammocks and opined that the ranch is a public health problem and should be "eradicated" since the residuals contain numerous bacteria and viruses which can be spread to neighboring properties. He had no concrete evidence, however, to show that several illnesses in the general neighborhood were a direct result of the applicant's operation. That is to say, the evidence presented was speculative, and no direct causal connection was established between the illnesses and the existing operation. The Burnseds have further contended that Abel's RMF and land-application sites are a source of objectionable odors, in violation of Rule 62-296.320(2), Florida Administrative Code. That rule prohibits the "discharge of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor." Both Burnseds have smelled such an odor "several times each year" since purchasing their property a few years ago, especially if the winds are coming out of the west. In addition, a worker on their property became ill in July or August 2000 after smelling odors just after sludge was applied by a truck onto the nearby Fox property. The RMF facility is located near the northwest corner of the property away from the Burnsed property that is located to the south. While the Department points out that immediately adjacent to the Burnsed property is the former land-spreading site once used by Roto-Rooter, and that site was more than likely the source of any objectionable odors, Roto Rooter has ceased operations. Even so, given the fact that odors have been detected only "several times" over the past few years by the Burnseds, and appropriate chemicals are being applied in the tanks to control the odor, reasonable assurance has been given that the RMF is not in violation of the odor rule. Petitioner Hair, who lives near the Abel property, introduced photographs into evidence to demonstrate that trucks carrying residuals to the RMF either spilled or leaked materials at the intersection of U.S. Highway 441 and 325th Trail, which is the site of a school bus stop. Because his children must walk through that area to catch the school bus, Hair is concerned that his children may become ill from walking on the contaminated road. While this is a legitimate and valid health concern, and the leakage may constitute a violation of some regulation by the trucking company, it is not a ground to deny the renewal of the permit or a matter within the Department's jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of Tir- na-n'og, Inc. for renewal of its domestic wastewater facility operating permit FLA0166637. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Jonathan Jay Kirschner, Esquire Kirschner & Garland, P.A. 101 North Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34960-4403 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mark Hair 885 Northeast 336th Street Okeechobee, Florida 34792-3603 Jerry R. Holland 32801 U.S. Highway 441 North, Lot 101 Okeechobee, Florida 34792-0271 John G. Abel 24 Northeast 325th Trail Okeechobee, Florida 34792-0253
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) may issue to Respondent Republic Services of Florida, L.P. (Republic), permits to construct and operate a Class III landfill, pursuant to Permit Numbers 266830-003-SC/01 and 266830-004-SO/01, as modified as set forth below.
Findings Of Fact Background On June 30, 2009, Republic filed with DEP an application for a permit to construct and operate a Class I landfill (Application). In response to DEP's request for additional information dated July 30, 2009 (RAI), Republic filed a response dated September 14, 2009 (RRAI), upon receipt of which, DEP deemed the Application to be complete. References to the Application typically include the Application, RRAI, and other materials, such as reports, plans, and drawings, that are part of the Application, as well as three subsequent modifications, which are detailed below. Republic revised several reports, plans, and drawings in the RRAI; references to these items, such as the Engineering Report and Operation Plan, are to the versions contained in the RRAI. On November 13, 2009, DEP filed its intent to issue construction permit #266830- 003-SC/01 (Construction Permit) and intent to issue operation permit #266830-004-SO/01 (Operation Permit; collectively, the Permit). Republic Services, Inc. and its affiliates constitute the second largest waste-management operator group in the United States. Their market capitalization is just over $11 billion. The capitalization of the affiliate formed to operate the subject landfill is doubtlessly less than $11 billion, as the record does not suggest that any significant part of the overall capitalization of Republic Services, Inc., and its affiliates would be at risk in the operation of the proposed landfill. Republic presently owns and operates a Class III landfill in the City of Bartow, Polk County, known as the Cedar Trail Landfill. The oldest part of this landfill is an unlined Class III landfill of 52.5 acres in the center of the property owned by Republic. Immediately west of this unlined landfill is a 30.7-acre lined Class III landfill, which comprises cells 1-4. The Cedar Trail Landfill is located at 2500 West State Road 60, about three miles west northwest of the intersection of State Road 60 and State Road 98, which marks the center of Bartow. The landfill is immediately west of E.F. Griffin Road. Petitioners Frost live on E.F. Griffin Road, about one mile north of the Cedar Trail Landfill. Petitioner Highland Lakes Estates Homeowner's Association serves a residential subdivision known as Highland Lakes Estates. Highland Lakes Estates occupies a notch at the southeast corner of Republic's property. Aerial photographs reveal the changing land use of the land on which Cedar Trail Landfill is situated. Fifty years ago, the land was vacant with indications of agricultural uses. At the site of the proposed landfill were mostly citrus groves on the west side and some rangeland or vacant land on the east side. Ten years later, a large area immediately northeast of the subject land reveals the effects of strip mining for phosphate. Three years later, in 1971, the mined area had greatly expanded to encompass all or nearly all of the subject site and much of the surrounding area, including the western half of what would become Highland Lakes Estates. By 1980, the pits had been refilled and active mining had ceased, and the streets had been constructed for what is now known as Highland Lakes Estates. By 1993, about three dozen homes had been built in this residential, large-lot subdivision. 9. The Cedar Trail Landfill was constructed in the early 1990s as an unlined construction and demolition debris landfill. Now designated an approved landfill for Class III waste, this facility accepts such waste as is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(14) (2010), which includes construction and demolition debris, yard trash, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, paper, glass, furniture (but not white goods), plastic, and other materials not expected to produce leachate that presents a risk to the public health or environment. A zoning/land use map reveals that the land for which the proposed landfill is proposed is designated "sewage/borrow pits/spray fields." Highland Lakes Estates occupies land that is designated single-family residential with a density of one dwelling unit on up to 2.49 acres. The Cedar Trail Landfill has been the subject of three recent environmental resource permits (ERPs). Appendix R to the Application is an individual ERP issued in April 2009, and Appendix R to the RRAI is a conceptual ERP issued in March 2005. The April 2009 ERP mentions that the entire stormwater project was conceptually approved by an ERP issued on September 10, 2008, but this ERP is not part of the record. In any event, these ERPs approve the construction of a comprehensive stormwater or surface water management system for the entire Republic property. In particular, the April 2009 ERP permits the construction of a borrow pit at the southeast corner of the Republic property and a modification of the perimeter ditch/wet retention system. The April 2009 ERP states that the permitted stormwater management system will provide total onsite retention for runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The April 2009 ERP requires 2.8 acres of compensation for 2.8 acres of encroachment in the 100-year floodplain. Specific Condition 14 prohibits excavation of the borrow pits to a clay confining layer or limestone bedrock layer. Specific Condition 20 prohibits the mixing of leachate with stormwater and provides that, if leachate enters stormwater, the stormwater becomes leachate. Presumably reflecting this permitting activity, Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, is the site plan, including the unlined Class III landfill, the four-cell lined Class III landfill immediately to the west of the unlined landfill, and the eight cells proposed to accept Class I waste. These eight cells are immediately south of the four cells of the lined Class III landfill. The two northernmost of these eight cells abut, on their east boundary, the unlined Class III landfill. The remaining six cells abut, on their east boundary, an 800-foot wide borrow pit, which lies between these cells and Highland Lakes Estates. Immediately north of Highland Lake Estates is a second borrow pit, and west of this borrow pit is the unlined Class III landfill. The other major feature on the site plan is a third borrow pit running, from west to east, along the north border of the lined Class III cells, the unlined Class III landfill, and the second borrow pit. Bearing no signs of ambitious reclamation activity, the backfilled mining cuts host large water storage areas and, as described in the application for the March 2005 ERP, wetlands of "very poor quality." The backfilled soils are best described as complex surficial soils, consisting mostly of fine sands with varying amounts of organics, silts, and clays. Geotechnical investigations of the Cedar Trail Landfill suggest that mining depths, although variable, probably averaged 40 feet. Petitioners and Intervenor are substantially affected by the Permit and the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, which will stand nearly 200 feet above grade and will be the focus of substantial activity six days per week during its years of operation. Like Petitioners, Intervenor owns land in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Trail Landfill, which is in the jurisdiction of Intervenor, and Intervenor's various municipal operations are much affected by whether the proposed Class I landfill is permitted. Among other things, Intervenor has agreed to accept untreated leachate from the proposed landfill. Petitioners Frost built their home in 1980 or 1981. During the hours of operation of the existing landfill, Petitioners Frost constantly hear the beeping noise of heavy- duty equipment, presumably a safety device when the equipment is moved. Over a dozen lots in Highland Lakes Estates abut the property line of the Cedar Trail Landfill, and the closest residence is about 1000 feet from the nearest proposed Class I cell. At present, the existing landfill subjects the Highland Lakes Estates to constant noise during operating hours and a coating of dust inside their homes. Several residents of Highland Lakes Estates testified. Hard-working people, some of whom are now retired, these residents decided to purchase homes in Highland Lakes Estates because it was a sunny, healthy place to live. Over time, most of these residents, by varying degrees, have come to accept the fact of the Class III operations at Cedar Trail Landfill, but they object to the substantial intensification of land use that will result from a regional Class I landfill. One resident testified that she finds in her pool dirt that has escaped from the existing landfill, and she has become concerned about her grandchildren coming over to swim. Another resident testified that he only began closing his windows five or six years ago when the noise levels at the existing landfill increased; he eventually had to install a window air- conditioner. The same resident testified that the green herons and snowy egrets that he used to see around his house have not returned for five years, and his wife, who has health problems, including respiratory distress, would suffer from the expanded landfill operations. Application, RRAI, and Permit, Including Modifications The Permit incorporates the Application, including the RRAI, Engineering Report, Operation Plan, and drawings. Thus, all of the documents are part of the Permit. In the Application, Republic proposes to convert cells 5-8, which are not yet constructed, from a Class III to a Class I landfill and add four new cells adjacent to the unused cells. The unfilled portion of Cells 1-4 would continue to receive only Class III waste. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(13) (2010), Class I waste is all solid waste, other than hazardous waste, that is not otherwise prohibited by rule. The Application states that the proposed landfill will serve communities within 100 miles. The service area of this regional landfill will thus extend in central Florida from Marion to Osceola counties, along the Gulf Coast from Pasco to Lee counties, and along the Atlantic Coast from Volusia to Martin counties. As stated in the Application, this service area is populated by 9.7 million persons, who would daily account for 3000 tons of waste at the Cedar Trail Landfill. Initially, according to the Engineering Report, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste, but, once the existing Class III cells are filled, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste plus the 1400 tons per day of the Class III waste that is currently going into the existing landfill. As revised by the RRAI, the life expectancy of the proposed landfill is seven years. The Application states that Republic will employ an attendant, a trained operator, and 3-5 spotters at the landfill. The Application reports that the landfill would operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the working face would be covered daily. The Application reports that Republic would install seven new detection wells and use 17 existing wells for monitoring groundwater and would use two existing staff gauges for monitoring surface water, evidently at a single location, as discussed in the next paragraph. 23. Application Appendix V is the Water Monitoring Plan. Appendix V states that surface water will be monitored every time that the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area discharges offsite, but not more frequently than weekly. Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, shows that the sole surface water monitoring location is close to the leachate storage tanks, which are described below. 23. Appendix V also requires leachate monitoring, "at least annually," for five field parameters--specific conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, colors, and sheens; eight laboratory parameters--including chloride, mercury, and total dissolved solids; and the parameters listed in 40 CFS Part 258, Appendix II, which includes a comprehensive list of volatile organic compounds; persistent organic pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (a major dioxin) and Dibenzofuran; and metals, including lead and chromium. Fourteen days prior to all sampling events, Republic is required to notify DEP, so that it may obtain split samples for its own analysis. Republic is required to report the results of the groundwater monitoring quarterly and to analyze the groundwater data in a technical report filed with DEP every two years. Appendix V also requires monitoring for odors and combustible gases, mostly methane. Republic will monitor combustible gas quarterly at various ambient locations, such as the office buildings and to monitor combustible gas quarterly in the soil down to the seasonal high water table. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine combustible gas concentrations and, if they exceed 25%, take "all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health." Some confusion in the Application arises as to the issue of whether the Cedar Trails Landfill will be subject to, or voluntarily implement, the more elaborate provisions applicable to a landfill covered under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Regulated emissions for a new source might include particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and specified hazardous air pollutants. Appendix V states that the landfill will become a Title V landfill once permitted to receive Class I waste, and, at that time, it will be subject to a "more comprehensive system of landfill gas collection and monitoring." Appendix V assures that these items "will be addressed in separate documentation from this monitoring plan"--and, apparently, separate from the present record. By contrast, the Operation Plan concedes only that, based on the nature of Class I waste and the design capacity of the proposed landfill, Cedar Trail Landfill "may" become a Title V facility. The Operation Plan states: "If the regulatory thresholds at [Cedar Trail Landfill] are met [under Title V] requiring an active gas collection and control system (GCCS), [Cedar Trail Landfill] will submit as required the GCCS design plans for approval and install an active gas extraction system within the regulatory timeframes specified by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart WWW." More specific provisions in the Operation Plan identify best management practices to prevent objectionable odors. Four practices are identified, including an "active gas collection and extraction system." On the DEP form application, which is a cover sheet to the more elaborate application materials, Republic checked boxes indicating that the landfill would use active gas controls with gas flaring and gas recovery, which is probably what is meant by an "active gas collection and extraction system." The Application provides that the landfill liner would be double composite; the leachate collections system would consist of collection pipes, geonets, and a sand layer; the leachate would be stored in tanks; some of the leachate would be recirculated as spray on the working face; and the remainder of the leachate would be stored onsite and periodically transferred to a wastewater treatment center for treatment. The Engineering Report states that the waste disposal footprint will not be located where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the waste. The Engineering Report identifies appendices addressing the slope-stability analysis and foundation analysis and relies on a March 12, 1997, report by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. (Ardaman Report), January 23, 2004, report by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder Report), and June 26, 2009, report by Hanecki Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Hanecki Report). These items are discussed in greater detail below in connection with the sinkhole issue. The Engineering Report assures that the waste disposal footprint will not be within 500 feet of an existing or approved potable water well, nor will it be within 1000 feet of an existing or approved potable water well serving a community water supply. The Engineering Report adds that the minimum horizontal distance between waste deposits and the property line is 100 feet. The Engineering Report assures that the landfill footprint will not be in a dewatered pit, as the installation elevations are at least 2-3 feet higher than the seasonal high water table. The Engineering Report acknowledges that a small part of the eastern end of the four southernmost cells lies within the 100-year floodplain, as depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Map effective December 29, 2000, and as shown in Application Appendix A, Drawing 1. Claiming that the relevant map was not revised in 2000, the Engineering Report asserts that the last update to the FIRM map was in 1975, and the depicted floodplain was filled during the mine reclamation process. The Engineering Report notes that the floodplain concerns were addressed in the April 2009 ERP. 34. The Engineering Report discloses two enforcement actions against Republic at the Cedar Trail Landfill. In a letter dated October 19, 2001, DEP warned Republic about noncompliant items at the site, and, in a notice of noncompliance dated January 30, 2006, DEP warned Republic not to use a new cell prior to construction certification of the cell's stormwater system. Both matters were reportedly resolved, and Republic has not been the subject of other enforcement actions for the Cedar Trails Landfill. At DEP's urging, the RRAI elaborates on enforcement actions against Republic or, evidently, Republic affiliates at a variety of Florida facilities, not just landfills. The additional information reveals that DEP imposed a fine of $61,300 for the October 2001 violations, which included disposing of unacceptable waste, storing an excessive number of tires and exceeding groundwater standards without notifying DEP, and a fine of $1000 for the January 2006 notice of noncompliance. The other enforcement actions against Republic or affiliates concerning landfills involved consent orders about the Nine Mile Road Landfill (Seaboard Waste): in February 2003, DEP imposed a fine of $13,000 in settlement of charges that employees were not removing all unacceptable waste from the site and, in November 2005, DEP imposed a $285 fine for a failure to submit required stormwater monitoring reports. There were many other enforcement actions, generally resulting in modest fines, but they involved hauling facilities, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities, not landfills. The Engineering Report states that the proposed landfill is within six miles of, but greater than 10,000 feet from, the Bartow Municipal Airport. Airport safety is addressed in more detail below. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system, which uses materials whose physical, chemical, and mechanical properties prevent failure due to contact with Class I waste and leachate, climactic conditions, installation stress, and other applied stresses and hydraulic pressures. The Engineering Report performs no contingency sinkhole analysis. The report does not suggest that the liner system could withstand the stresses and pressures resulting from any size sinkhole, so the necessary inference is that the liner will fail if any sinkhole forms directly beneath it. The Engineering Report states that waste placement will remain within the lined containment berm. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system for use at the proposed landfill. The primary liner system and secondary liner system each comprises three layers with the top layer consisting of a composite drainage net, the middle layer consisting of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane with a minimum average thickness of 60 ml, and the bottom layer consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-9 cm/second. The Engineering Report describes in detail the leachate collection and removal system, which, sitting atop the primary liner, includes a 24-inch thick sand drainage layer with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/second, a composite drainage net, and a single perforated 8-inch diameter lateral pipe in each cell. The collection lateral pipes will gravity drain to the east to a header pipe that gravity drains to the primary leachate collection pump stations--one station for the four converted cells and one station for the four new cells. A smaller leachate collection and removal system will handle the leachate that penetrates to the leak detection layer by routing it to a secondary leachate collection pump station. Based on calculations derived from the HELP groundwater model, the leachate collection and removal system is designed to prevent leachate head from exceeding the thickness of the composite drainage net (about 1 cm) over the secondary geomembrane and from exceeding one foot over the primary geomembrane. According to the Engineering Report, flow meters will be installed at each of the pump stations to allow daily readings of the amount of leachate being pumped. At one foot of head over the primary liner, the Engineering Report expects just over three gallons per day collected at each secondary leachate collection pump station--significantly less than the leakage rate typical of a double liner system without a geosynthetic clay liner beneath the primary liner. However, the Engineering Report provides a standard action leakage rate of 100 gallons/acre/day, meaning that Republic is required to report to DEP liner leakage only when this leakage rate is attained. The pump stations will transmit the leachate to one of two above-ground, 150,000-gallon storage tanks. From these tanks, most of the leachate will be transported to an offsite location for treatment. However, up to 12,000 gallons per day of the untreated leachate will be recirculated to be sprayed on the working faces of the landfill. This is to control dust and possibly to assist with the degradation of the waste. The Engineering Report states that the Cedar Trail Landfill implements a facility-wide water quality monitoring plan. Upon completion of the pump stations for the eight cells that are the subject of the Application, Republic will expand its leachate sampling program to include annual sampling of the leachate collected in the primary and secondary leachate collection pump stations. The groundwater monitoring wells would be installed as closely as possible to the outer edge of the roadway that, with a stormwater ditch, will run the perimeter of the proposed Class I landfill. In the revised Engineering Report contained in the RRAI, Republic proposes a surface water discharge point in the stormwater pond located near the leachate storage tanks. The Engineering Report adds that Republic will continue to comply with the following prohibitions: No waste will be knowingly burned on site; Hazardous waste will not knowingly be accepted; PCB contaminated waste will not knowingly be accepted; Untreated biomedical waste will not knowingly be accepted. Please note that treated biomedical waste may be accepted at [Cedar Trail Landfill]'s Class I Landfill provided that the waste containers are marked "Treated Biomedical Waste.;" No waste disposal at the proposed Class I Landfill will occur within 3,000 feet of a Class I surface water body; [Cedar Trails Landfill] will not knowingly accept liquid waste within containers, excluding leachate and gas condensate derived from solid waste disposal operations. [Cedar Trails Landfill] will comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.300(10), FAC regarding the handling of liquid wastes; Neither oily waste nor commingled oily waste will knowingly be accepted; and Lead-acid batteries, used oil, white goods, and whole-waste tires will not knowingly be disposed of in the Class I waste disposal system. The Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, identified above, adds four items to this list of operational prohibitions: i. Garbage will not be knowingly accepted; Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste, will not be knowingly accepted; Animal carcasses will not be knowingly accepted; and Aluminum dross will not be knowingly accepted. Capitalized terms are generally defined in the Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(39) defines "Garbage" as " all kitchen and table food waste, and animal or vegetative waste that is attendant with or results from the storage, preparation, cooking, or handling of food materials." Application Appendix H is the Operation Plan, which also identifies the types of wastes to be permitted at the proposed landfill. Section 3(b) of the Operation Plan authorizes the proposed landfill to accept: Commercial waste Ash residue Incinerator by-pass waste Construction and demolition debris, including from a residence Treated biomedical waste Agricultural waste Industrial waste Yard trash, including from a residence Sewage sludge Industrial sludge Water/air treatment sludges Waste tires De minimis amounts of non-hazardous waste from incidental residential sources Section 5 of the Operation Plan provides, in relevant part: [Cedar Trail Landfill] will accept waste included in any of the waste categories identified under Section 3(b) of this Operation Plan[, but] will . . . NOT knowingly accept any hazardous waste, untreated biomedical waste, liquid waste (including paint), explosive waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste for disposal at the [Cedar Trail Landfill.] Unacceptable types of refuse are listed below and will not be knowingly accepted for disposal. --Hazardous waste --Explosive waste --Radioactive waste --Drums that have not been opened and Emptied --Refrigerators, freezers, air Conditioners (white goods) --Any toxic or hazardous materials, i.e. batteries, solvents, oil, etc. --Automobiles or parts that contain fuel, lubricants, or coolants --Untreated Biomedical waste The original Application prohibited the acceptance of septic tank pumpage, but the application form accompanying the original Application indicated that the proposed landfill would accept industrial sludge and domestic sludge. After modification by the RRAI, the prohibition against accepting septic tank pumpage was deleted, and the Operating Plan added, among acceptable wastes, sewage sludge, industrial sludge, and water- and air-treatment sludge. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(101) (2001) defines "sludge" to include solid waste pollution control residual from an industrial or domestic wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, air pollution control facility, septic tank, grease trap, portable toilet, or other source generating a waste with similar characteristics. Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200(64) (2001) defines "liquid waste" as any waste with free liquids, according to the "Paint Filler Liquids Test." As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Section 5 of the Operation Plan was amended to add the following items to unacceptable types of refuse that will not be knowingly accepted for disposal: --Garbage --Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste --Animal carcasses --Aluminum dross At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan that unacceptable waste would include Garbage contained in commercial, industrial or agricultural waste. According to the Operation Plan, the initial waste screening occurs at the gate house where the attendant interviews the driver and inspects the incoming waste load. If the attendant sees more than a negligible amount of unauthorized wastes, he will reject the load and will contact the hauler to identify the source of the waste. Additionally, Republic will notify DEP if anyone tries to dispose of hazardous waste at the proposed landfill. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, the Operation Plan was amended to provide a new paragraph between the paragraph addressing the initial waste screening at the gate house and, as discussed below, the second screening at the working face. The new paragraph provides: Any malodorous waste will be covered with mulch and/or additional soil or other approved cover materials to control odors promptly, within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. Cedar Trail Landfill will promptly cover any sludge deposited on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of the unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan, which would prohibit Republic from accepting malodorous waste or sludge that, due to exigent circumstances, it would not be able to cover within one hour from the time of unloading. If the load passes the initial waste screening, it will proceed to the working face of the landfill, according to the Operation Plan. At least one spotter will be stationed at the working face at all times that the landfill receives waste. Her job will be to detect unauthorized wastes. Republic is to assure that it has a sufficient number of spotters to find and remove unauthorized waste prior to compaction. The Operation Plan allows the spotter to work from ground level or the cab of a compactor. If the operator of a piece of heavy equipment is trained as a spotter, she may also serve as a spotter. During periods of higher waste traffic, the equipment operator will, according to the Operation Plan, "likely" need the assistance of another operator or spotter to screen the higher waste volumes. When finding unauthorized wastes in manageable volumes, the spotter or operator will remove these wastes by hand and place them into nearby containers for removal to an appropriate facility. The third waste screen occurs as the equipment operator spreads the waste, pursuant to the Operation Plan. The equipment operator is required to place any unacceptable observed wastes into containers, which will be located "within the lined area." These wastes will also be removed to an appropriate facility. In the RAI, DEP questioned the proximity of the containers to the working face, as the lined area consists of 72 acres, but, in the RRAI, Republic ignored the comment, restating only that the containers would not be located outside the lined area. The Operation Plan specifies a filling sequence. Republic will assure that the first layer of waste placed above the liner in each cell will be a minimum of four feet in compacted thickness and will be free of rigid objects that could damage the liner or leachate collection and removal system. Republic will maintain the working face to minimize the amount of exposed waste and initial cover necessary at the end of each day. The filling sequence will proceed until the permitted final grade elevations have been reached, less three feet for the final cover. The Operation Plan states that the initial cover at the Class I landfill will consist of a six-inch layer of soil that is transferred from onsite borrow pits or offsite sources. This soil will be compacted and placed on top of the waste by the end of each work day. At Republic's option, subject to DEP's approval, it may use a spray-on or tarpaulin cover, instead of a soil cover. The Operation Plan requires Republic to apply at least one foot of intermediate cover within seven days of cell completion, if additional waste will not be deposited within 180 days of cell completion. Republic may remove all or part of this intermediate cover before placing additional waste or the final cover. Through the placement of initial, daily, and intermediate cover, Republic will minimize the occurrence of moisture infiltration, fires, odors, blowing litter, and animals and other disease vectors. 59. The Operation Plan requires Republic to control litter primarily by daily waste compaction and cover. However, at least daily, if needed, employees will collect litter along the entrance and access roads and around the working face. Complaints about litter must be logged. In addition to the inspections detailed above, the Operation Plan establishes a random load-checking program to detect unauthorized wastes. Each week, Republic employees will examine at least three random loads of solid waste by requiring drivers to discharge their loads at a designated location within the landfill where the employees may undertake a detailed inspection. All random inspections will be logged. Notwithstanding the daily limit of 12,000 gallons per day, the Operation Plan prohibits Republic from spraying leachate during rain events. To apply the recirculated leachate, the lead operator will drive the leachate tanker truck on the working face, so that it can spray leachate over waste as it is being compacted, but after it has been screened by spotters. The spraying will be done to avoid causing leachate to pond atop the waste and will not be done within 50 feet of an outside slope. No restrictions apply to wind conditions. The Operation Plan states that, if the annual sampling of leachate water quality at the two pump stations reveals a contaminant in excess of the permissible limits listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24, Republic will start monthly sampling and notify DEP in writing. Also, the Cedar Trail Landfill will maintain a recording rain gauge. The Operation Plan requires Republic employees to conduct daily surveys for objectionable odors and take immediate corrective action, if odors are found at the property line. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, this portion of the Operation Plan was amended to add two odor- remediation actions and another form of odor inspection. The two additional actions to prevent odors are to 1) provide additional cover using mulch, additional soil, or other approved cover material and 2) use odor masking or neutralizing agents. The new inspection provision states: Internal inspection will be performed on a weekly basis by a properly trained odor ranger or equivalently trained person. Such individual will tour the facility, property boundary, and the subdivision of Highland Lakes Estates . . . to identify any odors leaving the Landfill's property boundaries. The results of each weekly inspection will be document, and any odors identified will be mitigated. Another new provision from the Joint Stipulation for Permit Modification applies to the handling of sludge. As amended, the Operation Plan states: When accepting sludge from a new source or distributor, [Republic] will obtain information regarding the characteristics and constituents of the sludge, including a description of the industrial process or circumstances that resulted in the generation of the sludge. Upon delivery of the sludge, [Republic] will mix lime, sodium hydroxide, or any other suitable agents to eliminate objectionable odors as required during disposal of the sludge before the material is covered. Furthermore, [Republic] will obtain advance notice from contributors prior to delivery of any sludge and shall promptly cover any sludge unloaded on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as severe weather. [Republic] shall use its best efforts to avoid accepting or disposing of sludge on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. Additionally, with respect to sludge received from wastewater treatment facilities only, such sludge shall not exceed the lesser of (1) twenty percent (20%) of the total volume of waste disposed in the landfill on an average monthly basis, determined annually on the prior calendar year, or (2) two-hundred (200) tons per day, averaged over the prior 12-month calendar year. Republic is required to monitor combustible gases quarterly and transmit the results to DEP, according to the Operation Plan. If Republic detects methane above the limits specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.530 (2010), Republic must submit a gas remediation plan to DEP within seven days. The Operating Plan indicates that the separation of the waste from the groundwater prevents the saturation of the waste and, thus, the generation of odor. Sloping and compacting will promote stormwater runoff, again to discourage the generation of odor. The Construction Permit authorizes construction of the proposed landfill in accordance with the "rules[,] . . . reports, plans and other information" submitted by Republic "(unless otherwise specified)." This parenthetical reference provides that the provisions of the Construction Permit control over any contrary provisions in the other documents that are part of the Permit due to incorporation by reference. In addition to the original Application, RRAI, and drawings, the Construction Permit also incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001). The Construction Permit states that Republic may not violate the prohibitions set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Construction Permit Specific Condition A.9.a requires notification to DEP of the discovery of limestone during excavation or discovery. Specific Condition A.9.b requires notification to DEP of any surface depressions or other indications of sinkhole activity onsite or within 500 feet of the site. Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Construction Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate, during construction or operation, to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner and leachate management system. Specific Condition C.4 prohibits the acceptance of hazardous waste and does not condition this prohibition on Republic's knowledge that the waste is a hazardous waste. Specific Condition C.5 requires Republic to "control . . . odors and fugitive particulates (dust)" and "minimize the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property." "Nuisance conditions" include "complaints confirmed by [DEP] personnel upon site inspection." Specific Condition C.5 orders Republic to "take immediate corrective action to abate the nuisance" and to "control disease vectors so as to protect the public health and welfare." Construction Permit Specific Condition C.6.b requires immediate notice to DEP of any sinkholes or other subsurface instability. Specific Condition C.8 requires Republic to manage leachate in accordance with the Operating Permit and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-700.500(8). The Operating Permit incorporates the same materials that are incorporated into the Construction Permit, again "(unless otherwise specified)." Like the Construction Permit, the Operating Permit incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001) and requires immediate notice to DEP in the event of a sinkhole or subsurface instability. The Operating Permit specifies that the action leakage rate is 100 gallons per acre per day and the leachate recirculation rate is 12,000 gallons per day. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition A.1.b states: This Facility is not authorized to accept Garbage; untreated Biomedical Waste; animal carcasses; liquids and non-liquid PCB containing materials or wastes with a PCB concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million; Liquid Waste; and aluminum dross. Additionally, this facility is not authorized to accept Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste. Class III waste means yard trash, construction and demolition debris, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, or other materials approved by [DEP] that are not expected to produce leachate which are a threat to public health or the environment as defined in Rule 62-701.200(14), F.A.C. Based on this authorization to allow certain wastes as described above from residential sources, and since the landfill design, including liner and leachate collection systems, meets the requirements of Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., for Class I landfills, the facility will be entitled to [the] household hazardous waste exemption pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(1). Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner. Specific Condition C.1.c prohibits the discharge of "residual contaminants," such as gasoline, oil, paint, antifreeze, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), onto the ground or into surface water or groundwater. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides that authorized waste types are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations Plan, and unacceptable wastes shall be removed from the site as described in Sections 3(a) and 7. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides: "Waste types authorized for management at this site are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations [sic] Plan. Unacceptable wastes are those listed in Section 5 [of the Operation Plan] " Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(2) requires the use of a sufficient number of spotters to remove unacceptable wastes, but allows Republic to direct its equipment operators to serve as spotters from the equipment. This condition allows DEP to require that spotters work from the ground, if DEP determines that spotting from equipment is not effective. Specific Condition C.1.k(3) requires Republic to remove unacceptable wastes immediately and not to unload additional wastes in the immediate vicinity until placing unacceptable wastes in the designated waste containers" "near the working face" and within the lined landfill area. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.l(2) requires Republic to inspect on each operating day the property boundary for objectionable odors and, if any are detected, abate them in accordance with Specific Condition C.5. Specific Condition C.5.a requires Republic to control odors, disease vectors (insects and rodents), and fugitive particles (dust and smoke) to protect the public health and welfare. Control is defined as "minimiz[ing]" the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property. Odors confirmed by DEP personnel are a nuisance condition, and Republic must take immediate corrective action to "abate" the nuisance. Specific Condition C.5.b provides that, if odor control measures do not "sufficiently abate" objectionable odors within 30 days, Republic will submit an odor remediation plan to DEP for approval. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.8.e requires monthly reports to DEP of leachate quantities. Specific Condition C.8.h(1) prohibits recirculation of leachate at rates that result in seepage that may discharge outside the lined area. Leachate may not be sprayed when the application area is saturated or during a rainfall event. There is no prohibition against spraying during windy conditions. Operating Permit Specific Condition E details the extensive water quality monitoring requirements. However, Specific Condition E.9.b requires only annual testing of the five field parameters, eight laboratory parameters, and the comprehensive list of Appendix II parameters set forth in 40 CFR Part 258, all of which are identified below. Specific Condition E.9.c provides that, if a contaminant listed in 40 CFR 261.24 exceeds the level listed therein, Republic will notify DEP and take monthly leachate samples until no exceedances are detected for three consecutive months. Operating Permit Specific Condition F.1.a states: "This solid waste permit will meet the statutory requirement to obtain an air construction permit before . . . constructing a source of air pollution, except for those landfills that are subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of Chapter 62-212, F.A.C." Such facilities are required to obtain an air construction permit from the Bureau of Air Regulations prior to construction. Specific Condition F.1.b requires Republic to comply with Title V of 40 CFR 60, Subparts WWW and CC. This section notes that Title V permit applications must be submitted to the District Air Program Administrator or County Air Program Administrator responsible for the landfill. Aviation Safety Landfills attract birds in search of food. Flying birds may interfere with aviation safety. Thus, landfills are typically not located in close proximity to airfields to minimize the risk that flying birds will interfere with airborne aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. The nearest airport to the Cedar Trail Landfill is the Bartow Municipal Airport, which is operated by the Bartow Aviation Development Authority. This airport is over five miles from the footprint of the active landfill and 4.6 miles from the boundary of the proposed site. Republic provided notice of the Application to all airports within six miles of the proposed landfill, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation. None of these entities objected to the proposed landfill. When Republic gave the Bartow Aviation Development Authority notice of an earlier application, which sought a permit for a landfill that would accept garbage, the authority objected to the proposal due to concerns posed by birds to aviation safety. When asked about the Application, the authority's executive director testified that she still has concerns about the proposed landfill, but she did not specify the nature of her concerns or her analysis. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, these are the only facts required for a determination of whether Republic has provided reasonable assurance of aviation safety. The record provides no basis for finding that Republic has failed to provide reasonable assurance of aviation safety. Neither the FAA nor the Bartow Aviation Development Authority has objected to the proposed landfill. The executive director's unspecified concerns do not override the absence of a formal objection from these agencies. Petitioners assign too much weight to the earlier objection submitted by the authority. The composition of the authority may have changed or some authority members may have decided they were wrong in their earlier analysis. This earlier objection does not outweigh the absence of objection to the present proposal from any of the aviation agencies and the absence of any evidence of the expected nature or extent of bird usage of the proposed landfill and the extent to which these birds would interfere with existing and expected flight paths of aircraft using the Bartow Municipal Airport. Public Health Petitioners' expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. David Carpenter, is a medical doctor with a long, prestigious history of public service, including with the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the United States Public Health Service, and the New York Department of Health, where he served as director from 1980-85. At that time, Dr. Carpenter started the School of Public Health at the University of Albany. Republic's expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. Christopher Teaf, is an expert in the evaluation of environmental contamination, waste management, and toxicology, but not a medical doctor. Dr. Teaf is a professor at Florida State University and owns a small consulting firm. The major part of Dr. Carpenter's career has been devoted to research. For the past ten years, he has focused more on human health, especially human disease from exposure to environmental contaminants. Dr. Carpenter has considerable experience with the adverse effects of landfills on human health, but his experience has been mostly with older landfills, where containment measures were few and offsite releases were many. Clearly, Dr. Carpenter's experience does not extend to the role of landfill design, construction, and operation in the transmission of human disease. Thus, Dr. Carpenter is qualified to opine on the effects of pollutants that may escape landfills, but not on the relationship of landfill design, construction, and operation on the probability that a landfill will transmit pollutants. For the most part, Dr. Carpenter did not attempt to address matters outside of his expertise. However, Dr. Carpenter testified that the risk of disease or injury increased in relationship to the proximity of the person to the landfill. This testimony can only be credited if one assumes that the landfills are identical in terms of design, construction, and operation and in terms of the environmental conditions of the landfill site. In other words, in real-world applications, it is impossible to credit this element of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, especially to the extent of his implicit suggestion that public health is unreasonably endangered by the construction of a landfill, in compliance with all rules, that satisfies all of the separation criteria and design criteria set forth in the rules, as discussed below. By contrast, Dr. Teaf focused on the details of the proposed landfill. Applying his knowledge of toxicology, Dr. Teaf determined that the proposed landfill adequately protects public health. In making this determination, Dr. Teaf analyzed the effects of various design and operational characteristics of the proposed landfill, including the double liner system, the leachate collection and management system, the selection of appropriate waste types, the procedures for the evaluation and covering of sludges, the prohibition against municipal garbage, the restrictions on household items, the monitoring of groundwater and surface water, the stormwater management system, and the plans to control dust and odors. Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the literature that he sponsored suggested important links between older landfills and a wide range of human disease. But the recurring problem with Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the research articles that he sponsored was the inability to link this information to the proposed landfill. All of the landfills studied in his research articles were older, and most of them appeared to have been designed, constructed, and operated under far more relaxed regulatory regimes than exist today. Nothing in Dr. Carpenter's testimony or sponsored literature attempted to delineate the design or operational characteristics of these landfills, such as whether they were double- or even single-lined, served by leachate circulation and recovery systems, limited as to materials that they could accept, or required to install stormwater management and water monitoring systems. 93. Analysis of the risk to public health posed by the proposed landfill requires consideration of the various means of transmission of the pollutants received by the landfill: water, land, and air. Of these, water requires little analysis, on this record. Even Dr. Carpenter conceded that the proposed landfill does not appear to pose a threat to groundwater. The double liner, leachate collection and recovery system, and groundwater monitoring plan support the finding that groundwater transmission of pollutants from the proposed landfill is unlikely. Transmission by surface water is also unlikely. Compared to groundwater monitoring, surface water monitoring is limited. For instance, there is only a single monitoring site. Also, as noted above, the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area is expected to discharge stormwater offsite during excessive storm events, at which time surface water samples will be taken. However, a comprehensive surface water management system is in place at the landfill and will prevent offsite discharges in all but a few excessive rain events. Transmission by land is also unlikely. The Application contains engineering analysis of the proposed stability of the side slopes and a determination that they will be stable. The discussion of sinkholes, below, does not affect this finding. Treating dust as transmission by air, the only other means by which pollutants may transmit by land is by animals, such as insects, rodents, and birds. An important factor limiting the activity of animals in spreading pollutants offsite is the fact that the proposed landfill will not receive garbage. Although putrescible waste may be received within other categories of waste, the prohibition against receiving garbage will greatly reduce the amount of potential food sources for animals and thus the utilization rate of the proposed landfill by these animals. A further reduction in animal utilization will be achieved through the daily and intermediate cover requirements. Thus, transmission of pollutants by animals is also unlikely. Transmission by air takes several forms. Pollutants may be transmitted as or on dust, with water in the form of aerosol, or as gas. In terms of how transmission by air is addressed by the Permit, this means of transmission potentially represents a greater threat than transmission by water or land for four reasons. First, the explicit focus of the Permit, as to gas, is to avoid explosive concentrations of methane and objectionable odors, but not the transmission of other pollutants by air. Second, the effect of the Permit is to prohibit the release of pollutants into the groundwater or offsite surface water and to prohibit the release of pollutant-bearing land offsite, but no such flat prohibition applies to the offsite release of pollutants by air. Third, the leachate recirculation system provides a good opportunity for the release of certain pollutants into the air by aerosol or evaporation, but similar releases to offsite land, surface water, or groundwater are prohibited. Fourth, scientific understanding of the effects of exposure, especially by inhalation, to pollutants, especially in the form of organic compounds, is continuing to develop: with the use of chemicals increasing three fold in the 50 years preceding 1995 and approximately 80,000 chemicals in use in 2002, only a few hundreds of these chemicals have been subjected to long- or short-term study, resulting in the discovery that about 10% of the chemicals in use in 2002 were carcinogens. Transmission by dust appears to be limited by the frequent covering and spraying of the working faces. Although nearby residents complain of dust in their homes, the practices of the less-regulated Class III landfill cannot be extrapolated to the proposed Class I landfill. Thus, the prospect of dust transmission of chemicals contained in the fill received by the proposed landfill appears also to be slight. The use of untreated leachate as the spray medium to control the dust itself raises two risks, however. First, spraying leachate will release chemicals in aerosol. The potential range of aerosol is great, especially as the landfill ascends toward its design height of 190 feet. However, the risk of transmission by aerosol is reduced to insubstantial levels by adding a Permit condition that prohibits spraying during windy conditions. Second, depositing leachate on the landfill face will release chemicals through evaporation. The point of spraying the landfill face is to control dust between the addition of the waste materials to the pile and the application of the cover. Between these two events, dry conditions will sometimes intervene and may cause the evaporation of certain, but not all, pollutants. The leachate acquires pollutants as it percolates down the waste column and into the leachate collection system. As Dr. Teaf noted, the leachate becomes more concentrated as it recirculates, but, otherwise, this record is largely silent as to the likely composition of the recirculated leachate. However, for landfills accepting sludge, higher levels of mercury may be present in the leachate. As reported by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, in a report issued March 2007, and titled, "Design and Operational Issues Related to Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids and Class I Landfills--Phase III," one study found that the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that receive sludge is almost three times greater than the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that do not accept sludge. The same study reported that total dissolved solids and chlorides were present at greater concentrations at the landfills that did not accept sludge and that other parameters--unidentified in the cited article--were not significantly different between the two types of landfills. Republic proposes to recirculate substantial volumes of leachate--sufficient, for instance, to raise the moisture content of the fill from 25 percent to 28.9 percent. The Permit allows the proposed landfill to operate six days per week, for a total of 312 days annually. The Operation Plan prohibits the application of leachate during rain, but the number of days annually during which rain extends for the entire day is few, probably no more than a dozen. These numbers suggest that Republic may apply as much as 3.6 million gallons annually of untreated leachate to the landfill face. The 12,000 gallon-per-day limit and restrictions on head in the leachate collection and removal system effectively limit the quantities of leachate that may be recirculated, but the sole provision addressing leachate water quality is the annual monitoring event described above. Given the time required to analyze the many parameters included in the EPA regulation, for most of the year between tests, Republic will be applying over three million gallons of leachate whose pollutant concentrations will be completely unknown. Some assurances emerge, though, when considering air transmission of pollutants by class. In general, on this record, as to transmission by gas, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a compound's volatility, which is a measure of its ability to enter the air, and a compound's persistence. VOCs are one of the most dangerous classes of pollutants to public health and include such carcinogens as benzene, tolulene, xylene and, the most dangerous of all VOCs, vinyl chloride, which is released upon the degradation of such common substances as plastics, carpets, and upholstery. Biogas, which is generated by the anerobic decomposition of organic compounds in a landfill, contains mostly methane and carbon dioxide, but also significant levels of VOCs. When inhaled, the primary results of exposure to VOC are respiratory irritation and allergenic effects. Volatility is measured by vapor pressure, which is a measure of a chemical's ability to get into the air. As their name suggests, VOCs enter the air easily. They are also capable of traveling great distances due to their light molecule. However, VOCs are easily destroyed by sunlight and diluted by wind. Other organic compounds common to landfills are only semi-VOCs, such as PCBs. Although less volatile, these chemicals, too, are hazardous to public health--in the case of PCBs, in any amount. Due to this fact and their persistence in the environment, the United States has prohibited the manufacture of PCBs for over 30 years. However, not only are PCBs considerably less likely to enter the air than VOCs, they also travel shorter distances than VOCs due to a heavier molecule. Dr. Carpenter opined that there is little evidence that PCBs are an issue in the proposed landfill. Another class of organic compound, 1000 times less volatile than even PCBs, is phthalates, which are used in the production of plastics. Phthalates pose significant threats to public health, especially reproductive health. However, the exceptionally low volatility of this compound renders transmission by evaporation highly unlikely. Much of the regulatory framework imposed on landfill design, construction, and operation arises out of concerns for the control of human pathogens, which are infection-causing organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. One of the great advances in human longevity in the United States occurred in the early 1900s--not with the development of antibiotics or improved medical care--but with the implementation of basic sanitation control and the removal of pathogens from the drinking water. For the proposed landfill, sludge will be the primary source of pathogens. Sludge is nutrient-rich organic matter, which will be received at the proposed landfill without any treatment except possibly dewatering. Even with the acceptance of sludge, the proposed landfill presents little risk for the transmission of pathogens. Pathogens communicate disease only when a person is exposed to an effective dose and are better transmitted by direct contact or animal than air. Bacterial pathogens are themselves killed by wind, as well as sunlight, temperature, and humidity differentials, so the preferred means of air transmission would be aerosol versus gas. The record permits no findings as to the persistence of pathogenic viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. However, as noted above in connection with the land transmission of pathogens, the immediate application of lime and cover to the sludge will tend to prevent the release of effective doses of pathogens by air, as well. The last major class of pollutant that could be transmitted by air is heavy metals, such as mercury or lead. Although these metals produce a wide range of neurological diseases and generally interfere with cognition and behavior, Dr. Carpenter admitted that heavy metals were not as much of a concern as VOCs, presumably due to their resistance to vaporization. Even though transmission by air is not as tightly controlled as transmission by water or land, for the four reasons noted above, there is little risk of transmission by air--i.e., dust, aerosol, or gas--when the specific properties of likely pollutants are considered. In all but five respects, then, Republic has provided reasonable assurance that public health will not be endangered by pollutants released from the landfill by water, land, or air. First, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs a condition that prohibits spraying leachate during windy conditions, which DEP may define as it reasonably sees fit. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this is a requirement in the rules and, due to its importance, should be restated explicitly in the Permit, which restates numerous other rule requirements. Second, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs more frequent monitoring of leachate water quality, at least at the frequency, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, set forth in the rules. Large volumes of untreated leachate will be recirculated through the landfill. Even if aerosol transmission is controlled, transmission by evaporation of some pollutants, although not the heavy metals, is possible. Also, pollutants are concentrated in recirculated leachate and thus the consequences of transmission into groundwater or surface water, however unlikely, become greater. At the same time, the action leakage rate is generous--to Republic, not the groundwater. At 100 gallons per acre per day, Republic is not required to report to DEP possible liner leakage until about 7300 gallons per day are lost to the surficial aquifer. Suitable for the detection of catastrophic failures associated with most sinkholes, this action leakage rate is too high to trigger action for small liner leaks. If Republic is to be allowed this much leakage into the groundwater, it must identify the leachate's constituents and their concentrations at least semi-annually. Third, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Application must extend the right of split testing to all of the parties in these cases, if DEP fails to exercise its right to take a split sample. The spraying of untreated leachate and generous limit applied to liner leakage before reporting and remedial action are required underscore the importance to public health of independent leachate testing. There is no reason to allow budgetary constraints or administrative oversight to preclude Petitioners and Intervenor, who are uniquely situated to suffer from the escape of excessive pollutants in the leachate, from providing, at their expense, this independent leachate testing. Fourth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to restate accurately the language of the rules concerning the extent of knowledge required of Republic, if it is to be liable for the acceptance of certain prohibited wastes. Fifth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to be modified to ensure that at least one spotter, whose sole responsibility is spotting, will be assigned to each working face while the landfill is receiving waste. Sinkholes The sinkhole issue arises in the geotechnical analysis of the sufficiency of the foundation to support the considerable loads of a landfill and also in the stability of the side slopes of the landfill. This analysis starts with consideration of the geology of the area, of which Republic's property is a part, and, among other things, the potential for sinkhole formation in the area. The Cedar Trail Landfill lies within the Bartow Embayment and along the eastern slope of the Lakeland Ridge of the Central Lake District Physiographic Province. This embayment is a large erosional basin partially backfilled with phosphatic sand and clayey sand of the Bone Valley Member. At this location, the top of the Floridan Aquifer is formed by Suwannee Limestone, which consists of white to tan, soft to hard, granular, porous, very fossiliferous limestone with interbedded dolomite. This rock unit is 110-140 feet thick. Atop the Suwannee Limestone sits the Hawthorne Group, which comprises the Arcadia Formation, at the base of which is the Nocatee Member, which is a relatively impermeable sand and clay unit. Atop the Nocatee Member is the Tampa Member, which consists of hard, dense, sandy, locally phosphatic, fossiliferous limestone. The top of this member, which is the top of the Arcadia Formation, is locally referred to as the "bedrock complex," which marks the lower limit of phosphate mining. Atop the Arcadia Formation, still within the Hawthorne Group, sits the Peace River Formation, which consists of phosphatic clayey sand and clayey sand. The lower portion of the Peace River Formation is a relatively impermeable, undifferentiated clayey unit locally known as "bedclay." The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is mined for phosphate and is locally known as "matrix." Atop of the Peace River Formation are undifferentiated surficial soils, typically consisting of silty sand, clayey sand, and some hardpan and organic soils. These materials are locally known as "overburden." Phosphate mining is prevalent in the area, including, as noted above, much or all of the Cedar Trail Landfill site. Strip mining for phosphate normally removes the entire surficial aquifer, just into the bedclay. Mined areas are then backfilled with overburden spoil soils, clay, waste clay, and sand tailings. After backfilling, the soil strata bear little resemblance to premining strata. Sinkholes are prevalent in the general area surrounding the Cedar Trail Landfill. A sinkhole is a surface depression varying in depth from a few feet up to several hundreds of feet and in area from several square feet to several acres. Sinkholes are typically funnel-shaped and open broadly upward. Sinkholes form when weakly acidic groundwater creates cavities in the calcium carbonate within limestone. Soils above these cavities erode into the cavities. In the area that includes the Cedar Trail Landfill, cover-collapse and cover- subsidence sinkholes predominate among sinkhole types. A cover-collapse sinkhole, which is typically steep- sided and rocky, forms when cohesive soils over a limestone cavity can no longer bridge the cavity under the weight of overlying soil and rock. At this point, the cohesive soils suddenly collapse into the cavity. These are more common in the part of the state in which the Cedar Trail Landfill is located. A cover-subsidence sinkhole occurs due to the gradual lowering of the rock surface as solutioning occurs in the subsurface rocks. This type of sinkhole develops as subsurface soluble rock is dissolved and overlying soils subside into the resulting shallow surface depressions. Regardless of the type of sinkhole, borings into sinkholes will reveal zones of very loose soil sediments that have washed downward into the cavernous voids within the bedrock. This very loose soil zone is called a raveling zone, which starts at the limestone layer, as the overlying soils begin to collapse into the solution features within the limestone. As the loosening works its way upward toward the surface, it eventually results in the subsidence of the ground surface and formation of a sinkhole. Considerable sinkhole activity has taken place in the immediate vicinity of Republic's property. Most visibly, a sinkhole formed in 2006 in 285-acre Scott Lake, 4.5 miles northwest of the landfill. This sinkhole drained the entire lake and destroyed several structures. The Florida Geological Service sinkhole database, which consists of anecdotal reports of sinkhole activity, some of which are unverified, includes 49 sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. Two documented sinkholes have occurred within .17 mile of the landfill--one of which is reported to be 125 feet in diameter and 80 feet deep. Based upon the information contained in the preceding paragraph, Clint Kromhout, a professional geologist with the Florida Geological Survey, opined on August 23, 2009, that the potential for sinkhole formation "within the proposed site and surrounding area" is "low to moderate." Mr. Kromhout does not provide a definition of "low," but part of his opinion is shared by the Golder Report, which agrees that the sinkhole potential on the proposed site is "low." The potential for sinkhole formation in the general area surrounding the proposed landfill, as distinguished from the site itself, is at least moderate. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Republic and Intervenor necessarily concede: "All parties acknowledge that the proposed landfill site is in a general region that has a relatively high frequency of sinkholes as compared with the rest of the state of Florida." It is misleading to characterize the area surrounding the proposed landfill as of low potential for the formation of sinkholes, unless there is another category, like "nonexistent." But characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate is not determinative of the likelihood of sinkholes at the landfill's footprint, nor is a site-specific geotechnical investigation mooted by such a characterization. Rather, characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate dictates the intensity and scope of the ensuing geotechnical investigation, if the investigation is to provide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the proposed landfill. Acknowledging moderate potential for sinkhole formation in the surrounding area, Republic has appropriately relied on three geotechnical reports, including three sets of boring data. The final of these reports, the Hanecki Report, is based on the collection and analysis of boring data, as well as a review of the data and analysis contained in the two earlier geotechnical reports, the Ardaman Report and Golder Report. The boring data reveal that the proposed landfill site features four units. Nearest the surface is Unit 1, which is brown to dark brown, medium- to fine-grained sand with minor amounts of clayey silt. Unit 1 is 0-10 feet thick. Next down is Unit 2, which is tan to gray, medium- to fine-grained sand with increasing silty clay or clayey silt. Unit 2 is 5-10 feet thick and generally marks the upper limit of fine-grained, granular soils (i.e., clayed sands and silty sands). Unit 3 is orange brown to yellow brown, gray and tan silty clay to clayey silt or fine sand and silty clay. Unit 3 is 5-15 feet thick. Unit 4 is gray and tan clayey silt or silty clay with minor amounts of fine sand. This material is very stiff or very dense, and most borings terminated in this unit. The few borings that penetrated this unit suggest that it may consist of dolomitic sandy clays and silts and dolomitic limestone to depths greater than 100 feet below grade. Units 3 and 4 generally mark the upper limits of low permeability/low compressibility soils. The Hanecki investigation comprised two main steps. First, Hanecki retained a subconsultant to perform electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) along 100-foot-wide transects run across the site. Any anomalies revealed by the ERIs were to be followed by standard penetration test (SPT) borings, which permit soil testing at predetermined intervals, as well as a measure of the compressibility of the soils. Compressibility is measured during the soil-testing intervals, during which the drill bit is replaced by a soil sampler. The driller records the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to produce 12 inches of penetration. The value is expressed in N-values, where N represents the number of such blows. Looser soils produce lower N values. Another important piece of information obtained during SPT boring is the partial or total loss of circulation fluid during drilling. While the drill is penetrating soil, a slurry circulates through the borehole to prevent the collapse of the sides of the hole. This slurry is recycled during drilling, but, if the drill encounters a void, all or part of the circulation fluid is lost. The ERI survey revealed no real anomalies because of a narrow range of resistance values. However, taking relatively small differences in resistivity as an anomalies, Hanecki identified 14 features of interest. At each of these locations, Hanecki performed an SPT boring. Because the ERI transects were unable to span the two onsite ponds, Hanecki added two locations for SPT borings adjacent to each side of each pond, for a total of four additional SPT borings. At the request of DEP, Hanecki added a nineteenth SPT boring at Golder site G-11, which had revealed low N-values during Golder's borings. Hanecki extended the borings into "refusal" quality soil, which was defined as soils requiring more than 50 blows of the 140-pound hammer to achieve six inches or less of penetration. All of Hanecki's SPT borings encountered very hard limestone. Among the most significant findings of Hanecki's borings, only one boring, G-11, experienced any circulation fluid loss, and this was estimated at 50 percent. However, it is more likely that this partial circulation fluid loss is due to loosely deposited sands than a void that might be indicative of conditions suitable for sinkhole formation. Not all circulation losses indicate voids that that will result in sinkhole formation. Also significant among Hanecki's findings is a clayey soil, or bedclay, at every SPT boring, which severely limits hydraulic recharge to the limestone. By impeding vertical migration of surface and shallow subsurface water to the limestone layer, this bedclay "greatly inhibits limestone erosion." This bedclay also supports the looser soils above the bedclay and thus prevents raveling, without which sinkholes cannot form. Two borings--G-11 and F3-1--lacked a layer of Unit 3 or 4 soil above the limestone, but Hanecki concluded that the Unit 2 layers above the limestone at these locations contained sufficient clay or clayey sand to serve the same functions of impeding the downward movement of groundwater and preventing the downward movement of loose soils. This conclusion appears reasonable because Unit 2 is the uppermost reach of the finer- grained materials, of which clays and silts are examples when compared to sands. There is obviously some variability in the distribution of finer- and coarser-grained materials within each occurrence of Unit 2 soils. Hanecki's findings indicated intervals of loose soils, sometimes at depth, which typically would suggest raveling zones. At the proposed location, though, these findings do not support raveling due to the underlying bedclay layer and the history of mining, which probably introduced looser soils typically found closer to the surface through the entire 40-foot depth of the mine cut. Based on these findings, the Hanecki Report concludes that, regardless of at least moderate potential for sinkhole potential in the area, the footprint of the proposed landfill has an acceptably low risk of sinkhole development to permit development of the proposed landfill. This is a reasonable conclusion because it is supported by the data collected by Hanecki and his reasoned analysis of these data. Hanecki's conclusion is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Golder Report and Ardaman Report, which are based on an additional 84 SPT borings, post- reclamation. Only about 12 percent of these SPT borings reached the limestone, and they cover all of Republic's property, not merely the footprint of the proposed landfill. Even so, these borings confirm two important findings of the Hanecki Report. First, they produced data indicative of an extensive bedclay layer intact on Republic's property. Second, the Ardaman and Golder borings reveal only two or three instances of partial circulation loss that, like the sole occurrence of partial circulation loss in the Hanecki borings, are located on Republic's property, but outside the footprint of the proposed landfill. Republic has provided reasonable assurance that the site will provide an adequate foundation for the proposed landfill and sinkholes are unlikely to undermine the structural integrity of the proposed landfill.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Construction Permit and Operation Permit, but only if the Operation Permit is modified by the addition of the five items identified in paragraphs 172, 174, 175, 181, and 187. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi A. Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ronald L. Clark, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801-5271 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Jennings Kemp Brinson, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801 Sean R. Parker, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 North Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-4620 Ralph A. DeMeo, Esquire Hopping, Green, & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paula L. Cobb, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 John W. Frost, Esquire Frost Sessums Van den Boom & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 2188 Bartow, Florida 33831 John Stanley Fus Highland Lakes Estates HOA 2190 Boardman Road Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issues for determination in this matter are: (1) whether Petitioner, MW Horticulture Recycling Facility, Inc. (MW), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration; (2) whether Petitioner MW is an irresponsible applicant; and (3) whether Petitioner MW Horticulture Recycling of North Fort Myers, Inc. (MW-NFM), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and the Registration Denials Petitioner MW is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 6290 Thomas Road, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "South Yard." Petitioner MW-NFM is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 17560 East Street, North Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "North Yard." The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of part IV of chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-701 and 62-709. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to allow SOPFs to annually register in lieu of obtaining a solid waste management facility permit. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW submitted its application for registration renewal for the South Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The listed reasons for denial focused on non-compliance with orders for corrective action in a Consent Order (Order) between Petitioner MW and the Department entered on February 22, 2019. The Order was entered to resolve outstanding violations in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV), issued on November 20, 2018. The notice of denial stated that, as of August 9, 2019, Petitioner MW had not completed the following corrective actions of the Order by the specified timeframes: (a) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall remove all processed or unprocessed material (yard trash) from the Seminole Gulf Railway Right of Way and the swale along Old US 41 and establish a 20 foot wide all-weather access road, around the entire perimeter of the site; (b) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall reduce the height of the piles to a height that the facility’s equipment can reach without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material; and (c) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall have all the processed and unprocessed material be no more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. The notice of denial also stated that when Department staff conducted compliance visits on April 29, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 7, 2019, and July 18, 2019, the following outstanding violations were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning of yard waste; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) an all-weather access road, at least 20 feet wide, around the perimeter of the Facility has not been maintained and yard trash has been stored or deposited within the all-weather access road; and (d) yard trash is being stored more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW-NFM submitted its application for registration renewal for the North Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The notice of denial stated that compliance and site observation visits were conducted on July 9, 2019, July 30, 2019, August 1 and 2, 2019, and the following non-compliance issues were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) yard trash received has been stored or disposed of within 50 feet of a body of water; and (d) yard trash received is not being size-reduced or removed, and most of the unprocessed yard trash has been onsite for more than six months. The notice of denial also stated that on March 27, 2018, May 10, 2018, and October 3, 2018, Department staff conducted inspections of the North Yard. A Warning Letter was issued on November 2, 2018. The Warning Letter noted the following violations: (1) unauthorized burning of solid waste; (2) the absence of the required 20-foot-wide all-weather perimeter access road along the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile; (3) inadequate access for motorized firefighting equipment around the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile (lake pile); (4) the lake pile not size-reduced or removed within six months; (5) mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material by heavy equipment; and (6) yard trash storage setbacks from wetlands not maintained. Petitioners' SOPFs The North Yard is located in North Fort Myers and is bound by the southbound lanes of Interstate 75 to the east and a lake to the west. The South Yard is slightly larger than the North Yard and abuts Thomas Road to the west and a railroad owned and operated by the Seminole Gulf Railway Company to the east. Petitioners' facilities accept vegetative waste and yard trash (material) from the public in exchange for a disposal fee before processing and size-reducing the material into retail products such as organic compost, topsoil, and mulch. The unprocessed material is staged in various piles generally according to waste type until it can be processed by grinding or screening. As of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meander between the piles themselves. As the material in the piles decomposes, heat is produced from the respiration and metabolization of organic matter. This heat ignites the dry material and can cause substantial fires. Both the North Yard and South Yard are susceptible to fires caused by spontaneous combustion as a result of their normal operations of collecting and stockpiling organic waste. Fires Although spontaneous combustion is an inherent risk with SOPFs, the evidence at the hearing established that the material at Petitioners' facilities catches fire at an abnormally high rate as a result of poor pile management. Piles need to be turned and wetted to keep down incidents of spontaneous combustion. Monitoring temperatures, rotating the piles, and removing the material at a faster rate would help reduce the incidence of fires. Large piles with no extra land space cannot be managed in a way "to aerate and keep the temperatures at a level where you're not going to have spontaneous combustion." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 32. Fire Marshal Steve Lennon of San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue regarded the South Yard as a fire hazard compared to other similar sites in his district. He testified that the pile heights, widths, and lengths at the South Yard are not in compliance with applicable fire-code size requirements. He also testified that if the pile sizes were in compliance, Petitioner MW would not have to put their motorized firefighting equipment on top of the piles "because [they] would be able to reach it from the ground." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 41. As of the date of the hearing, San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue had responded to 43 active fire calls at the South Yard in the last two years, and three times in 2020 alone. In 2018, the active fire calls at the South Yard were multi-day suppression operations. In 2019, the active fire calls were mostly hotspots and flare-ups. Captain Doug Underwood of the Bayshore Fire Rescue and Protection Service District (Bayshore Fire District) testified that his department had responded to approximately 75 fire calls at the North Yard in the last two years. The most common cause of the fires was spontaneous combustion. The piles were not in compliance from a size standpoint. Captain Underwood testified that the majority of the 75 calls were to the lake pile at the North Yard. See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 59. The lake pile was a temporary site on the southern end of the lake that borders the North Yard, and for most of 2018 and 2019, contained debris from Hurricane Irma.1 The lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing. Captain Underwood testified that in 2018, he recommended to Petitioners that they engage the services of an expert fire engineer. Petitioners engaged Jeff Collins who met with Captain Underwood on multiple occasions. They discussed how to address fires and hotspots and that the facilities should have a written fire protection safety and mitigation plan. Such a plan was created and Captain Underwood was satisfied with its provisions. Although the lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing, it was not an entirely voluntary effort on Petitioners' part. Captain Underwood testified that Petitioners' "initial plan of action was to leave it there for . . . eight months or greater, depending on the time frame needed to have the product decompose and cool down to a temperature that they could remove it." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 83. It took Lee County code enforcement efforts "to compel MW to remove this material off-site as quickly as possible." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 82. 1 Throughout this proceeding, the lake pile was referred to by various names in testimony and exhibits, such as, "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile," "lake yard," "trac[t] D," and "temporary site." As recently as February 12, 2020, a large pile of hardwood, green waste, and compost at the North Yard caught fire as a result of spontaneous combustion. The size of the fire was so large and hot that the Bayshore Fire District could not safely extinguish the fire with water or equipment, and allowed it to free-burn openly for 24 hours in order to reduce some of the fuel. The fire produced smoke that drifted across the travel lanes of Interstate 75. The free-burn allowed the pile to reduce in size "down to the abilities of the district and the equipment on-site." See Tr. Vol. I, pgs. 51-52. Captain Underwood testified that "once we started putting water on it, then the MW crews with their heavy equipment covered the rest of the smoldering areas with dirt." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 56. Rule Violations By Petitioners' own admission, the facilities have repeatedly violated applicable Department rules throughout the course of their operations over the last two and one-half years. The most pertinent of these violations center around the Department's standards for fire protection and control to deal with accidental burning of solid waste at SOPFs. Renee Kwiat, the Department's expert, testified that the Department cited the South Yard nine times for failing to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road. The South Yard consistently violated the requirement to maintain processed and unprocessed material within 50 feet of access by motorized firefighting equipment, and the North Yard has violated this requirement twice. The North Yard consistently violated the requirement to size-reduce or remove the lake pile material within six months. Both the North Yard and South Yard were cited multiple times for mechanically compacting processed and unprocessed material. Following a period of noncompliance and nearly 11 months of compliance assistance at the South Yard, Petitioner MW told the Department it would resolve all outstanding violations by July 1, 2018. The July 1, 2018, deadline passed and on October 18, 2018, the Department proposed a consent order to resolve the violations at the South Yard. However, Petitioner MW did not respond. On November 20, 2018, the Department issued the NOV to Petitioner MW regarding the South Yard. The violations included failure to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road around the perimeter of the site, failure to ensure access by motorized firefighting equipment, mechanical compaction, and the unauthorized open burning of solid waste. On February 22, 2019, the Department executed the Order with Petitioner MW to resolve outstanding violations in the NOV. By signing the Order, Petitioner MW agreed to undertake the listed corrective actions within the stated time frames. Compliance visits to the South Yard on April 29, 2019, June 7, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 18, 2019, and August 22, 2019, documented that many violations outlined above were still present at the site. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that none of the time periods in the Order were met. The preponderance of the evidence established the violations listed in paragraphs 5 and 6 above. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that Petitioner MW still had not reduced the height of the piles such that their equipment could reach the tops of the piles without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material. Thus, all the processed and unprocessed material was not more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open-burning of solid waste; and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material. The evidence also established that the South Yard does not encroach on Seminole's real property interest. The Department did not issue an NOV for the North Yard. The preponderance of the evidence established that there were repeated rule violations at the North Yard. These violations formed the basis for denying the North Yard's registration as outlined in paragraph 8 above. The Department deferred to Lee County's enforcement action for violations of County rules as resolution of the violations of Department rules. At the time of the final hearing, however, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open burning of solid waste, and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material at the North Yard. Petitioners' Response and Explanation Approximately two and one-half years before the date of the hearing in this case, Hurricane Irma, a category four hurricane, made landfall in the state of Florida. It was September 10, 2017, and Hurricane Irma significantly impacted the southwest coast of Florida, where Petitioners' facilities are located. Hurricane Irma caused extensive damage, including the destruction of trees, vegetation, and other horticultural waste which required disposal. Massive amounts of such yard waste and horticultural debris were deposited on roadways and streets throughout Lee County, creating a significant issue that needed to be addressed by local governments, and state and federal agencies. Due to the threat posed by Hurricane Irma, the state of Florida declared a state of emergency on September 4, 2017, for every county in Florida. This state of emergency was subsequently extended to approximately March 31, 2019, for certain counties, including Lee County, due to the damage caused by Hurricane Irma. An overwhelming volume of material needed to be processed and disposed of following Hurricane Irma. The Petitioners' facilities were inundated with material brought there by Lee County, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others. After Hurricane Irma, haulers took considerable time just to get the materials off the streets, and processors like the Petitioners, ran out of space because there was limited space permitted at the time. As a result, these materials stacked up and had to be managed over time at facilities, including Petitioners' facilities. To accommodate the material, Petitioner MW-NFM added the temporary site that was labeled the "lake pile" or "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile" in Department inspection and compliance reports of the North Yard. In order to address the volume of material on the site after Hurricane Irma, Petitioner MW-NFM requested approval from the Department to move the material off-site to other locations in order to reduce the size of the piles at the North Yard's lake pile. For reasons that remain unclear, such authorization was not obtained, and Petitioner MW-NFM believes that this would have size-reduced the piles and prevented accumulation of material in violation of Department rules. In order to process the North Yard's lake pile and move it off-site more quickly, Petitioner MW-NFM requested permission from Lee County and the Department to grind unprocessed material on site, which would have size-reduced the lake pile and allowed it to be moved off-site more quickly. Because existing zoning did not authorize this grinding, the request was denied in spite of the fact that a state of emergency had been declared which Petitioner MW-NFM believes would have permitted such an activity. This further hampered Petitioner MW-NFM's ability to size-reduce the lake pile leading to more issues with hot spots and fires. Because the material was of such volume, and was decomposing, a major fire erupted in 2018 at the North Yard's lake pile. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, Jeff Collins, wrote reports to address this issue and recommended to the local fire department that the pile be smothered in dirt until the fire was extinguished. The request was denied by the Bayshore Fire District, which instead directed that Petitioners break into the pile in order to extinguish the fire. When Petitioners did so, the piles immediately erupted into flames as predicted by Petitioners' fire safety engineer. Moving the smoldering material to the South Yard also led to fires at the South Yard. In spite of the large volume of material at the North Yard's lake pile, Petitioners made steady progress in size reducing the material and moving it off-site. However, as of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were still completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meandered between the piles themselves. Mechanical Compaction Each party presented testimony regarding the question of whether Petitioners' facilities violated the prohibition that any processed or unprocessed material shall not be mechanically compacted. The parties disagreed over how the prohibition against mechanical compaction was applied to yard trash transfer facilities. In March of 2018, Petitioners' representative, Denise Houghtaling, wrote an email to the Department requesting clarification of the Department's definition of "mechanical compaction" because it is undefined in the rules. On April 3, 2018, Lauren O' Connor, a government operations consultant for the Department's Division of Solid Waste Management, responded to Petitioners' request. The response stated that the Department interprets "mechanical compaction" as the use of heavy equipment over processed or unprocessed material that increases the density of waste material stored. Mechanical compaction is authorized at permitted disposal sites and waste processing facilities, but is not permissible under a registration for a yard trash transfer facility.2 Mechanical compaction contributes to spontaneous combustion fires, which is the primary reason for its prohibition at yard trash transfer facilities. Petitioners' interpretation of mechanical compaction as running over material in "stages" or "lifts" was not supported by their expert witnesses. Both David Hill and Jeff Collins agreed with the Department's interpretation that operating heavy equipment on piles of material is mechanical compaction. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners mechanically compact material at their facilities. Mechanical compaction was apparent at both sites by either direct observation of equipment on the piles of material, or by observation of paths worn into the material by regular and repeated trips. Department personnel observed evidence of mechanical compaction on eight separate inspections between December 2017 and January 2019. Additional compaction was observed at the South Yard on June 7, 2019, and in aerial surveillance footage from August 28, 2019, September 5, 2019, January 30, 2020, and February 12, 2020. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, who assisted them at the North Yard lake pile, testified that the fire code required access ramps or pathways for equipment onto the piles in order to suppress or prevent fire. However, Captain Underwood and Fire Marshal Lennon testified they do not and have never required Petitioners to maintain such access ramps or paths on the piles. The fire code provision cited by Petitioners' expert does not apply to their piles. See Tr. Vol. II, pgs. 78-80. In addition, Fire Marshal Lennon testified that placing firefighting equipment on top of piles is not an acceptable and safe way to fight fires at the site by his fire department. 2 Rule 62-701.710 prohibits the operation of a waste processing facility without a permit issued by the Department. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.803(4). Rule 62- 701.320(16)(b) contemplates the availability of equipment for excavating, spreading, compacting, and covering waste at a permitted solid waste disposal facility. Despite receiving clarification from the Department in April of 2018, Petitioners choose to ignore the Department's prohibition against mechanically compacting unprocessed or processed material piles. In addition, the persuasive and credible evidence suggests that Petitioners blanket the piles with dirt to both suppress fires and accommodate the "access roads" or "paths" on the piles.3 Ultimate findings The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the North Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the South Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners did not consistently comply with Department rules over the two and one-half years prior to the final hearing. However, Petitioners established through persuasive and credible evidence that because of the impacts of Hurricane Irma, and the subsequent circumstances, they could not have reasonably prevented the violations. The totality of the evidence does not justify labeling the Petitioners as irresponsible applicants under the relevant statute and Department rule. However, Petitioners did not provide reasonable assurances that they would comply with Department standards for annual registration of yard trash transfer facilities. 3 The evidence suggests that Petitioners may prefer to follow the advice of their hired experts with regard to the practice of mechanical compaction and blanketing the piles with dirt. See, e.g., Petitioners' Ex. 16. However, the evidence suggests that the experts' level of experience is with large commercial composting and recycling facilities that may be regulated by solid waste management facility permits and not simple annual registrations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioners' annual registration renewal applications for the North Yard and South Yard. DONE AND ENTERED this this 17th day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 17th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Clayton W. Crevasse, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Sarah E. Spector, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Carson Zimmer, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 49 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the agency should grant variances from Rule 10D-6, F.A.C. regarding construction of on-site sewage disposal systems on the lots in question.
Findings Of Fact Jerry Gagliardi is the developer and engineer for an 8-lot subdivision on Merritt Island, Brevard County, Florida. Mr. Gagliardi is a self-employed civil and mechanical engineer. The small subdivision has a long, narrow configuration, extending west to east. It is bounded on the north by an existing drainage ditch and a large tract of undisturbed wetlands. Its south boundary is a finger canal, and its east boundary is Pelican Creek. With the exception of the wetlands, most of the property in the area is already developed. There are no residences built yet on the eight lots. Hook-up to an existing sanitary sewer system is available within one- quarter mile of the subdivision. The entire area, with several finger canals, is served by the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Gagliardi planned to install on-site disposal systems (septic tanks) in the subdivision. When his plan was rejected he applied for variances for lots 1 and 2 in July 1992, stating economic hardship as the basis for the request. The applications were reviewed by Gregory D. Wright, Supervisor for Brevard County Consumer Health Services and his staff. Several site visits were made and a site evaluation was completed. Mr. Wright recommended denial of the variance because the sanitary sewer system is available; the soils (mostly sand and shell) are unsuitable for on- site disposal systems; and the area, virtually surrounded by water, is environmentally very sensitive. Mr. Wright is also concerned that a variance for the two lots will establish a precedent for variances on the remaining lots in the subdivision. Mr. Wright also observed that there is an existing irrigation well on a neighboring lot within thirty feet of the proposed septic tank on lot #1. This well does not appear on Mr. Gagliardi's plans. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal concurred with the local agency's recommendation after consideration of Mr. Gagliardi's hardship argument. The request was not considered to be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the law and regulations. For approximately three years Jerry Gagliardi has been providing information on his development plans to the local county staff. He has become extremely frustrated with the process. However, he has still failed to produce the evidence which he must have to justify the variances he is seeking. At the hearing, Mr. Gagliardi claimed that hook-up to the existing sanitary sewer system is impossible because there is insufficient elevation for gravity feed and there is not enough room on Banana River Drive for another sewer line easement. He did not submit evidence to support that claim and it is unclear whether he has made that claim to the local staff for their verification. He has consistently claimed that hook-up to the existing system is prohibitively expensive. He has estimated that the cost of installing hook-up to the existing system would be $52,642 for the entire subdivision, or $6580.25 per lot. He has estimated that installation of aerobic on-site septic systems would cost $28,000.00 or $3500 per lot. This estimate does not include the cost of culverting the ditch along the north boundary of the property. The culvert may be necessary to meet the water body set-back requirements and, assuming that a permit would be granted for its construction, the culvert would substantially increase the cost of the septic tank project. As recently as three weeks prior to hearing, Mr. Gagliardi provided information to the staff that the value of the lots in the subdivision is $60,000.00 each, for lots #1 through #6; and $115,000.00 and $120,000.00, for lots #7 and #8, respectively. At hearing he repudiated that information as being based on three year old appraisals. He now asserts that the value of the lots is closer to $40,000.00 each. Petitioner's exhibit #2 is a cover letter dated January 4, 1993, to Mr. Gagliardi from the Brevard County Property Appraiser. Attached to the letter are four property management print-outs reflecting the value of two lots as $35,000.00, and two others as $65,000.00. The record does not reflect which lots those are in the subdivision and there is no explanation for the inflated values provided to the staff after the printouts were received. It is impossible from the confused and conflicting evidence provided at hearing to determine that the petitioners are entitled to a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that the agency enter its final orders denying Petitioners applications for variances. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 11th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia Nieves Burton, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jerry Gagliardi, Agent for Phil Sperli and Gail Bobzein Post Office Box 541061 Merritt Island, Florida 32954 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents, Holmes Dirt Service, Inc., and William J. Holmes, are in violation of various rules and regulations as alleged in the Notice of Violation issued by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, Holmes Dirt Service, Inc. (Holmes, Inc.), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Holmes, Inc., along with William J. Holmes (Holmes), is responsible for the operation and management of a solid waste facility permitted by the Department under the name "Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill" (Facility). Holmes is a citizen of the State of Florida. Holmes was also the Director of Holmes Dirt Service, Inc. Background On or about August 24, 1998, the Department issued Permit/ Certification No. SO42-0133361-001 to Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill for the operation and management of a C & D disposal facility. The permit was sent to the attention of Holmes and had an expiration date of August 24, 2003. This was a renewal permit, with the initial permit issued in or around 1993. On or about June 26, 2000, Respondents notified the Department that the facility was temporarily closed. The Facility has remained closed since that time. Holmes, Inc., and Holmes own and operate the Facility known as Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill Holmes testified by deposition that he received a Conditional Use Permit from Marion County to operate the Facility. This permit expired on June 1, 2000. The Facility has been closed since at least June 1, 2000, although it has not been officially closed pursuant to Department rules.2 The Facility has not received any additional C & D material after June 1, 2000. On December 17, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Violation to Holmes, Inc., and Holmes. On June 3, 2002, Respondents requested an administrative hearing before the Division. Count I-Failure to Provide Department with Adequate Financial Assurance Documentation In Count I, the Department alleges "that from June 2000, to the present, Respondents have failed to provide the Department with adequate financial assurance documentation." On June 4, 2001, the Department sent Respondents a letter advising that the financial assurance documentation was inadequate. (Respondents admit the letter was sent, but deny their documentation was inadequate.) The Department specifically contends that Respondents did not provide an annual update of the closing costs to the Department and that the assurance bond, previously issued in 1998, see Finding of Fact 11, was no longer acceptable to the Department. Rule 62-701.730(11), Florida Administrative Code, requires an owner or operator of an off-site construction and demolition debris disposal facility to provide to the Department proof of financial assurance "issued in favor of the State of Florida in the amount of the closing and long-term care cost estimates for the facility." This information is required to be submitted with the permit application for the facility. Financial assurance is required should the State of Florida have to take over closure or long term care of a facility. On May 29, 1998, Holmes, Inc., and Holmes (as Vice President of Holmes Inc.) entered into a Trust Agreement with United Southern Bank, as Trustee, to provide financial assurance for the Facility. This agreement contained a cost estimate of $76,551.72 for closure and post-closure of the Facility. On April 29, 1998, a bond was executed between Holmes, Inc., and Frontier Insurance Company (Frontier) in this amount. Thus, when the C & D permit was renewed in 1998, Respondents obtained financial assurance in the form of a closure cost/long-term care bond from Frontier. Rule 62-701.630(3), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to "cost estimates for closure," provides that the owner or operator shall estimate the total closure cost for the permitted potions of the landfill for the period in the operation "when the extent and manner of its operation make closing costs most expensive." Rule 62-701.630(4)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to "cost adjustments for closure," requires the financial assurance to be updated annually to account for the inflation factor of 1.01. Once a bond is in place, as here as of 1998, these subsections require the permittee, here Holmes Inc., to provide the Department, on an annual basis, with an update to the closure cost, which includes the inflation factor. Additionally, the Department requires notification from the owner or operator that the annual update has been made. Prior to 2001, there was no set time for a facility to report this information. As of 2001, each facility was required to report by March 1 of each year. In 2000, the Department's Tallahassee office notified its Central District Office that the financial assurance for the Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill was inadequate. On June 14, 2000, the Central District Office mailed a letter to the Holmes facility notifying Respondents that there was a problem with financial assurance in that as of June 1, 2000, Frontier was no longer listed as an acceptable surety and, as a result, Respondents were requested to "submit proof of alternate financial assurance," or risk an enforcement action. A letter dated November 15, 2002, from Frontier to Judith Holmes, who is listed in the letter as the President of Holmes Dirt Service, Inc., was sent to Respondents to notify them that premiums were still due and outstanding on their closure/long-term care financial assurance bond for the past two years. This letter also informs that it was the position of Frank Hornbrook of the Department "that all of the requirements covered by our bond have not been satisfied and our bond has not been officially closed by the obligee. As a result, this bond still carries liability and premiums due." (The Department does not release a bond until a facility is officially closed and the Facility is not officially closed.) Invoices for "01/02 and 02/03 renewal premium due" were enclosed with the letter. Holmes admitted that the premium is past due and that he has no money to pay the premium. Even though the bond renewal premiums are past due, there is no persuasive evidence that Frontier has been relieved of its obligations under the bond issued in 1998. Rather, the Department wants a replacement bond from Respondents, but the original bond will remain in place until a replacement bond is furnished by Respondents. In fact, the Department will look to Frontier for potential payment under the 1998 bond, if necessary. However, Respondents have not provided the Department with the inflation update financial assurance in 2001. As a result, the current financial assurance for Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill is inadequate. Count II- Failure to Provide Ground Water Monitoring Reports The Department alleged that from "June 2000 to June 2001, Respondents failed to sample and analyze the ground water in accordance with the approved ground water monitoring plan for two consecutive sampling events." Respondents admit these allegations. Apparently, the last report was submitted to the Department in 2000. The Department does not allege that the ground water on and off-site violate Department rules. Holmes testified during a deposition that "the water tests have been clean. . . . until he stopped the sampling process." Holmes says he does not have "any money"--"[he is] broke." Count III-Objectionable Odors The Department alleged that "[d]uring the period June 2000 to the present, the Department has received numerous complaints from residents in the area, alleging objectionable odors emanating from the landfill." Respondents deny that there have been "objectionable odors." Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, pertains to "Solid Waste Management Facilities." Rule 62-701.730(7)(e), Florida Administrative Code, provides that C & D debris disposal facilities "shall be operated to control objectionable odors in accordance with Rule 62-296.320(2), F.A.C. If objectionable odors are detected off-site, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraph 62-701.530(3)(b), F.A.C."3 Rule 62-701.200(84), Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the definition of "objectionable odors" found at Rule 62- 210.200(181), Florida Administrative Code. "Odor" is defined as "[a] sensation resulting from stimulation of the human olfactory organ." Rule 62- 210.200(182), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62- 210.200(181), Florida Administrative Code, defines an "objectionable odor" as "[a]ny odor present in the outdoor atmosphere which by itself or in combination with other odors, is or may be harmful or injurious to human health or welfare, which unreasonably interferes with the comfortable use and enjoyment of life or property, or which creates a nuisance." Rule 62-296.320(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[n]o person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the discharge of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor." See also Rule 62-210.200(19)-(20), Florida Administrative Code. Joint Exhibit I is a study currently being done by Professor Timothy Townsend, Ph.D., of the University of Florida, Department of Environmental Services, which states that disposal of drywall, which contains gypsum, has caused hydrogen sulfide generation ("rotten egg" smell) at numerous C & D landfills in Florida. (Dr. Townsend is recognized as an authority on landfills.) Further, the primary constituents in the gas creating the problem is, among other reduced sulfur compounds, hydrogen sulfide. The main ingredient for these compounds is gypsum drywall. The study finds that hydrogen sulfide possesses a very strong odor at very low concentrations and is known to be toxic at high concentrations. The discussion of human health impact with regard to odor problems is raised and culminates with the observation that while hydrogen sulfide concentrations in ambient air surrounding C & D waste landfills are less than those thought of as harmful, some studies indicate that long- term exposure even to low concentrations can have a health impact.4 Holmes admitted that there is an odor problem at the Facility caused by gypsum and drywall and that the odor is worse in rainy weather. Holmes also admitted attempting to correct the problem by previously inviting individuals from the University of Florida to the facility, but reported that there was nothing they could do at that time, except for keeping the area covered with dirt. Individuals residing near the Facility offered opinion testimony that they suffered various problems resulting from the odor emanating from the Facility. Neighbor Charles F. LaBell, who resides 500 to 600 feet from the landfill, testified that the odor began as a rotten egg smell and evolved into what they "assumed was a hydrogen sulfide" odor. Mr. LaBell testified to being familiar with the odor of hydrogen sulfide due to his work experience at a wastewater treatment plant. Mr. LaBell further stated that the odor was unpredictable and not constant, but he equated rainy periods and "foggy mornings" with times when the odor would occur. The neighbors have found that outdoor activities have been severely impacted, resulting in a loss of use of portions of their property and diminished enjoyment of their outdoor life. Neighbor Donald L. Strickland confirmed Mr. LaBell's testimony, stating, in part, "You can't go outdoors, you can't stand it." James Bradner, an employee with the Department for twenty-three years and current manager of the Department's solid and hazardous waste program, offered opinion and expert testimony on the issue of odor problems at C & D debris disposal facilities. Mr. Bradner has served in a technical advisory capacity to a technical awareness group on odors caused by gypsum drywall in C & D debris facilities and has had experience at various C & D debris facilities in the State of Florida contending with odor problems. Mr. Bradner has experienced hydrogen sulfide odors at water treatment plants and would characterize the odor as a rotten egg odor. He has also had experience with C & D debris disposal facilities dealing with gypsum-related odor problems and testified that there are various methods to deal with the odor problems, such as putting an impervious cap (excluding water and liquids) of a clay liner and actually closing the Facility. Mr. Bradner has never been on the Facility site. The Department's rules do not define "health." Odor is a subjective measure, according to Mr. Bradner. Department employee John Turner was responsible for taking air samples in order to assess the odor problems at the Facility. Mr. Turner has been with the Department for 26 years, and in his experience with the Department, has smelled the rotten egg odor of hydrogen sulfide at sewage treatment plants and municipal solid waste facilities. Mr. Turner met with neighbors residing near the Facility as a results of complaints of odor. He visited the Facility five times to collect air samples. He detected an odor during his initial three visits, but did not take any samples because the aired smelled was not representative of a strong odor. For Mr. Turner, during each visit, the odor was the same in quality. There was some variation in strength. "It was periodic in some cases and less periodic in other cases." He collected samples during his fourth and fifth visits, but the "samples were below the minimum detection levels for the method." Mr. Turner offered no scientific evidence that would indicate that the air was harmful on the dates when samples were taken and analyzed. Nevertheless, Mr. Turner opined that the odor was objectionable in accordance with the definition found in Rule 62-210.200(181), Florida Administrative Code, on all five occasions. Count IV-Failure to Control Access The Department alleged that "access to the Facility was not completely controlled." Respondents deny the allegation. Rule 62-701.730(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides: "Operation requirements. Owners and operators of construction and demolition debris disposal facilities shall comply with the following requirements by May 1, 1997, or at the time of permit issuance, whichever is sooner: . . .(c) Access to the disposal facility shall be controlled during the active life of the facility by fencing or other effective barriers to prevent disposal of solid waste other than construction and demolition debris." Department employee Gloria-Jean DePradine testified that Florida Rules require that all C & D facilities have an effective barrier so as to prevent unauthorized disposal of waste. An effective barrier could be fencing, although the Department does not require a specific type of fencing. It depends on the situation. Holmes originally owned a 46-acre tract (the property). The Facility is located on 13 acres of this property. Holmes resided on the property until he sold his residence in 2000 to Valentina Ellis. The property has an earthen berm along Highway 42, the southern boundary of the property, which is a barrier. The entrance to the property is controlled by a gate, which provides access to the property. There is no fence separating the Facility from the residence. A fence exists along the perimeter of the property. The property is in the same condition today as when the Department originally issued the permit in 1993. When the Facility was permitted and operated by Holmes, the Department found the access control to be acceptable. However, when a portion of the property (10 acres) was sold to Ms. Ellis, access was no longer being controlled completely because Holmes had provided the necessary security for the Facility, being the owner of the entire 46-acre tract. Because there are two separate property owners, Ms. Ellis can now directly enter the Facility property, or any other members of the public that entered her property, could enter the Facility and dump unauthorized waste. Randall Cunningham has been employed with the Department since May 1999, and has been working in the solid waste section since October 2000. On November 19, 2001, Mr. Cunningham conducted an inspection of the Facility site in response to an odor complaint and found that there was no barrier between the property owned by Ms. Ellis and the Facility. Mr. Cunningham was able to drive from Ms. Ellis’ property onto the landfill. Mr. Cunningham saw a fence leading onto Ms. Ellis' driveway with a swinging gate attached to a post, which was attached to a fence. Mr. Cunningham did not visit the Facility while it was in operation. There is no effective barrier between Ms. Ellis' property and the Facility. Additionally, the Facility is not yet officially closed. Count V-Investigative Costs The Department alleged that it incurred expenses of not less than $500 while investigating this matter. Investigative costs are recoverable pursuant to Section 403.141(1), Florida Statutes, which states: "Whoever commits a violation specified in s. 403.161(1) is liable to the state for . . . reasonable costs and expenses of the state in tracing the source of the discharge, [and] in controlling and abating the source and the pollutants. " Mr. Bradner’s salary is approximately $35.00 per hour. He spent approximately 20 to 30 hours on this case which would total approximately $700.00. Mr. Turner’s salary is approximately $25.00 per hour. Mr. Turner visited the Facility on five separate occasions in order to attempt to collect an air sample. It took him an hour and a half, to one hour and 45 minutes to get to the Facility. He usually spent approximately one half hour at the Facility. The Department conducted the two sampling events referred to above, which were sent to a lab in Los Angeles for analyses. Each analysis cost $250.00.
Conclusions Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore ORDERED: Respondents shall forthwith comply with all Department rules regarding solid waste management as related to the disposal of C & D debris. Respondents shall correct and redress all violations in the time periods required below and shall comply with all applicable rules in Chapters 62-296 and 62-701, Florida Administrative Code. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall prevent unauthorized waste disposal at the Facility, and shall provide access control by the use of fencing, gates, or other effective barriers on the portion of property that is contiguous with property owned by Ms. Valentina Ellis. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall obtain adequate financial assurance and shall provide the Department with proof of financial assurance issued in favor of the State of Florida, in the amount of the closing and long-term care cost estimates for the Facility, if the 1998 renewal bond is no longer in full force and effect. (If the renewal bond is in full force and effect, Respondents shall provide the Department with an appropriate financial update.) Otherwise, proof of financial assurance shall consist of one or more of the following instruments which, comply with the requirements of Rule 62-701.630(6), Florida Administrative Code: trust fund agreement; certificate of deposit; surety bonds guaranteeing payment; surety bonds guaranteeing performance; irrevocable letter of credit; closure insurance; or financial test and corporate guarantee. Respondents shall continue to monitor and analyze the ground water at the Facility in accordance with the approved monitoring plan through the active life of the Facility, and for five years after closure activities are completed. The ground water monitoring results shall be submitted to the Department for review within 45 days of each sampling event. Respondents shall control any objectionable odors emanating from the Facility in accordance with Rule 62- 296.320(2), Florida Administrative Code. Since strong odors have been detected off-site, beyond the disposal area boundary, Respondents shall comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.530(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. See Endnote 3. Therefore, within 30 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall implement a routine monitoring program to determine the timing and the extent of any off-site odors. If the monitoring program confirms the existence of objectionable odor, Respondents shall submit to the Department for approval an Odor Remediation Plan (Plan) within 60 days of confirmation of objectionable odors. The Plan shall describe the nature and extent of the problem and the proposed remedy. The Plan shall be implemented within 30 days of approval. Upon review of the Plan, the Department may request additional information. Any additional information shall be submitted to the Department within 30 days of receipt of the Department’s written request. If additional information is not submitted in a timely manner, the Department will approve or deny the Plan as submitted. Upon approval, the Plan shall be incorporated herein and made part of this Final Order and the Respondents shall implement the conditions in the Plan pursuant to an approved schedule. If the proposal is denied, Respondents shall submit a new plan or modifications to the plan within 30 days and the review process shall continue as detailed herein. Respondents shall submit monthly reports to the Department. The reports shall include all data collected during the monitoring. The first report shall be submitted to the Department within 45 days of the implementation of the plan and shall continue every 30 days thereafter. Respondents are ordered to close the Facility within 60 days of this Final Order, unless the time is extended by the Department. Respondents shall implement closure activities in accordance with Rule 62-701.730(9)(b)(c)(d) and (10), Florida Administrative Code. Closure activities shall include, but not be limited to the following: Grade and compact the disposal area to eliminate ponding, promote drainage and minimize erosion. Establish and maintain side slopes no greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical rise in all above-grade disposal areas. Establish and maintain final cover consisting of a 24-inch thick layer of clean soil, the upper six inches of which shall be capable of supporting vegetation. Seed and/or plant vegetative cover over the disposal area. Respondents shall monitor the effectiveness of the cover for a minimum of five years following completion of closure activities, and acceptance by the Department. Within 30 days of the completion of the closure activities, Respondents shall provide the Department with "Certification of Closure Construction Completion" and a final survey report, conducted by a Professional Land Surveyor in accordance with Rule 62-701.610(3) Florida Administrative Code, if the disposal operation has raised the elevation higher than 20 feet above natural land surface. Within 60 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondents shall pay $3,000.00 to the Department for the administrative penalties assessed above. Payment shall be made by cashier's check or money order payable to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection" and shall include thereon the OGC Case No.: 01-1946 and notation "Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund." The payment shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, Central District Office, 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Orlando, Florida 32803-3767. In addition to the administrative penalties, within 60 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall pay $500.00 to the Department for costs and expenses. Payment shall be made by cashiers check or money order payable to "State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection" and shall include OGC Case No. 01-1946 thereon with the notation "Ecosystem Management and Restoration Fund." The payment shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, Central District Office, 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Orlando, Florida 32803-3767. Respondents will remain liable to the Department for any damages resulting from the violations alleged herein and for the correction, control, and abatement of any pollution emanating from Respondents' Facility. Respondents may request and the Department may extend the time limits imposed by this Final Order. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings, this 24th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent’s license as a residential contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of contractors and the regulation of the construction industry in this state. Respondent, Kenneth Ronald Boaz, was a residential contractor holding license CR C035360. He was the qualifying agent for Revival Remodelers, and was doing business under that name. On or about August 23, 1996, Respondent, doing business as Revival Remodelers, entered into a contract with Vicky L. Smith to construct a 20 by 24-foot room addition to her residence located at 13281 Clay Avenue in Largo, Florida. The contract price for the addition was listed as $25,000, plus permit fees, and Respondent accepted a partial payment of $21,072.60 from Ms. Smith. Respondent was instrumental in helping Ms. Smith get the financing for the project. On September 5, 1996, Respondent obtained permit No. 146699 from the Pinellas County Building Department. Before starting construction on the room, Respondent arranged for several large trees to be removed from the area of Ms. Smith’s back yard near where the rear wall of the addition would be located. When the trees were removed, the holes left by their removal were to be filled with dirt. Though Respondent arranged for the trees to be moved, Ms. Smith paid an additional $680.00 to the sub-contractor who removed them. Respondent was aware that the trees had been removed and the holes filled with dirt. Respondent began work shortly after the removal of the trees and the filling of the holes. Ms. Smith claims she did not see anyone do any compacting of the soil where the trees had been removed, but the footers and slab were poured and finished. Whereas the Pinellas County Building Code does not require a soil compaction test, it provides that foundations shall be built on undisturbed soil of properly compacted fill. At Ms. Smith’s request, construction slowed down but continued while she tried to find additional financing to complete the work. Finally, Respondent and Ms. Smith agreed the work would cease until she could obtain the amount remaining due under the project. At this point, Ms. Smith owed Respondent approximately $4,000. Ms. Smith claims that even before this, however, she noticed cracking in the concrete slab. This worried her because she wanted to lay tile as flooring. But when she mentioned this to the Respondent, he told her not to worry as he would take care of it. He did not do so, however. Because of her concern, in the Spring of 1999, Ms. Smith called the Building Department in Clearwater and the building inspector from the county came out to inspect the work. The inspector issued a red tag for the work, signifying it was unacceptable. Ms. Smith also contacted other contractors to see if tile could be successfully laid on that slab. Each has said it could not. No other contractor with whom she has spoken is willing to take over the job without additional soil compaction. One contractor gave her an estimate of $47,500 to re-build the room. Another contractor quoted a price of $44,800, but both include items not on the contract she had with Respondent. Respondent last worked on this job in December 1996. Since that time, Ms. Smith has talked with him about the quality of his work and has had two mediation sessions with him without any success. The room has not been completed because there is substantial question whether the existing work done by Respondent can be successfully completed. The defects in the construction are manifested by the following: There is a separation of the additional wall from the existing house wall of from between 1/2 to 1 inch. The roof of the addition leaks and the insulation is moldy and falling. There are cracks all over the additional floor and outside patio slab. The corners of the addition are dropping. Cinder blocks in the addition walls are cracking The lintel is broken in three places. Ms. Smith has done no more construction on the addition because she filed her complaint with the Department and is waiting to see what is done. However, she has painted and sealed the exterior walls. The leak is not through the wall cracks but through the roof. After her complaint, Respondent had someone from PSI, an engineering consulting firm, come out and perform a soils compaction test. As a result of that test, several different formulae were offered to fix the problem, but Ms. Smith was not satisfied, considering it no more than a "cover-up." Finally, Respondent offered her a structural solution to the problem that would remove the red tag. Ms. Smith would put the balance owed, plus some additional money into an escrow account, whereupon Respondent would fix the problem. However, because Ms. Smith no longer has any confidence in the Respondent, she does not want him to do any of the work. She contends that Respondent never agreed to fix the problem if she would put what she stilled owed him in escrow - only if she would add to it. Kevin McGinley is a licensed general contractor who in 1997 was asked by Ms. Smith to give her an estimate on making repairs to and completing the addition started by Respondent. His examination of the site showed severe settling on the addition. The work appeared to have been built on an uncompacted pad which caused settling, and McGinley did not want to be responsible for the work. Therefore, he gave Ms. Smith an estimate to tear down what had been done by Respondent and to rebuild from scratch. His work would include an inspection by a soils engineer to see if the existing soil would support the project. While cracks in a slab can be repaired, in the instant case, without knowing what caused the problem, he would not want to try to fix it. Wendell G. Wardell, a building inspector for Pinellas County, first inspected this project on September 16, 1996, when he went out for the slab inspection. There were several problems with the site, none of which related to the instant problem, and all of which were cleared up by November 21, 1996. He was again sent to the site somewhat later based upon a complaint by the owner. On this visit he saw cracking and settlement of the slab and he issued the red tag. Neither Respondent nor the owner called for a re-inspection that would be required before work can resume because work was not resumed. Mr. Wardell noted that a compaction test was not required by the county before the permit was issued in this case, though sometime it is required. Mr. Yaxley, a consulting engineer, visited the site in April 1998. Ms. Smith was present at the time. He observed the cracking in the floors and walls and the mildew in the roof. The most obvious defects were the 1/4-inch cracks in the floors and walls of the addition. After studying the site and the results from the two other laboratories that tested the site, he concluded that the removal of the trees caused the holes several feet deep that were then filled with 20 square yards of dirt. This fill dirt should have been compacted in a reasonable manner, and it was not. Yaxley reasoned that Respondent knew of the holes and the placement of the fill dirt and he should have done tests to ensure the compacting was done properly. The use of a bob-cat, a front-end loader, as used here, did not provide the appropriate compaction. However, removal of the trees was a clue that a closer look at the soil was required. Yaxley examined the laboratory work done on the property and determined there are two voids left under the soil from the removal of the trees. One is about 18 inches down and the other at about three to four feet down. Compaction may or may not cure this. Settling may continue for a long time. While one void could have been an unknown factor, the existence of the three trees was a known factor, and proper caution and judgment would have called for further inquiry to determine the status of the sub-surface. Respondent claims he had no knowledge of any voids in the soil. He compacted with water and soil in layers but this compacting was done under the slab area, not where the holes were filled. He used a concrete contractor to do this work and has always found it to be consistent with acceptable standards before. There are several other defects in Respondent’s performance, according to Yaxley. The core of the slab shows no reinforcing of the concrete either by welded steel or fabric fiber mixed in with the concrete; the roof deck is mildewed; there are cracks in the slab and between the main building and the addition; there are step cracks in both the north and east wall of the addition; and the bracing and attachment of the east gable above the concrete block is not adequate. Mr. Yaxley went back to revisit the property on October 5, 1998, and found that as of that time, no corrective work had been done. The problem with the property can be fixed with injections of grout and the installation of pilings. If that were done properly, Ms. Smith would be able to safely install the tile flooring she wants. However, if nothing is done, the cracks will remain and probably get worse. Respondent contends that the removal of the trees did not create holes that required fill. He asserts that the fill dirt brought in was procured at the request of the Building Department that wanted it to construct another swale on the property. Mr. Boaz admits to not using reinforcing steel in the concrete slab he poured. Instead, he ordered the fiber- reinforced concrete at a thickness of more than six inches, which exceeds the code requirement of four inches. He did not know, until he heard Mr. Yaxley’s testimony, that the concrete poured by his sub-contractor was not fiber-fill.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case finding Respondent guilty of negligence resulting in danger to property, and misconduct in contracting, and imposing an administrative fine of $5,500. It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay restitution to Ms. Vicki Smith in the amount of $21,072.60 or, in the alternative, within 90 days from the date of the final order, undertake such remedial construction activity as is necessary to remove the red tag issued by the Pinellas County Building Department regarding this project. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Warren Knaust, Esquire Knaust & Valente, P.A. 2730 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue The issue is whether a permit should be issued to Respondent, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC (LER), authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility in unincorporated Lake County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties LER, whose mailing address is Post Office Box 2872, Windermere, Florida, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State. LER's principals are Linwood Brannon and Richard Bazinet, both of whom have had at least ten years' experience in the operation and construction of demolition debris disposal facilities. The Department is an agency of the State that is authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2005)2, to evaluate applications and issue permits for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facilities. The permit in issue here was processed, reviewed, and approved for issuance by the Department's Central District Office in Orlando, Florida. Petitioners Miriam Resto and Jim Taylor did not appear at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by the issuance of a permit. Petitioner Timothy L. McCormack resides at 11321 Valley View Road, Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida. Mr. McCormack's home is "a little over a mile" north-northwest of the proposed facility. His concern with the proposed facility is generally over contamination from the landfill, and not contamination occurring at the property. Petitioner John A. Mapp, Jr., resides at 21307 County Road 561, Clermont, Florida, which is approximately one-half mile from the proposed facility. Mr. Mapp's home is upgradient from the facility and consequently he has no "individual concerns" as to how the proposed facility would affect his home. He is concerned, however, with potential groundwater contamination from the facility. Petitioners David and Lisa Cimini did not testify at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by this proceeding. According to the Partial Pre- Hearing Stipulation filed by Respondents, however, they reside at 21423 County Road 455, Clermont, Florida, which is near the proposed facility. Background On July 26, 2005, LER filed an application with the Department for a permit authorizing it to construct and operate a facility for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling in an unincorporated area of the County. A lengthy definition of construction and demolition debris is found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(27), which reads as follows: discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from a construction project; effective January 1, 1997, except as provided in Section 403.707(12)(j), F.S., unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from the facilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their components and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste where generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de minimus amounts of other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at construction and demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris. The facility will be located on a 44.33-acre site one- half mile west of State Road 561, off County Road 455, in an unincorporated part of Lake County. Based on this description, it appears that the facility will be located east of Howey-in- the Hills, west of Tavares, and approximately half-way between Astatula and where State Road 561 crosses the Florida Turnpike to the southwest. The site presently has an active sand mine (borrow pit) that covers an area of approximately twenty-two acres. The facility intends to recycle metal, concrete, asphalt, wood chips, and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and will serve areas in Lake County and nearby communities. In response to LER's initial application, the Central District Office submitted a Request for Additional Information dated August 22, 2005, asking for additional well and site information, operations plan details, and financial assurance clarification. On October 20, 200, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information. While the application was being processed, Mr. Cimini advised the Department that two additional wells surrounded the property, including one that had recently been installed on property owned by Mr. Gary Sprauer that lies within five hundred feet of the limits of waste disposal of the facility. On November 18, 2005, the Department submitted an additional Request for Additional Information, in which it brought up the fact that Mr. Cimini had advised the Department of the existence of these wells. On November 28, 2005, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information, in which it stated that only one well, which belonged to a Mr. Sprauer, had been drilled within five hundred feet of the proposed facility; that there was no electricity to the well; that the nearest residence was approximately seven hundred feet away; and that the well was not approved or being used as a potable water well. Therefore, LER asserted that the Department should not treat the Sprauer well as a potable water well subject to the five-hundred-foot setback from potable water wells for landfills established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(2)(b). LER's submittal provided additional information on the geology and operational aspects of its proposed facility. On December 6, 2005, LER submitted additional information in response to items discussed at a meeting held between the Department and LER on December 2, 2005. The submittal contained further information about potential drinking water wells around the proposed facility, and LER reasserted that the Sprauer well should not be treated by the Department as a potable drinking water well. Based upon its own investigation, however, the Department concluded that the Sprauer well "was a bona fide drinking water well for domestic supply." On January 6, 2006, Mr. Bradner, a Department solid and hazardous waste program manager who was assisting in the processing and review of the application, wrote a memorandum to the file confirming that the Department considered the application complete as of December 6, 2005. On February 10, 2006, LER provided additional hydrologic and operational information in order to try to convince the Department not to apply the five-hundred-foot setback to the Sprauer well. This information showed that the Sprauer well would be upgradient from the proposed facility. The Department allows waste to be placed within five hundred feet of an existing potable water well based upon site-specific conditions as demonstrated by an applicant. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(b). On March 27, 2006, in response to the Department's comments on its submittal of this additional information, LER submitted further hydrologic and modeling information to support its contention that groundwater flowed away from the well belonging to Mr. Sprauer. On April 27, 2006, LER provided the Department with further refinement of its groundwater model to demonstrate that there would be no impact to the Sprauer well. On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued notice of its intent to approve the application and issue a permit to LER. Of significance here is the fact that the Department did not require LER to install a liner and leachate collection system. This was consistent with the terms of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.730(4)(a), which does not require a liner unless the Department demonstrates that the facility is "reasonably expected to result in violations of ground water standards and criteria." On May 17, 2006, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that there is a substantial risk that the surrounding groundwater will be contaminated by leachates from the facility, and that the Department should accordingly require LER to (a) install a liner and associated leachate recovery system in their facility and (b) post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary. The Proposed Project Among other things, the application included an engineering report, an operations plan, a geotechnical evaluation of the stability of the site, a hydrological investigation, a stormwater management plan, a reclamation and closure plan, and financial assurance documentation. These elements are required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.730, which governs this type of application. The proposed facility is to be located on a 44.33-acre parcel in a rural area that has been the site of a sand and clay borrow pit. The pit has been mined for the last thirty years, has been permitted by Lake County as a mine since 1986, and before being used as a mine was the site of an orange grove. As explained by Mr. Golden, the proposed facility's project manager, the site is "high and dry" and "a good site for a landfill." The water table is at least one hundred feet below the ground surface. There is a confining layer of clays and sandy clays approximately one hundred fifty feet below the ground surface at the site of the proposed facility, and the layer has very low hydrologic conductivity, that is, 1,000 to 10,000 times less permeable than the surface sands. The Floridan Aquifer is approximately two hundred feet below ground surface. The horizontal velocity of the groundwater at the site is approximately two feet per year, and the vertical velocity about 1.3 inches per year. As a result, the groundwater monitoring system at the proposed facility would detect any contamination that might be emitted. In addition, approximately twenty feet of dry soils underlying the landfill would absorb whatever comes out of the landfill to begin with, just like a septic tank. The confining layer would be approximately one hundred to one hundred twenty feet below the landfill base and would be anywhere from twenty to forty feet deep. As a result, it is highly unlikely that any potential contaminants that hypothetically might be emitted from the facility would ever reach the Floridan Aquifer. The Proposed Permit On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued its intent to issue the permit. Attached to that intent to issue was a Draft Permit. The Draft Permit restricts disposal of solid waste exclusively to construction and demolition debris (as defined in the rule cited above) and requires LER to comply with an Operations Plan developed by LER. Among other things, the Operations Plan provides for operators trained in spotting and turning away unacceptable waste and other screening procedures to ensure nondisposal of unacceptable waste. The Operations Plan exceeds minimum Department rule requirements. The Operations Plan prohibits disposal of CCA (chromated copper arsenate) pressure treated wood and has a special screening procedure to ensure that these wood products do not come into the facility. The Draft Permit requires LER to install a system of groundwater monitoring wells that surround the property at both shallow and deep depths to detect any potential contaminants coming off of the site. Thus, LER will be required to monitor the surficial aquifer, the Floridan Aquifer, and adjacent wells to ensure protection of area groundwater. The wells will act as a form of early warning indicator so that corrective action can be undertaken in the event the wells show a potential threat to drinking water beyond the property boundary of the proposed facility. The Draft Permit requires two wells to be installed immediately to the north of the Sprauer well, even though it is upgradient from the site. To be conservative and prudent, the Department is requiring that the number of wells that LER must install be substantially greater than the minimum required under Department rules. Based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, Mr. Golden concluded that LER has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will not discharge pollutants in contravention of Department standards or rules. Mr. Bradner agreed with this conclusion and likewise concluded that LER had provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will comply with all of the required statutes and rules. The weight of the evidence supports these conclusions. The weight of the evidence also supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the proposed facility will not be a source of contamination for wells within or greater than five hundred feet of the proposed facility. In the same vein, Mr. Bradner determined that the Sprauer well was the only existing potable drinking water well within five hundred feet. Both experts concluded that the Sprauer well would not be adversely impacted based upon the Department's review of the groundwater modeling data provided to it by LER. Finally, the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that, based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the Department should not require LER to install a landfill liner at the proposed facility. Mr. Bradner agreed with that conclusion. Petitioners' Objections In their Petition, Petitioners have raised the following objections to the issuance of a permit: That because the proposed facility would have no liner, the local environment and drinking water supplies would not be adequately protected from contamination; That the application significantly underestimates the amount of recharge to local aquifers; That the application ignores or underestimates the ecological fragility of the area; and That the location of the Sprauer well should require a reconfiguration of the footprint of the proposed facility. As relief, the Petition asks that the Department require a liner and associated leachate recovery system and adequate financial assurance to ensure proper operation and cleanup if necessary. During opening argument, Petitioners raised one more issue not previously raised in their Petition — - the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed facility in conjunction with two other landfills in the area. This allegation was not timely raised, however, and has been disregarded. The positions taken by Petitioners (other than cumulative impacts) appear to be interrelated, that is, the Department should require a liner because the area is ecologically fragile and recharge is greater than calculated by LER. In support of their position, Petitioners first presented the testimony of Mr. McCormack, who is engaged in the commercial nursery and landscaping business. Mr. McCormack identified the presence of CCA treated wood as his main concern from a contamination standpoint. His concern is that a possible spread of leachate will result from mingling the wood with rainwater or groundwater and that the surrounding groundwater (which ultimately flows into Double Run Springs, the Harris Chain of Lakes, and the Floridan Aquifer) would be adversely impacted. Mr. McCormack estimated that the edge of the Double Run Springs system was approximately 2,500 feet, or around one- half mile, from the site. He expressed the opinion that it was physically impossible to remove such wood prior to its being landfilled. Mr. McCormack conceded, however, that he was not an expert on landfill management or hydrology and had no personal experience with the operation of a landfill. There is specific language in LER's Operations Plan prohibiting the disposal of CCA treated wood and requiring best management practices to enforce the prohibition against the disposal of CCA treated wood. This requirement is mandatory, and not voluntary, and provides reasonable assurance that CCA treated wood would not be a potential source of contamination. The testimony of expert witnesses Bradner and Golden, who expressed this view, is accepted as being more credible on this issue. Petitioners also presented the testimony of Mr. Mapp, who critiqued the hydrological investigation performed by LER by asserting that the recharge to the Floridan Aquifer is four or five times the amount stated in the application. He also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rates were understated.3 Mr. Mapp is a systems analyst for Lockheed Martin Missiles and has a master's degree in business and an undergraduate degree in physics. While highly educated, Mr. Mapp has no prior experience in any kind of hydrologic, geologic, chemical, or similar types of analyses, or any analyses of the rate of transport of chemicals in the environment. The knowledge and opinions rendered in this case by Mr. Mapp were obtained through personal research after the permit application was filed. Mr. Mapp opined that LER's recharge calculations constitute a "significant discrepancy." He acknowledged, however, that his estimate of the true speed of downward flow of water at the site of the proposed facility was "just off the cuff" and did not factor in the effects of applying cover to, and the filling and capping of, the landfill. He did not know how fast particular contaminants may migrate through the groundwater or what volume of waste might be necessary to cause a violation of groundwater quality standards. He also could not give a specific calculation of where a contaminant might be located after a set period of years. Unlike the other experts in this case, the witness had not calculated Floridan Aquifer recharge rates or otherwise used Darcy's Law.4 Even if the permit application underestimated the recharge rate, the thickness of the confining layer below the base of the proposed facility, which was conservatively estimated, would cause groundwater to flow horizontally, not vertically, once the confining layer is reached. As explained by Mr. Golden, LER did not rely exclusively on the recharge calculations that Mr. Mapp relied upon in determining recharge rates. Separate information regarding the permeability of the confining layer provides additional support for the recharge calculations. Mr. Mapp also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rate calculations were underestimated, based upon his review of a study of a deforested site elsewhere in the Lake Wales Ridge. He assumed the evapotranspiration rate in that study (for a site located fifteen miles away) would be applicable to the site of the proposed facility, and he then assumed that the evapotranspiration rate identified in the permit application for the proposed facility would be applicable only to the properties adjacent to the proposed facility. There is, however, no scientific basis for drawing an analogy between the borrow pit that is the location of the proposed facility and the deforested site with different geological characteristics about which Mr. Mapp read in the study he relied upon for his conclusions. Furthermore, LER undertook site-specific analyses of the permeability of the soils underlying the site of the proposed facility, whereas Mr. Mapp's calculations were based upon assumptions drawn from a study of a site fifteen miles away. The testimony of Mr. Golden is found to be credible and persuasive on this issue. Finally, there was no evidence concerning Petitioners' contention that LER should post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary. Therefore, no modification to the permit in this respect is required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application of Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, for a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facility in unincorporated lake County. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2006.
The Issue Good Fella’s raises four issues on appeal. Two of those issues involve the administrative hearing process that resulted in the Order: (1) whether the county administrator should have recused himself from acting as the hearing officer in the case below; and (2) whether the Board improperly denied Good Fella’s a hearing on its asserted request to transport solid waste outside of the county. For the reasons explained below, Good Fella’s contentions as to these issues lack merit. Two of the issues raised by Good Fella’s are substantive; (3) whether, by virtue of its contract with the Citrus County School Board (School Board), Good Fella’s is not subject to the restrictions of section 82-78 when disposing of the solid waste generated by the School Board; and (4) whether the findings of fact in the Order were based on competent substantial evidence. Because issue (3) is dispositive of the merits of the case, there is no need to reach issue (4).
