Findings Of Fact On November 29, 1988, Respondent, Trans Pac, Inc., (Trans Pac), a development company, filed its initial application for a construction permit to build a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida. Trans Pac's stock is owned by James Dahl of Los Angeles, California. Trans Pac's president is Steven Andrews. Steven Andrews is also president of The Andrews Group, d/b/a Chemical Development Company. Chemical Development Company is in the business of developing hazardous waste facilities. Sometime after filing its application, Trans Pac advertised for interested persons to contact it about the possible sale of the facility. At the time of the hearing, Trans Pac had not had any serious offers for the property and had not finally decided whether it will sell the facility. Trans Pac is seriously considering a joint venture arrangement, although no specifics as to such an arrangement have been formalized or finalized. When consideration is given to the unripe nature of this "proposed sale", it cannot be concluded that the above facts constitute competent and reliable evidence which would support the conclusion that Trans Pac had failed to give such reasonable assurances that the facility would be operated in accordance with Florida law. Too much speculation is required before such a conclusion can be reached. However, Trans Pac has stipulated that it will publish a notice of any sale prior to the closing of that sale if that event should occur. The notice would be published in accordance with the provisions and time periods established in Rule 17-103.15, Florida Administrative Code, and should afford an affected person a reasonable time to challenge the sale before the sale closes. Any contract of sale would incorporate the notice requirements and the sale would be made contingent upon compliance with the above conditions. Such a notice would afford any affected person the opportunity to challenge the ability of the transferee to operate the facility. With the above stipulation made a part of any permit, there is no failure by Trans Pac to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will be operated in accordance with Florida law. Escambia County is within the West Florida Planning Region. The West Florida Planning Region consists of Bay County, Escambia County, Holmes County, Okaloosa County, Santa Rosa County, Walton County and Washington County. The proposed site for the facility is just outside the community of Beulah, on County Road 99, northeast of and adjacent to the Perdido Landfill. The site is not within, but adjacent to the area designated by the West Florida Regional Planning Council as an area on which a hazardous waste temporary storage and transfer facility could be located. 2/ The proposed site is approximately one mile away from the Perdido River, an outstanding Florida water. The area is primarily a rural area. When the proposed location of this facility was announced in the local news, the value of property around the proposed site decreased. One person, who was within a few miles of the proposed site, lost the contract of sale on his property and was advised by the purchasers that no reduction in price would renew their interest. Another individual's property in the same area decreased in value by approximately $10,000. Many people in the Beaulah area had their dreams and the quiet enjoyment of their property threatened by the location of this facility. Some cannot afford to sell their property and relocate. At present there is no mechanism by which any of the property owners in proximity to the proposed site can recoup their losses. Some property owners believe that such a mechanism should include the establishment of some type of independent trust fund funded with enough money to cover an estimate of such losses, and an independent review of any disputed claims of loss. However, there is no provision under Florida law to impose a permit condition which establishes a procedure to cover the pecuniary losses of property owners close to the facility. The proposed facility will be a permanent storage and treatment facility and will have a maximum waste storage capacity of 106,000 gallons and a maximum treatment capacity of 2,000 gallons per day for neutralization, 5,000 gallons per day for organic separation, 2,000 gallons per day for ozonation, and 4,000 gallons per day for solidification. Hazardous waste is a solid waste which exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: a) ignitability, b) corrosivity, c) reactivity, d) EP toxicity. Such waste can be further classified as a toxic waste or as an acute hazardous waste. 3/ An acute hazardous waste is a solid waste which has been found to be fatal to humans in low doses or, has been shown in studies to have an oral, inhalation or dermal toxicity to rats or rabbits at a certain level, or has been shown to significantly contribute to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness. A toxic waste is any waste containing any one of a number of specified constituents. A "characteristic" of hazardous waste is identified and defined only when a solid waste with a certain type of characteristic may: a) cause or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness, or b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed, and the characteristic can be: a) measured by an available standardized test, or b) can be reasonably detected by generators of solid waste through their knowledge of their waste. Put simply, hazardous waste is very dangerous to both humans and the environment and will kill or permanently incapacitate living beings and/or make the environment unlivable. Such waste has the potential to create a hazardous waste desert. A solid waste has the characteristic of ignitability if: a) it is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing 24 percent alcohol, which has a flashpoint of 60.C (140.F), b) it is not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and, when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently that it creates a hazard, c) it is an ignitable compressed gas, or d) it is an oxidizer. A solid waste has the characteristic of corrosivity if: a) it is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 (strong acids or bases), or b) it is a liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 millimeters (0.250 inch) per year at a test temperature of 55.C (130.F). A solid waste has the characteristic of reactivity if: a) it is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change without detonating, b) it reacts violently with water, c) it forms potentially explosive mixtures with water, d) when mixed with water, it generates toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, e) it is a cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, f) it is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under confinement, g) it is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at standard temperature and pressure, or h) it is a forbidden or Class B explosive as defined in another federal rule. A solid waste has the characteristic of EP toxicity, if, using certain test methods, the extract from a representative sample of the waste contains certain contaminants (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, endrin, lindane, etc.) at a concentration greater than or equal to specified levels for that contaminant. Although the above definitions sound exotic, the wastes which are defined are more often than not the waste generated by routine, normal living. Such waste is the result of almost any type of motor vehicle or machinery maintenance, such as oil and battery changes, metals manufacturing and finishing services, including auto body repair services, transportation services, construction and building repair services, medical and laboratory services, boat building and repair services, dry cleaning, printing of newspapers and 4/ magazines or agriculture, such as gardening. Further, such waste is generated by almost every commercial business category. Almost every person is either directly responsible through use or manufacture, or indirectly responsible through demand for a product or life-style, for the generation of hazardous waste in small quantities. These small individual quantities of hazardous waste add up to a significant portion of all the hazardous waste generated in this state and a significant portion of this waste is not disposed of properly. Improper disposal includes sending the waste to a local landfill or pouring such waste down the drain. Trans Pac's proposed facility will not be permitted for radioactive waste. The types of waste which will be treated and/or stored at the proposed facility are: Singularly or in any combination: D002 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D003 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of reactivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D004 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant arsenic D005 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant barium D006 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant cadmium D007 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant chromium D008 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant lead D010 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant mercury D011 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant silver Singularly or in any combination: F001 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing: tetrachloroethylene trichloroethylene, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane, methylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons, all spent solvent mixtures/blends used in degreasing containing, before use, 10 percent or more of one or more of the above halogenated solvents or those listed in F002, F004, or F005; still bottoms from the recovery of these solvents and mixtures F002 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1, 1, 2-trichlor-1, 2, 2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene trichlorofluoromethane, 1, 1, 2 - trichloroethane, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of one of the solvents listed in F001, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F003 Waste --- IGNITABLE -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol, all spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, one or more of the above non-halogenated solvents and a total of 10 percent or more of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F004 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: creosols and cresylic acid, nitrobenzene, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or the solvents listed in F001, F002, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F005 Waste --- IGNITABLE, TOXIC -- Spent non- halogenated solvents: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2- nitropropane, spent solvent Mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, F004; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F006 Waste ---TOXIC -- Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating from certain specified processes Singularly or in any combination: F007 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations F008 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F009 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cleaning and stripping bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F010 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC --Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process F011 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations F012 Waste --- TOXIC --Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process Singularly or in any combination: Petroleum refining: K048 Waste --- TOXIC -- Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum refining industry K049 Waste --- TOXIC -- slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining industry K050 Waste --- TOXIC -- heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry K051 Waste --- TOXIC -- API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry K052 Waste --- TOXIC --- tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry Iron and steel: K062 Waste --- CORROSIVE, TOXIC -- spent pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations of facilities within the iron and steel industry Ink formulation: K086 Waste --- TOXIC -- solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and sludges, or water washes and sludges from cleaning tubs and equipment used in the formulation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps and stabilizers containing chromium and lead Secondary lead: K100 Waste --- TOXIC -- wastewater leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting The federal law which governs hazardous waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its amendments. The RCRA was part of the initial federal effort to manage hazardous waste and expressed a clear preference for the reduction of hazardous waste over managing such wastes at treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The Act required EPA to develop a national plan to manage and regulate hazardous waste and provide states with incentives to develop state hazardous waste management plans. Most of the incentives were based on the availability of federal funds. The federal funds were contingent on the states assuring EPA that a particular disposal site would be available for disposal of any waste generated by a remedial action taken under the Act. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Emergency Response Liability Act (CERCLA). The Act granted EPA the authority and funds to respond to uncontrolled site cleanup, emergency remedial activities, spills and other incidents due to hazardous waste. 5/ As of November, 1989, five such remedial sites are located in Escambia County. The Act also defines the liability of businesses that generate, transport and dispose of hazardous waste. Generators of hazardous waste, generally, have "cradle to grave" liability for the waste they generate. In 1980, the Florida Legislature enacted the state's first hazardous waste law. The law primarily adopted the federal regulations and guidelines on hazardous waste and established separate procedures for permitting and site selection of hazardous waste facilities. The act also directed DER to develop and implement a state hazardous waste management plan. The portions of the 1980 law relative to site selection (403.723, Florida Statutes) provided a cabinet override of a local decision adverse to the location of a hazardous waste facility. In order to obtain a cabinet override, the facility had to have been issued a permit by DER. Need for a hazardous waste facility was not addressed in either the permitting or site selection processes of the Act. In 1983, the legislature passed the Water Quality Assurance Act. The Act amended 403.723, Florida Statutes, to provide that each county prepare a Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate areas within the County at which a hazardous waste storage facility could be constructed to meet a demonstrated need." The Act further provided in 403.723, Florida Statutes, that, after the counties had completed their assessments, each regional planning council, likewise, would prepare a regional Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate sites at which a regional hazardous waste storage or treatment facility could be constructed." The regional Assessment included a determination of the quantities and types of hazardous waste generated in the region, a determination of the hazardous waste management practices in use within the region, a determination of the demand for offsite hazardous waste management services, a determination of existing and proposed offsite management capacity available to hazardous waste generators, a determination of the need for additional offsite hazardous waste facilities within the region, and the development of a plan to manage the hazardous waste generated in the region and/or to provide additional offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facility needs. As noted earlier, these plans and designations were required to be made part of the county and regional comprehensive plans. The regional Assessment was completed by the West Florida Regional Planning Council in August of 1985. The assessment was based on a survey of suspected hazardous waste generators in the region. An overall response rate of 76.8 percent was received. The study showed that all types of hazardous waste, except for cyanide waste, are generated within the West Florida Planning Region. 6/ The quantity of hazardous waste produced annually within the region was estimated to be 14,245,064 pounds. The estimates for each County were as follows: Escambia County, 4,582,872 pounds; Okaloosa County, 3,203,534 pounds; Bay County, 2,433,343 pounds; Santa Rosa County, 1,866,831 pounds; Holmes County, 381,840 pounds; Walton County, 229,984 pounds; and Washington County, 170,244 pounds. Based on the survey responses, the study estimated that 11,903,738 pounds (83.6%) of hazardous waste generated annually within the region was not being properly treated or disposed of. The vast majority of the waste (78.1%) found to be improperly treated was a combination of waste oils and greases, spent solvents, and lead-acid batteries. Neither the waste oil and greases or lead- acid batteries are wastes which will be managed at the proposed Trans Pac facility. The study found that a recycling or reuse market existed for waste oil and greases, spent solvents and lead-acid batteries; and therefore, there was no need for a transfer/temporary storage facility. The remaining 2,602,630 pounds of hazardous waste not being properly managed was generated by both large and small quantity generators and is subject to a variety of appropriate waste management methods. The management plan adopted by the West Florida Regional Planning Council sought to encourage first waste reduction, second waste recycling, reuse or recovery, third onsite treatment or incineration methods, and fourth transporting wastes to offsite temporary storage facilities. One of the goals of the plan was to discourage, as much as possible, the importation of hazardous waste from outside the region, and particularly, with the close proximity of the Alabama state line, from outside the state. The plan concluded that due to the small quantity of mismanaged hazardous waste in the region there was no need for a permanent treatment and storage facility. The only need found to exist within the region was for a temporary transfer and storage facility. That need has since been met by a temporary transfer and storage facility located in Pensacola, Florida. 7/ However, Escambia County issued a Certificate of Need for a hazardous waste transfer, storage and treatment facility to Trans Pac on February 28, 1989. The Certificate of Need was issued pursuant to County Ordinance Number 85-7. The ordinance provides in relevant part that a Certificate of Need may be issued upon the Board's determination that the service or facility for which the certificate is requested "answers a public need, is necessary for the welfare of the citizens and residents of the county, is consistent with any solid waste management plan adopted pursuant to [this ordinance], and will not impair or infringe on any obligations established by contract, resolution, or ordinance." The ordinance further provides that no Certificate of Need may be denied solely on the basis of the number of such certificates in effect at the time. The issuance of that certificate appears to have been granted on the sole representations of need given by Trans Pac to gain issuance of the certificate and at a time when the Board's attention and consideration of the facility was on matters other than the true need as established in the regional plan or the exact service Trans Pac would actually provide. The evidence suggests that no formal or informal investigation of Trans Pac's representations or on the actual need of the region was conducted by the Board. Such an investigation was informally conducted by some of the Board members after the proposed facility became apparent to members of the public. The members of the public raised a great hue and cry of opposition towards the construction of the facility and prompted a closer look at Trans Pac's representations. The Board members who did conduct the informal investigation found there was no need for the facility within the county or region and discovered that the Certificate of Need had been issued in error. No evidence was presented that the County had ever formally rescinded the issuance of Trans Pac's certificate. However, the evidence did show that there was a de facto rescission of Trans Pac's certificate when the County authorized the filing of this administrative action. 8/ Trans Pac would have the ability to treat and store some of the waste generated in the region and some waste which is not generated in the region. Trans Pac would not treat or store a large part of the waste generated in the region. The small amount of regional waste which Trans Pac would be capable of handling would not be profitable. In order to be profitable, most of Trans Pac's waste would have to come from outside the region and/or the State. In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Act amended CERCLA to provide that, three years after the Act's effective date, a state could not receive any superfund monies unless the state entered into an agreement with the President providing assurance of the availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities which would have enough capacity for the treatment, disposal or storage of all hazardous waste generated within the state over the next 20 years. SARA was enacted because Congress did not believe that Superfund money should be spent in states that were taking insufficient steps to avoid creation of more superfund sites. Such steps included some provision for the future secure disposal or management of hazardous waste generated within that state. It was feared that certain states, because of public opposition and political pressure, could not create and permit enough hazardous waste facilities within their borders to properly manage, either through disposal or treatment, the hazardous waste generated within those states. Put simply, SARA requires each state to keep its own house clean and be responsible for the hazardous waste generated within its borders. SARA did not require the states to develop or permit hazardous waste facilities. The Act only required that each state provide assurances that the state possessed the capacity to manage or securely dispose of hazardous waste produced in that state over the next 20 years. Such assurances could take the form of developing hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities within that state's borders or by exporting its waste to another state. However, in order to provide adequate assurances of capacity if a state chose to export its hazardous waste, that state must enter into an interstate or regional agreement with the importing state. Such agreements could include contracts to ship hazardous waste to public or private facilities. Other assurances of capacity could be obtained through programs for the reduction of hazardous waste within the state. Whatever method of assurance adopted by a state, the goal of SARA was to force the states to provide assurances that their legislative program for the management of hazardous waste generated within their borders could work and would be used. In October, 1979, Florida entered into a Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) with the President. The CAP established and implemented the statewide management plan required under the state statutes described earlier and under the SARA. The CAP is made up of four major components and includes a regional agreement between Florida and the other EPA Region IV Southeastern States. The four major components of the CAP are: 1) an assessment of past hazardous waste generation and capacity at facilities within or outside of Florida; 2) documentation of any waste reduction efforts that exist or are proposed for the future; 3) future projections of waste generation and capacity either within or outside of Florida and an assessment of any capacity shortfalls; and 4) descriptions of plans to permit facilities and a description of regulatory, economic, or other barriers which might impede or prevent the creation and permitting of such new facilities. The data gathered for the CAP showed that Florida currently has and will have a shortfall in its capacity to properly manage and dispose of its own hazardous waste. Therefore, Florida must provide and implement a way to increase its capacity for the management and disposal of the waste it now generates and will generate in the future or lose its funding for cleanup of superfund sites. Florida's plan to meet that shortfall consists of the interstate agreement, a commitment to a multistate treatment and storage facility and underfunded and understaffed incentives to reduce the generation of hazardous waste. The interstate agreement between the EPA Region IV Southeastern States is an effort at cooperative planning between these states for the management of hazardous waste. In reality, every state, including Florida, imports some hazardous waste from other states. Florida's imports are predominantly spent solvents and waste which can be burned as fuel. All of the imported waste was treated at recovery facilities located within the state. The majority of these imports came from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia and South Carolina. However, even with these imports, Florida is primarily an exporter of hazardous waste. The main recipients of Florida's exports are Alabama and South Carolina. 9/ The agreement, therefore, includes provisions on applicable interstate waste flow characteristics and quantities and on projected exports and imports between and among the participating states. The agreement provides that hazardous waste facilities presently exist or will be created and permitted to manage such exported waste. Besides the interstate agreement, Florida's plan includes a commitment to permit a multipurpose hazardous waste storage and treatment facility. The site selected for the facility is located in Union County. The permit has not yet been issued for this facility. However, the application for the facility is being processed by DER under the special statutes dealing with the Union County facility. Trans Pac's proposed facility is not required for the state to meet its assurances under the CAP entered into with the President. The hoped for benefit of the commitment to a statewide multipurpose facility is to allow Florida to reduce the amount of waste requiring export, but, at the same time allow enough waste to be exported, in accordance with the interstate agreement, to supply a sufficient waste stream to facilities in other states which need such additional waste in order to stay open. Florida's CAP also includes a waste reduction plan. The waste reduction plan is embodied in its Waste Reduction Assistance Program. The philosophy of the program is that recycling (particularly waste oil) and reduction of hazardous waste will produce greater long term across-the-board cost savings to both business and government, as well as the obvious benefit of having less of this very dangerous pollutant around in the environment. The program is not mandatory and is information-oriented. It consists of technical assistance, limited economic incentives (some of which have not been funded by the legislature), research and development, education and a waste exchange program operated by FSU and the Chamber of Commerce. The waste exchange program puts businesses in touch with other businesses who can use their waste for recycling or recovery. Additionally, in conjunction with Florida's CAP, the legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution #1146. The resolution states in part that, except for the siting of the Union County facility, "the Legislature has not and does not intend to enact barriers to the movement of hazardous waste and the siting of hazardous waste facilities for the storage, treatment, and disposal, other than land disposal, of hazardous waste." As can be seen from an overview of Florida's CAP, Trans Pac's proposed facility, while not being directly a part of the CAP, will have an impact on the implementation of that plan should state need not be a criteria for the issuance of a permit. A few of these potential impacts are listed below. First, a facility the size of Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to divert some waste away from the proposed Union County facility and may cause that facility to be unprofitable and inoperable. Second, Trans Pac's proposed facility may enable the State to handle more of its waste within its borders, thereby reducing its exports and Florida's dependency on the good offices of other states. Such reduction may or may not have an adverse impact on the interstate agreement contained in the CAP if Florida cannot meet the amount of waste established for export under that agreement. Third, Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to decrease the effectiveness of the State's hazardous waste reduction program by encouraging the use of its facilities instead of reduction, recycling or recovery methods. Such a decrease would be highly dependent on the prices charged by various hazardous waste facilities vis. a vis. reduction, recycling or recovery expenses, the cost of transportation to the various types of facilities, and the ease of use among the various types of facilities and reduction methods. Fourth, not considering at least the needs of the State for a hazardous waste facility allows the state to become a dumping ground for hazardous waste generated in other states. 10/ No evidence was presented on any of these points and because of the conclusions of law such an issue is not ripe for consideration in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Trans Pac, Inc., for a permit to construct a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida subject to a permit condition requiring a pre-sale notice as described in this Recommended Order. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1990.
The Issue The issues presented in the case are whether Respondents P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard are liable for violations of state statutes and rules, as alleged in the amended NOV, and, if so, whether the proposed corrective action is appropriate, and whether the proposed civil penalties and costs should be paid by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., is a Florida corporation. P & L Salvage owned and operated an automobile salvage yard at 4535 and 4537 West 45th Street in West Palm Beach, Florida (the “property,” “facility,” or “site”). The property comprises less than two acres. Respondent Marlene Ballard is a Florida resident and the president, treasurer, secretary, and director of P & L Salvage, Inc. Historical Use of the Site Beginning in the 1960s, the site was used as an auto salvage yard, first under the name Johnny’s Junkyard and later as General Truck Parts. In 1981, the owner of the salvage yard, Marie Arant, sold the facility. The record is not clear about the exact identity of the purchaser. The Alliance report, referred to later, states that the property was purchased by “the Ballard family.” The record evidence is insufficient to prove that Marlene Ballard ever owned the salvage yard. The parties agree that the salvage yard was operated for a time as P & L Salvage, which was unincorporated. Then, in January 1990, the site was purchased by Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., which owned the site continuously until January 2007. Marlene Ballard lived in a house on the site from the 1980s until the property was sold in 2007. A separate building at the site was used as P & L Salvage’s office. The general operation of the salvage yard was to bring junk cars and trucks to the site, remove fluids from the vehicles, remove parts for sale, and then crush the dismantled vehicles in a hydraulic crusher to prepare them for transport and sale as scrap metal. The automotive fluids removed from the junked cars were stored on the site in 55-gallon drums for later disposal. Respondents presented evidence to show that the person who had the most knowledge of and managed the day-to-day operations in the salvage yard was an employee named John Boyd. When John Boyd ceased employment at the salvage yard, Marlene Ballard’s son, Thomas Ballard, took over the management of the yard. Respondents contend that no evidence was presented that Marlene Ballard conducted or participated in any activities that resulted in contamination, or that she had authority to prevent any potential contamination that might have occurred. However, Ms. Ballard was familiar with the activities in the yard, having worked and lived on the site for many years. She did the bookkeeping and signed payroll checks. All employees answered to Ms. Ballard. She contracted for environmental assessment and remediation work, and signed the hazardous waste manifests. She was acquainted with the contamination that could and did occur at the salvage yard. Eagle Sanitation, Inc., which operated a roll-off container business, leased the site from September 2005 until January 2007. Eagle Sanitation also obtained an option to purchase the property. At first, Eagle Sanitation only leased about a quarter of the site because there were many junk autos, tires, and other salvage debris still on the site in September 2005. For several months, Thomas Ballard continued to sell auto parts and scrap from the site, and to clear the site. Eagle Sanitation did not have complete use of the site until early in 2006. Eagle Sanitation’s business consisted of delivering roll-off containers for a fee to contractors and others for the disposal of construction debris and other solid waste, and then picking up the containers and arranging for disposal at the county landfill or, in some cases, recycling of the materials. Roll-off containers at the site were usually empty, but sometimes trucks with full containers would be parked at the site overnight or over the weekend. During its lease of the site, Eagle Sanitation did not collect used oil or gasoline and did not provide roll-off containers to automotive businesses. No claim was made that Eagle Sanitation caused any contamination found at the site. Contamination at the Site In 1989, Marlene Ballard contracted with Goldcoast Engineering & Testing Company (Goldcoast) to perform a “Phase II” environmental audit. Goldcoast collected and analyzed groundwater and soil samples and produced a report. Cadmium, chromium, and lead were found in the soil samples collected by Goldcoast. Some petroleum contamination was also detected in soils. These pollutants are all associated with automotive fluids. The Goldcoast report states that groundwater samples did not indicate the presence of pollutants in concentrations above any state standard. The Goldcoast report did not address the timing of discharges of contaminating substances that occurred at the site, except that such discharges had to have occurred before the report was issued in 1989. That is before the property was purchased by P & L Salvage, Inc. During an unannounced inspection of the salvage yard by two Department employees on August 15, 1997, oil and other automotive fluids were observed on the ground at the site in the “disassembly area” and around the crusher. There were also stains on the ground that appeared to have been made by automotive fluids. No samples of the fluids were taken or analyzed at the time of the inspection. The Department inspectors told Marlene Ballard to cease discharging fluids onto the ground, but no enforcement action was initiated by the Department. Ms. Ballard was also told that she should consider removing the soil where the discharged fluids and staining were observed. In early 1998, RS Environmental was hired to excavate and remove soils from the site. This evidence was presumably presented by Respondents to indicate that they remediated the contaminated soils observed by the Department inspectors, but no details were offered about the area excavated to make this clear. In 2004, in conjunction with a proposed sale of the site, another Phase II investigation of the site was done by Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), and a report was issued by PSI in May 2004. The PSI report is hearsay and, as such, cannot support a finding of fact regarding the matters stated in the report. Presumably as a result of its knowledge of the PSI report, the Department issued a certified letter to Ms. Ballard on June 24, 2005, informing her that the Department was aware of methyl tert-butyl ethylene (MTBE) contamination at the facility. MTBE is an octane enhancer added to gasoline. The Department’s June 2005 letter advised Ms. Ballard that Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 required “responsible parties” to file a site assessment report (SAR) within 270 days of becoming aware of such contamination. The letter also informed Ms. Ballard of the proximity of the City of Riviera Beach’s wellfield and the threat that represented to public drinking water. The June 2005 letter was returned to the Department unsigned. In October 2005, the Department arranged to have the letter to Marlene Ballard served by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. The Department received a confirmation of service document that shows the letter was served by a deputy on October 14, 2005, but this document is hearsay and does not support a finding that Ms. Ballard had knowledge of the contents of the letter. The Department did not receive an SAR within 270 days, but no enforcement action was immediately initiated. On December 15, 2006, the Department issued a six- count NOV to P & L. Salvage, Inc. P & L Salvage requested a hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. In January 2007, in conjunction with Eagle Sanitation’s proposed sale of its purchase option to Prime Realty Capital, LLC, Alliance Consulting & Environmental Services, Inc., (Alliance) conducted a site assessment at the site and produced an SAR in April 2007. At that time, as indicated above, P & L Salvage had ceased operations at the site and Eagle Sanitation was operating its roll-off container business there. The SAR states that in January 2007, “[a]pproximately 80 yards of black stained oily-solidified shallow sands were excavated [by Eagle Sanitation] from the central and northeastern portions of the site, where car crushing, fluid draining and battery removal were historically conducted.” The soil contained lead, iron, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic, but testing did not show the excavated soils constituted hazardous materials and, therefore, the soils were disposed at the county landfill. The area of soils where the Department inspectors in 1997 observed automotive fluids and staining appears to have been included in the soils that were excavated and removed in 2007. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. Testing by Alliance of other soils at the site showed “no significant petroleum metals concentrations” and Alliance did not recommend the removal of other soils. The presence of an MTBE “plume” of approximately 30,000 square feet (horizontal dimension) was also described in the SAR. The plume is in the area where the crusher was located. Several groundwater samples from the site showed MTBE in concentrations above the target cleanup limit. The City of Riviera Beach operates a public water supply wellfield near the site. The closest water well is approximately 250 feet from the site. The SAR concludes that “the potential exists for the MTBE plume to be pulled downward” toward the well, and recommends that a risk assessment be performed. Alliance recommended in the SAR that the MTBE contamination be remediated with “in-situ bioremediation” with oxygen enhancement. No remediation has occurred on the site since the date of the Alliance report. The Alliance report did not address the timing of contaminating discharges that occurred at the site. To the extent that Alliance reported contamination in 2007 that was not reported in the 1989 Goldcoast report, that is not sufficient, standing alone, to meet the Department’s burden of proof to show that P & L Salvage, Inc., caused “new” contamination after 1989. Competent evidence was not presented that the Alliance report describes “new” contamination. The authors of the reports were not called as witnesses. No expert testimony was presented on whether the data in the reports can establish the timing of contaminating discharges. It is not the role of the Administrative Law Judge, nor does he have the requisite expertise, to compare the environmental assessments conducted by Goldcoast and Alliance and make judgments about whether some of the contamination reported by Alliance had to have occurred after 1989. Although the Department’s expert, Paul Wierzbicki, testified that it was his opinion that the contamination was attributable to the “operations of the P & L Salvage yard facility,” he was answering a question about “what caused the contamination” and, in context, his testimony only confirmed that the type of contamination shown in the photographs and reported in the site assessment reports was the type of contamination associated with auto salvage yards. Mr. Wiezbicki’s testimony is not evidence which can support a finding that the contamination at the site, other than the automotive fluids and stained soils observed by the Department inspectors in 1997, was caused by P & L Salvage, Inc.1 On June 12, 2007, after reviewing the Site Assessment Report, the Department issued a letter to Marlene Ballard, requesting additional data and analysis. At the hearing, the Department presented a responding letter from Alliance dated June 21, 2007. It was disputed whether the Alliance letter is evidence of Ms. Ballard’s receipt and knowledge of the Department’s June 12, letter. However, even if Ms. Ballard did not know about the Department’s letter in June 2007, she certainly became aware of the letter in the course of this proceeding. The amended NOV issued in January 2008 mentions the letter, and the letter was listed as an exhibit in the parties’ June 4, 2008 Pre-hearing Stipulation. On January 24, 2008, the Department issued an amended NOV which dropped three counts from the original NOV and added two new counts. Most significantly, the amended NOV added Marlene Ballard and Thomas Ballard as Respondents. P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard responded to the amended NOV with petitions for hearing. Thomas Ballard did not respond. At the hearing, the Department presented testimony of employees that were involved in this enforcement action regarding the value of their time expended on various tasks associated with this case. Bridget Armstrong spent eight hours inspecting the site of the contamination, eight hours drafting the NOV and consent order, approximately 30 hours reviewing technical documents, and 15 hours corresponding with Respondents. Ms. Armstrong’s salary at the time was about $20.00 per hour. Paul Wierzbicki spent 16 hours investigating facilities in the area, reviewing the contamination assessment reports, and overseeing the enforcement activity of his subordinates. Mr. Wierzbicki was paid $33.00 per hour. Kathleen Winston spent 10 hours reviewing a site assessment report and drafting correspondence. Ms. Winston’s salary at the time was $23.56 per hour. Geetha Selvendren spent 4-to-5 hours reviewing the site assessment report. She was paid $19.00 per hour at the time. Finally, Joseph Lurix spent three hours reviewing documents. His salary at the time was $34.97 per hour.
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).
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility Permit No. 003397-013-SO (the Permit) should be revoked and the facility closed for the reasons stated in the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) Notice of Revocation (Notice) issued on July 31, 2014.
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties, the Property, and the Dispute The Department administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 403 and the rules promulgated thereunder, including those applicable to construction and demolition debris (C & D) disposal facilities. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns real property located at 6990 Rolling Hills Road, Pensacola, Escambia County (County), Florida. The large, odd- shaped parcel (whose exact size is unknown) is south-southwest of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Pensacola Boulevard (U.S. Highway 29) and has Class III fresh surface waters running in a northeast-southwest direction through the middle of the property. See Resp. Ex. 28. The entire site is surrounded by a six-foot tall fence or is separated from adjoining properties by natural barriers. A railroad track borders on the eastern side of the parcel; the western boundary fronts on Rolling Hills Road; and the northern boundary appears to be just south of West Pinestead Road. Id. The area immediately south of the parcel appears to be largely undeveloped. See Dept. Ex. 40. The Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), a local government body, has an easement that runs along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the railroad track on which a 48-inch sewer pipe is located. An older residential area, known as Wedgewood, is located northeast of the facility on the north side of West Pinestead Road. Id. The closest Wedgewood homes appear to be around 400 or 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property. A community and recreational center, the Marie K. Young Center, also known as the Wedgewood Center, serves the Wedgewood community, is northwest of the facility, and lies around 500 feet from the edge of the property. Established in 2012 where a school once stood, it has more than 200 members. Although non- parties, it is fair to say that the Wedgewood community and County strongly support the Department's efforts to revoke Respondent's permit. Respondent acquired the property in 2007. At that time, an existing C & D disposal facility (the facility) was located on the property operating under a permit issued by the Department. The Permit was renewed in February 2013 and will expire in early 2018. Besides the general and specific conditions, the renewed Permit incorporates the terms and conditions of a Consent Order executed in November 2012, as well as detailed requirements relating to the operation of the facility, water quality monitoring, an odor remediation plan, financial assurance and cost estimates, and closure of the facility. The latter requirements are found in four Appendices attached to the Permit. The facility operates under the name of Rolling Hills Construction and Demolition Recycling Center. All material received by the facility is disposed of in an active disposal pile known as cell 2, located in the middle of the northern section of the parcel. Cell 1, southwest of cell 2 and just east of Rolling Hills Road, was closed a number of years ago by the prior operator. Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County.1/ It currently serves around 50 to 60 active customers, employs 16 persons, and operates between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The former manager, Charles Davidson, who had overseen operations since 2010, was replaced in June 2014, and Respondent blames him for ignoring or failing to address most of the problems encountered during the last three years. Since June, the managing partner of the LLC, Scott C. Miller, has overseen the operations. Unlike Class I or III landfills, a C & D landfill may accept only construction and demolition debris. Construction and demolition debris is defined as "discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature." § 403.703(6), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.200(24). Debris includes not only items such as steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber that are typically associated with construction or demolition projects, but also rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally result from land clearing or land development operations. Id. No solid waste other than construction and demolition debris may be disposed of at the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.730(4)(d). To address and resolve certain violations that predated the renewal of the Permit, the Department and Respondent entered into a Consent Order on November 14, 2012. See Dept. Ex. 2. These violations occurred in 2011 and included the storage and/or disposal of non-C & D debris, and a failure to timely submit an appropriate Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Id. Among other things, the Consent Order required that within a time certain Respondent submit for Department review and approval an RAP; and after its approval to "continue to follow the time frames and requirements of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C." Id. Those requirements included the initiation of an active remediation system and site rehabilitation within a time certain, and the continued monitoring and related corrective action for any water quality violations or impacts. Id. To ensure that it has the financial ability to undertake any required corrective action, the Permit requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance for the corrective action program cost estimates. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-701.730(11)(d); § 2, Spec. Cond. F.1. This can be done through a number of mechanisms, such as a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash escrow. The Permit also requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance to demonstrate that it has the financial ability to close the facility and otherwise provide for the long-term care cost estimates of the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.630; § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Rather than using a cash escrow or letter of credit, Respondent has chosen to use a performance bond for both requirements. These bonds must be updated annually to include an inflation adjustment. Given the many requirements imposed by the Permit and Consent Order, in 2013 and 2014 several follow-up site inspections of the facility were conducted by the Department, and a review of the operations was made to determine if the various deadlines had been met. Also, in 2014, the Department received complaints from the County and neighboring property owners, almost exclusively by those residing in the Wedgewood community, regarding offensive odors emanating from the facility. Based on field observations, the review of operations, and odor complaints, on July 31, 2014, the Department issued a Notice containing eight counts of wrongdoing. The Notice was issued under section 403.087(7)(b), which authorizes the Department to revoke a permit when it finds the permit holder has "[v]iolated law, department orders, rules, or regulations, or permit conditions." To Respondent's consternation, the Department opted to use that enforcement mechanism rather than initiating an enforcement action under section 403.121 or executing another consent order, both of which would likely result in a sanction less severe than permit revocation.2/ The Notice contains the following charges: exceeding surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 (Count I); failing to implement an RAP as required by the Consent Order and Permit (Count II); failing to provide adequate financial assurances for facility closure costs (Count III); failing to provide financial assurances for the corrective action required by the RAP (Count IV); failing to reduce on-site and off-site objectionable odors and to implement a routine odor monitoring program (Count V); disposing non-C & D waste on site (Count VI); failing to remove unauthorized waste (Count VII); and disposing solid waste outside of its permitted (vertical) dimension of 130 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (Count VIII). These allegations are discussed separately below. Although the Notice is based on violations that occurred on or before July 31, 2014, the undersigned denied the Department's motion in limine that would preclude Respondent from presenting mitigating evidence concerning circumstances surrounding the violations and efforts to remediate them after July 31, 2014. Given that ruling, the Department was allowed to present evidence to show that Respondent's remediation efforts have not been successful and that some violations still existed as of the date of final hearing. Respondent disputes the allegations and contends that most, if not all, are either untrue, inaccurate, have been remedied, or are in the process of being remedied. As noted above, Respondent considers the revocation of its permit too harsh a penalty in light of its continued efforts to comply with Department rules and enforcement guidelines. It contends that the Department is acting at the behest of the County, which desires to close the facility to satisfy the odor complaints of the Wedgewood residents, and to ultimately use the property for a new road that it intends to build in the future. Count I - Water Quality Violations The Notice alleges that two water quality monitoring reports filed by Respondent reflect that it exceeded surface water quality standards at two monitoring locations (MW-2 and SW-6) sampled on August 26, 2013, and at one monitoring location (MW-2) sampled on March 4, 2014. The Notice alleges that these exceedances constitute a failure to comply with Class III fresh surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 and therefore violate conditions in the Permit. These standards apply in areas beyond the edge of the discharge area (or zone of discharge) established by the Permit. To ensure compliance with water quality standards, when the Permit was renewed in 2013, a Water Quality Monitoring Report (Appendix 3) was attached to the Permit. It required Respondent to monitor surface water for contamination, identify the locations at which samples must be collected, and specify the testing parameters. All of these conditions were accepted by Respondent and its consultant(s). The monitoring network, already in place when Respondent purchased the facility, consists of six ground water monitoring wells and three surface water monitoring stations. The surface water stations, which must be sampled to determine compliance with water quality criteria, are SW-5, a background location, and SW-6 and MW-2, both compliance locations located outside the zone of discharge. A background location is placed upstream of an activity in order to determine the quality of the water before any impacts by the activity. A compliance location is placed downstream of an activity to determine any impacts of the facility on surface water. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Permit require Respondent to submit semi-annual water quality reports. To conduct the preparation and filing of the reports, Respondent used an outside consulting firm, Enviro Pro Tech, Inc. (EPT). On November 5, 2013, EPT submitted a Second Semi-Annual 2013 report. See Dept. Ex. 5. According to Mr. Miller, who now oversees operations at the facility, EPT did not provide Respondent a copy of the report, or even discuss its findings, before filing it with the Department. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that surface water samples exceeded the Class III Fresh Water Quality Standards for iron, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and mercury at SW-6 and for iron at MW-2. See Dept. Ex. 6. A copy of the Department's report was provided to Respondent and EPT. Notably, the report indicated that background levels were lower than the down-gradient results. Under Department protocol, if the samples at the compliance locations exceed both the regulatory levels and the background, there is a violation of water quality standards. This accepted protocol differs from Respondent's suggested protocol that the background level should be added to the regulatory standard before a comparison with the sample results is made. In sum, except for the reported nickel value at SW-6, a violation which the Department now says it will not pursue, all exceedances shown on Department Exhibits 5 and 6 are violations of the standards. On April 1, 2014, EPT submitted a First Semi-Annual 2014 report. See Dept. Ex. 7. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that the surface water samples at one monitoring location, MW-2, did not meet water quality standards for iron; however, background levels for iron were much higher than downstream. See Dept. Ex. 8. No other exceedances were shown. Although the Department engineer considered the higher background level for iron to be an "inconsistency" since it varied from the prior reports, the reported iron value was treated as a violation when the Notice was drafted. In its PRO, however, the Department concedes that it did not establish a violation of standards for iron, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the Notice. While having no concerns with sampling taken at MW-2, Respondent's expert contends that the reported values for SW-6 are unreliable because the samples taken from that location were turbid and filled with large amounts of suspended solid matter. He noted that the well is located in a wetland area that is "clogged with vegetation." The expert estimated the turbidity at the site to be in the range of 480 to 500 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) and believes the sample was taken in a "high turbid sediment laden area," thus rendering it unreliable. However, at the time of the sample collection, turbidity was measured at 164 NTUs, or much less than the amount estimated by the expert. See Dept. Ex. 5, p. 147. There is no rule or procedure that disallows the use of turbid samples. In fact, they can be representative of actual water quality. Also, rule 62-302.500(2)(d) provides that if an applicant for a C & D permit believes that turbid samples are not representative of water quality, it may use filtered samples by establishing a "translator" during the permitting process. Respondent did not request a translator during the permitting process, nor is any such translator provision found in the Permit. The expert also criticized EPT for holding the 2013 sample for iron for 22 days after collection before reanalyzing it without providing any explanation for this delay. A reasonable inference to draw from the data, however, is that iron was present in the original sample at levels that required dilution and reanalysis. Respondent's expert testified that even though off- site stormwater is discharged onto the property, no offsite monitoring locations exist, and therefore any offsite exceedances would not be reported. He also criticized the sampling locations that were selected by EPT. In fairness to Respondent, a repositioning of the monitoring network and retesting of the samples might have produced more favorable results. But these are measures that should have been addressed long before this proceeding was initiated. Finally, Respondent's expert testified that the implementation of its RAP, now partially completed, will cure all of the reported exceedances. Assuming this unrefuted testimony is true, it should be taken into account in determining an appropriate penalty. Count II - Failure to Implement an RAP In this Count, the Department alleges that after the issuance of an RAP Approval Order on July 3, 2013, Respondent was required to implement the RAP within 120 days. The Notice alleges that as of July 31, 2014, the RAP had not been implemented. An RAP was first filed by Respondent on November 15, 2010. See Dept. Ex. 3. When the Department determined that changes to the RAP were necessary, the Consent Order imposed a requirement that an RAP addendum be filed within 150 days. The date on which the addendum was filed is not known. However, an RAP Approval Order was issued on July 3, 2013. See Dept. Ex. 4. The terms and conditions in the RAP were incorporated into the renewed Permit. The work required by the RAP consists of two phases, with all work to be completed within 365 days, or by early July 2014. Phase I related to the initiation of an active remediation system within 120 days, or by October 31, 2013. This phase requires Respondent to install a pump and treat system at the facility, which will withdraw contaminated groundwater through recovery wells, pump the water to aeration basins to treat the water, and then re-infiltrate the treated water back into the ground. As noted below, the system was not operational until the second week in December 2014. Respondent's failure to implement the approved RAP by the established deadline constitutes a violation of rules 62- 780.700(11) and 62-780.790 and Permit conditions, as charged in the Notice. While Respondent concedes that it did not comply with the deadline for implementing the RAP, it points out that work on Phase I was begun in a timely manner. However, on October 16, 2013, or just before the 120 days had run, a Notice of Violation was issued by the County. See Resp. Ex. 2. The effect of the Notice of Violation was to halt much of the work on Phase I until Respondent obtained a County stormwater permit. Respondent asserts that this was responsible for all, or most, of the delay. The record shows that the EPT consultant did not apply for the County permit until September 10, 2014, or almost one year after the Notice of Violation was issued. Additional information was required by the County, which was supplied on October 23, 2014, but final sealed documents were not filed by the consultant until around Thanksgiving. The permit was issued by the County "a week or so" before the final hearing. Respondent attributes the delay in applying for a County permit to its former manager and his failure to coordinate with the EPT engineers assigned to the project. It also claims that the County failed to process the application in an expeditious fashion. However, the facts suggest otherwise. Once the permit was issued, Phase I was completed on December 8, 2014, and it was operational at the time of the final hearing. Respondent's expert, hired in August 2014, has proposed a modification to the RAP that would avoid impacting the existing stormwater pond. However, the modification must be reviewed and approved by the Department, and as of the date of the hearing, it had not been formally submitted. The Department asserts that the only reason the modification is being sought is to reduce the cost of a performance bond. In any event, in its PRO, Respondent does not argue that the proposed modification excuses its 13-month delay in completing the requirements of Phase I, or the second phase of the project, which should have been completed by early July 2014. Count III - Failure to Provide Financial Assurance This Count alleges that Respondent failed to provide the required annual 2014 financial assurance mechanism that demonstrates proof of financial assurance for closure and long- term cost estimates of the facility. At the beginning of 2014, Respondent had an $836,000.00 financial performance bond in place for closure and long-term costs. The Permit requires that on or before March 1 of each year Respondent revise the closure cost estimates to account for inflation in accordance with rule 62-701.630(4). See § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Once the estimates are approved, the performance bond must be updated within 60 days. In this case, an increase of around $18,000.00 was required. The annual inflation adjustment estimate was not submitted until April 15, 2014. The Department approved the cost estimates the following day and established a due date of June 16, 2014, for submitting a revised financial assurance. Respondent did not have a revised performance bond in place until a "week or two" before the hearing. Other than Respondent's manager indicating that he had a new bonding agent, no evidence was presented to mitigate this violation. The failure to timely update its financial assurance for closure and long-term costs constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.630, as charged in the Notice. Count IV - Financial Assurances for Corrective Action In the same vein as Count III, the Notice alleges that Respondent failed to maintain a financial assurance mechanism to demonstrate proof that it can undertake the corrective action program required under the RAP. Respondent was required to submit proof of financial assurance for corrective actions within 120 days after the corrective action remedy was selected. On July 3, 2013, the RAP Approval Order selected the appropriate remedy. On August 8, 2013, the Department approved Respondent's corrective action program cost estimates of $566,325.85 and established a deadline of October 31, 2013, for Respondent to submit this proof. When the Notice was issued, a corrective action bond had not been secured, and none was in place at the time of the final hearing. This constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.730(11)(d) and applicable Permit conditions. Respondent's manager, Mr. Miller, concedes that this requirement has not been met. He testified that he was not aware a new bond was required until he took over management of the facility and met with Department staff on June 17, 2014. Due to the Notice, Mr. Miller says he has had significant difficulty in securing a bond. He explained that the bonding company is extremely reluctant to issue a bond to an entity faced with possible revocation of its permit, especially if such revocation might occur within a matter of months. Mr. Miller says the bonding company wants 100 percent collateralization to put a bond in place. Nonetheless, he is confident that a bond can be secured if only because its cost will dramatically drop when the RAP project is completed. However, even at hearing, he gave no timeline on when this requirement will be fulfilled. Count V - Objectionable Odors One of the driving forces behind the issuance of the Notice is the complaint about off-site objectionable odors. A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to this issue by witnesses representing the Department, County, Wedgewood community, and Respondent. The Notice alleges that during routine inspections in April, May, and July 2014, mainly in response to citizen complaints, Department inspectors detected objectionable odors both at the facility and off-site. The Notice further alleges that Respondent failed to immediately take steps to reduce the odors, submit an odor remediation plan, and implement that plan in violation of rules 62-296.320(2) and 62-701.730(7)(e) and section 2, Specific Condition E of the Permit. Notably, the Department has never revoked a landfill permit due solely to objectionable odors. Several Department rules apply to this Count. First, objectionable odors are defined in rule 62-210.200(200). Second, a C & D facility must control objectionable odors in accordance with rule 62-296.320(2). Finally, if odors are detected off-site, the facility must comply with the requirements of rule 62-701.530(3)(b). That rule provides that once off-site odors have been confirmed, as they were here, the facility must "immediately take steps to reduce the objectionable odors," "submit to the Department for approval an odor remediation plan," and "implement a routine odor monitoring program to determine the timing and extent of any off-site odors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the odor remediation plan." These same regulatory requirements are embodied in the Permit conditions. See § 2, Spec. Cond. E. At least occasionally, every landfill has objectionable odors emanating from the facility. As one expert noted, "The trick is, how can you treat it." The technical witnesses who addressed this issue agree that the breakdown of drywall, wall board, and gypsum board, all commonly recycled at C & D facilities, will produce hydrogen sulfide, which has a very strong "rotten egg" type smell. The most effective techniques for reducing or eliminating these odors are to spray reactant on the affected areas, place more cover, such as dirt or hydrated lime, on the pile, and have employees routinely patrol the perimeters of the property and the active cell to report any odors that they smell. Although the facility has been accepting waste products for a number of years, the last seven by Respondent, there is no evidence that the Department was aware of any odor complaints before April 2014. While not an active participant in the operations until recently, Mr. Miller also testified that he was unaware of any citizen complaints being reported to the facility prior to that date. However, in response to citizen complaints that more than likely were directed initially to the County, on April 14, 21, and 24, 2014, the Department conducted routine inspections of the facility. During at least one of the visits, objectionable odors were detected both on-site, emanating from cell 2, and off-site on West Pinestead Road, just north of the facility. See Dept. Ex. 14. Because the inspector created a single report for all three visits, he was unsure whether odors were detected on more than one visit. After the inspection report was generated, Department practice was to send a copy by email to the facility's former manager, Mr. Davidson. A Department engineer who accompanied the inspector on at least one visit in April 2014 testified that she has visited the site on several occasions, and on two of those visits, the odor was strong enough to make her physically ill. On a follow-up inspection by the Department on May 22, 2014, the inspector did not detect any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 17. In June 2014, however, a County inspector visited the Wedgewood Center area in response to a complaint that dust was coming from the facility. He testified that he detected a rotten egg type smell on the Wedgewood Center property. At a meeting attended by Mr. Miller and County and Department representatives on June 17, 2014, the Department advised Respondent of its findings and provided Mr. Miller with copies of the inspection reports. On July 1, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector noted a hydrogen sulfide odor on the north, south, and west sides of the disposal area of the facility, and on the top of the disposal pile at the facility. See Dept. Ex. 18. Another inspection conducted on July 9, 2014, did not find any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 19. On July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector again noted objectionable odors at the facility but none off-site. Id. On July 24, 2014, Department inspectors noted objectionable odors on top of the pile, the toe of the north slopes, and off-site on West Pinestead Road. See Dept. Ex. 20. An inspection performed the following day noted objectionable odors on top of the pile and the toe of the north slopes, but none off-site. Id. The Notice, which was already being drafted in mid-July, was issued a week later. In response to the meeting on June 17, 2014, Respondent prepared a draft odor remediation plan, made certain changes suggested by the Department, and then submitted a revised odor remediation plan prior to July 31, 2014. A Department engineer agrees that "in the strict sense it meets the requirements of the rule" and "could work," but there are "two or three things that still needed . . . to be submitted in order for it to be completely approvable." For example, she was uncertain as to how and when dirt cover would be applied, and how erosion would be controlled. Although the plan was filed, it was never formally approved or rejected, and the "two or three things" that the witness says still needed to be done were never disclosed to Respondent. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to accept Respondent's assertion that it assumed the plan was satisfactory and complied with the rule. After the Notice was issued, Respondent set up a hotline for community members to call and report odors. A sign on the property gives a telephone number to call in the event of odors. At an undisclosed point in time, Respondent began requiring employees to walk the perimeter of the facility each day to monitor for odors; spreading and mixing hydrated lime to reduce the odors around the facility; and increasing the amount of cover applied to the working face of the facility. The parties agree that these measures are the best available practices to monitor and eliminate objectionable odors at a C & D facility. Despite these good faith measures, Mr. Miller acknowledged that he visited the facility during the evening a few days before the final hearing in December 2014 and smelled hydrogen sulfide around the ECUA sewer pipe and "a very mild level" by the debris pile. Respondent does not deny that odors were emanating from the facility during the months leading up to the issuance of the Notice. But in April 2014, the County experienced a 500- year storm event which caused significant flooding and damaged a number of homes. Because Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County and charges less than the County landfill, it received an abnormal amount of soaked and damaged C & D debris, which it contends could have generated some, if not all, of the odors that month. Given the magnitude of the storm, this is a reasonable explanation for the source of the odors at that time. Respondent also presented evidence that an underground ECUA sewer pipe that runs on the eastern side of the property was damaged during the storm, causing it to rupture and be exposed. Although ECUA eventually repaired the damaged pipe at a later date, the pipe is still exposed above ground. Until the pipe was repaired, Respondent's assumption that it likely contributed to some of the odors detected by the Department appears to be valid. Finally, Respondent's expert attributes some of the odors to biological degradation from other sources both on-site and off-site, including a large wetland area running through the middle of the property. To a small degree, County testing later that fall confirms this assertion. The County has also been an active participant in the odor complaint issue. In response to complaints received from residents of Wedgewood, in July 2014 it began collecting hydrogen sulfide data using a device known as the Jerome 631X Hydrogen Sulfur Detector. This equipment is used to monitor for the presence of hydrogen sulfur. On July 21 and 22, 2014, samples were taken documenting that hydrogen sulfide was coming from the facility. In early September the County set up a fixed station at the Wedgewood Center, around 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property, to continuously and automatically collect the data. During September and October 2014 the detector reported the presence of hydrogen sulfide at that location 64 percent of the days in those months, and this continued into the month of November. Seventy-five percent of the exceedances occurred when wind was blowing from the south, or when winds were calm. The data also reflected that when the wind was blowing from the meter to the facility, or to the south, hydrogen sulfide was still detected on some occasions. A resident of the Wedgewood community testified that on multiple occasions she has smelled objectionable odors in her home and yard and at the Wedgewood Center, and that these odors have been emanating from the facility for a number of years. Because of the odors, she says fewer citizens are participating in programs hosted by the Wedgewood Center.3/ The evidence establishes that before the Notice was issued, Respondent filed an odor remediation plan that was never rejected; therefore, the allegation that a plan was not submitted has not been proven. However, objectionable odors were detected off-site in June and July 2014, or after the April inspection reports were provided to the facility, and they continued throughout much of the fall. Therefore, the Department has established that the plan was not properly implemented. These same findings sustain the allegation that steps were not immediately taken to reduce the objectionable odors. Counts VI and VII - Disposal and Failure to Remove Unauthorized Waste Counts VI and VII allege that on April 14, 2014, the Department documented the disposal of prohibited or unauthorized waste, including waste tires; and that on July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection that documented the disposal of unauthorized waste, including waste tires, clothing, shoes, and Class I waste, including one electronic item and a grill, in violation of rule 62-701.730(4)(d). The Permit specifies that the facility can only accept for disposal C & D debris. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.2. Another condition provides that if unauthorized debris is spotted after a load is received, the unpermitted waste should be removed and placed in temporary storage in a bin at the sorting area. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.3. The Operations Plan spells out these procedures in great detail. Photographs received in evidence show that during the inspection on April 14, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: tires, a basketball goal, Quiklube material, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, a toy, and a crushed electronic item. See Dept. Ex. 22. Photographs received in evidence show that during an inspection on July 18, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: blanket or clothing, a shoe, a bag of Class I garbage, several bags of household garbage, furniture, an electronic item and garbage, drilling mud, a suitcase, and tires. See Dept. Ex. 23. Respondent's expert, who has trained numerous spotters, including a current Department inspector, established that a de minimis amount of unpermitted waste, which is easily hidden in the debris, is not unusual and would not constitute a violation of the rule. For example, when a building is torn down, numerous thermostats containing mercury vile will be in a C & D container but very difficult to see. Also, workers at construction sites may throw small amounts of leftover food in the pile of debris that goes to the facility. However, he agrees that most, if not all, of the items observed during the two inspections would not be considered de minimis. Respondent does not deny that the unauthorized waste was present on two occasions. However, it contends that one would expect to find some of the items in a C & D dumpster. It also argues that the amount of unauthorized waste was minimal and not so serious as to warrant revocation of its Permit. The evidence supports a finding that on two occasions Respondent violated two conditions in its Permit by accepting non-C & D waste and failing to remove it. Therefore, the charges in Counts VI and VII have been proven. Count VIII - Facility Outside of Permitted Dimensions This Count alleges that on May 22, 2014, the Department conducted an inspection of the facility in response to a complaint that Respondent had disposed of solid waste outside its permitted (vertical) limit of 130 NGVD; that on July 25, 2014, the Department had a survey performed at the facility that confirmed this violation; and that this activity violated section 2.3 of the facility's Operation Plan and Specific Condition C.10 in the Permit. Section 2.3 provides that "the proposed upper elevation of waste at the [facility] will range up to 130-feet, NGVD, which is slightly above original grade[,]" while Specific Condition C.10 provides that "[t]he final (maximum) elevation of the disposal facility shall not exceed 130 feet NGVD as shown on Attachment 3 - Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan." Respondent admits that on July 25, 2014, the maximum height of the disposal pile exceeded 130 feet NGVD. However, it argues that, pursuant to Specific Condition C.10, which in turn refers to the Permit's Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan, the 130-foot height limitation comes into play only when cell 2 is being closed and is no longer active. This interpretation of the conditions is rejected for at least two reasons. First, a disposal pile in excess of the established height would trigger concerns about the integrity of the foundation of the facility. When the 130-foot ceiling was established by the Department at the permitting stage, it was based on calculations that the ground could support the weight of the waste. Second, the facility's financial assurance calculations are based on a set dimension of the site; these calculations would likely be impacted if there were no height restrictions. The Department's interpretation is more reasonable and limits the height of the pile to no more than 130 feet NVGD at any time when the cell is active. The Department has established that Respondent violated Permit conditions by disposing of waste outside its maximum permitted height of 130 feet NVGD. To Respondent's credit, its new consultant, Charles Miller, completed preparation of a height reduction plan on September 3, 2014. See Resp. Ex. 4. Although Mr. Miller says the plan was being implemented at the time of final hearing, it has never been formally submitted to the Department for approval. Under the plan, Respondent proposes to extract all of the existing waste from the pile in the next two years. To reduce the volume of new waste being accepted, Respondent recently purchased a Caterpillar bulldozer, low-speed grinder, and Trommel screener. New waste will be shredded, screened to separate sand and dirt from the material, and then ground and compacted. Mr. Miller anticipates that the facility can achieve up to an eight to one (or at a minimum a five to one) reduction in the size of the waste. This will dramatically reduce the height of the pile and bring it well below 130 feet at closure. But whether cell 2 is now below 130 feet NGVD is unknown. In any event, these proposed remediation steps should be taken into account in assessing an appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking Respondent's C & D Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2015.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 4, 1990, Bio-Med Services, Inc., (hereinafter "BMS") submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER"), an application for the construction of a biohazardous waste incineration facility (hereinafter "facility") to be located on approximately 5.5 acres in the City of LaBelle Industrial Park. The application was prepared, signed and sealed by Robert A. Baker, Professional Engineer, and was signed by Gary V. Marsden, president of BMS. BMS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio-Med Management, Inc., (hereinafter BMM), and was formed for the express purpose of making application for construction of the facility at issue in this case. Gary V. Marsden has held the position of president of BMS for approximately one and one-half years. Prior to becoming BMS president, Gary Marsden was a telephone equipment salesman. Gary Marsden's father, Clarence, is president of BMM, and a director of BMS. The BMS business plan indicates that Clarence Marsden was integral to the formation of BMS, was the primary contact between BMS and engineer Baker, and will act as salesman for BMS. Clarence Marsden has been convicted approximately four times on felony counts related to illegal drug activities. Neither Marsden has any experience related to construction or operation of biohazardous waste incineration facilities. According to the first application, the incinerator facility will utilize two "Consumat-1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. 1/ The Consumat-1200 units are each capable of incinerating approximately 2,000 pounds of waste hourly. The U-Burn incinerator is capable of incinerating 250 pounds of waste hourly. The total waste incineration capacity of the facility is approximately 50 tons daily. The waste to be incinerated consists of biological and biohazardous wastes, primarily from hospitals and medical offices. The facility would not be authorized to incinerate hazardous or radioactive wastes. The application seeks approval to construct an incinerator facility which could operate 24 hours daily, seven days weekly, on a year-round basis. Although the incinerators would be shut down for maintenance and repairs, the applicant hypothesized the constant operation of the facility for the purpose of predicting emissions levels. The air pollution control (hereinafter "APC") system proposed in the first application includes venturi scrubbers, caustic scrubbers, and a 50 foot tall, 30 inch diameter discharge stack. On or about April 19, 1991, BMS submitted amendments to the first application. The amendments, (hereinafter the "second application") were prepared and signed by Mr. Baker. The amendments deleted the venturi scrubbers/caustic scrubbers and substituted dry hydrated lime injection scrubbers and baghouses. The amendments also altered the discharge stack dimensions to provide for a stack height of 65 feet and a diameter of 40 inches. The second application also included a bypass stack to provide for APC system malfunctions. Such bypass stacks provide for uncontrolled discharge of emissions into the atmosphere, when such emissions could further damage a malfunctioning APC system. On or about September 24, 1991, an application was submitted by Eastern Grading, Inc. 2/ for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility to be located on a site outside the City of LaBelle, rather than at the LaBelle Industrial Park. According to the third application, the incinerator facility still proposes to utilize two "Consumat- 1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. The third application deleted the bypass stack system intended to handle emergency situations and substituted a proposed crossover mechanism. The Eastern Grading application, (hereinafter the "third application") prepared and signed by Mr. Baker and signed by Gary Marsden as president of Eastern Grading, Inc., is the application at issue in this proceeding. Subsequent to the filing of the third application, BMS has now abandoned plans to locate the facility on the site identified in the third application and instead seeks approval to construct the biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park site identified in the first application. The proposed site for the facility is located approximately 4,900 feet from the City of LaBelle Public Water Treatment Facility. The raw water supply comes from shallow wells southwest of the city, and is stored at the treatment plant in open holding areas. After sand-filtering and softening, the water is stored in vented tanks. Based upon the proximity of the water treatment plant to the incineration site, there is high potential for impact on the local water supply by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. The site of the proposed facility is located next to the Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision, approximately 75 feet from the closest residence, approximately 2,000 feet from a senior citizen service center, and approximately 3,700 feet from a local nursing home. It is likely that some individuals in the nursing home may be regarded as particularly health sensitive, as are a number of residents of Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision who suffer from respiratory illnesses and who testified during the proceeding. The site is approximately 4,600 feet from a local elementary school, approximately 4,400 feet from an intermediate school, approximately 7,400 feet from a middle school, and approximately 8,600 feet from a high school. Persons with existing respiratory illnesses, elderly persons, and children are regarded as "sensitive receptors" and are substantially more at risk through exposure to airborne chemical pollutants than is the general population. Based upon the proximity of the incineration site to such sensitive receptors, there is high potential for impact on such persons by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. There was no site-specific analysis of the proposed facility done by either the applicant during preparation of the application or by the DER during review of the proposal. The applicant has provided no data related to potential heath risks posed by the proposed facility. The DER has not specifically analyzed such health risks. The third application states that various requirements of the Department will be met. The application provides as follows: "Each incinerator will have the following equipment and operational requirements in order to comply with the requirements of FAC 17-2.600: Particulate emissions will not to (sic) exceed 0.020 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) corrected to 7% oxygen (O2). Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions to be reduced by 90% by weight on an hourly average basis. At least one second residence time at no less than 1800 F. in the secondary combustion chamber. An air lock system designed to prevent opening the incinerator doors to the room environment and to prevent overcharging. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the stack exhaust gases of less than 100 PPMv, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on an hourly basis. The secondary combustion chamber to be preheated to 1800 F. prior to burning and maintained at 1800 F. or greater during active burning of wastes. All incinerator operators will be trained by Consumat Systems or another qualified training organization. A training plan for the operators will be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) prior to the start of operations. Continuous monitoring and recording of temperatures and oxygen will be maintained at the exit of the secondary combustion chamber. Operating procedures and calibration requirements will be submitted to FDER upon selection of monitoring equipment. All air pollution control equipment will be functioning properly during operation of the incinerator system. The list of assurances set forth above are a recitation of the requirements of the DER's rules as provided at Chapter 17- 2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence as to specific equipment and operational requirements is insufficient to support the assertion that the facility will meet such standards. As the applicant's professional engineer, Mr. Baker signed and sealed a statement as follows: This is to certify that the engineering features of this pollution control project have been examined by me and found to be in conformity with modern engineering principles applicable to the treatment and disposal of-pollutants characterized in the permit application. There is reasonable assurance, in my professional judgement, that the pollution control facilities, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the department. It is also agreed that the undersigned will furnish, if authorized by the owner, the applicant a set of instructions for the proper maintenance and operation of the pollution control facilities and, if applicable, pollution sources. Mr. Baker's certification relates only to his opinion that the facility, properly operated and maintained, will be capable of compliance with Chapter 17-2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The engineering and design of the incineration facility have not been completed. The application states, without qualification, that the two Consumat units will be utilized. The remaining equipment, including the entire air pollution control system, is identified by type of component, but is otherwise not specified. Where equipment specifications are provided, such specifications are qualified by language stating that the equipment installed will meet either such specifications "or their technical equivalents". No actual operating or test data related to any of the equipment or systems proposed for use is included in the application. There is no reliable operating or test data applicable to biohazardous waste incineration facilities available for this particular configuration of components. The application fails to contain sufficient information related to "engineering features" to permit a credible determination as to whether or not the incineration facility will conform with modern engineering principles. The application fails to support Mr. Baker's assertion that reasonable assurances are provided that when properly maintained and operated, the facility will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the DER. Although there is no evidence to establish that the applicant intends not to comply with the requirements of the DER's regulations, the application, reflecting the fairly preliminary design of the incineration facility, fails to provide sufficient information to assure that, once final design decisions are made and the equipment acquired, that such equipment will be compatible and configured in a manner which assures compliance with the DER's acceptable emissions regulations. The applicant has no experience in construction or operation of such incineration facilities. There is no other existing and operating biohazardous waste incineration facility using this configuration of air pollution control equipment. Mr. Baker contends that the completion of final design plans and specifications is a relatively straightforward process, but nonetheless, it has not been done. The Consumat incinerators have already been purchased, are used equipment, and were subject to a cursory inspection conducted by a BMS investor prior to purchase and transportation of the used equipment from the original owner in South Carolina. There is no evidence that structural inspections by a qualified metallurgist are contemplated. The Consumat units are starved-air incinerators. A starved air incinerator consists of two chambers, one primary and one secondary. The inflow of air into the primary chamber is controlled to provide for partial combustion and volatilization of wastes. The maximum temperature of the primary chamber is 1400 degrees F. The gases produced in the primary chamber flow into the secondary chamber where the temperature is maintained through gas burners. The minimum temperature in the secondary chamber is 1800 degrees F. The application provides that the waste gases will remain in the secondary chamber for two seconds. Control of temperature and residence time is the secondary chamber is required to complete the combustion process. The draft permit conditions require the applicant to install, maintain and operate continuous emissions monitoring equipment to record the secondary combustion chamber's exit temperature and oxygen level. Each incinerator will have an oxygen probe and a thermal couple at the secondary chamber exit. The oxygen probe will provide data needed to ascertain whether the combustion process is adequate and permits the correction of oxygen levels to the 7% standard required to measure emissions levels. The thermal couple permits the monitoring of exit temperatures. The draft permit also requires BMS to maintain all testing measurements and calibration data, and other information related to equipment maintenance and adjustments. The Consumat units must be retrofitted to permit the residence time and temperature indicated in the application. The application does not contain design or engineering information related to retrofitting the secondary chambers. The U-Burn unit is, according to professional engineer Baker, a "very unique design of a company that's no longer in existence." The U-Burn would be operated only in conjunction with one of the Consumat units. One Consumat and the U-Burn would each have a separate connection into one of the two APC systems. The application provides no design or engineering data related to the connection of the U-Burn unit into the APC system. The application states that the incinerators will be loaded by means of an enclosed ram feed mechanism which will prevent the incinerator from being opened to the room environment and prohibit overloading of the unit. The enclosed ram feed mechanism has not yet been designed. Two parallel lines of identically sized pollution control equipment are proposed, each line designed to meet the requirements of one Consumat unit and the U-Burn unit. Each line of equipment will include a preconditioner ("quencher"), a lime injection dry scrubber, and a fabric filter baghouse. To control emissions, it is necessary to reduce the temperature of gases exiting the secondary chamber, where the minimum temperature is 1800 degrees F. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the gas stream will be preconditioned by the use of water injection to lower the gas stream temperature to 275 degrees F. The water from the preconditioning process will be evaporated as part of the exhaust gases. The preconditioner will be lined with refractory material to withstand the extreme temperature. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the preconditioner, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. There has been no more than preliminary design and engineering work completed for the construction and operation of the preconditioner. The application states that the dry hydrated lime injection system (dry scrubber) and the fabric filter system have been designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-2.600 F.A.C. for particulate matter and HCI emissions control. Upon leaving the preconditioner, cooled flue gases move into the dry scrubber. According to the "Process Description" in the application, an ultra- fine, dry hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) will be injected into the preconditioned gas stream via a metered pneumatic system inside a reactor. Although the velocity of the injection must be sufficient to ensure that the dry lime mixes thoroughly with the flue gases, the application contains no information related to expected injection velocity. Once mixed, the lime reacts with hydrochloric acid to produce calcium chloride. The dry scrubber will collect large particulate matter and will have an airlock system for removal of collected solids. The lime injection rate will be at a minimum of 30% greater than the stoichiometric requirements for the neutralization of the HCI. This system is intended to remove at least 90% of the HCI in the gas stream. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the dry scrubber, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. No more than preliminary design work for the construction and operation of the dry scrubber has been completed. Following dry scrubber treatment, the flue gases proceed to a reverse jet fabric filter baghouse. Baghouse technology is a relatively standard methodology of controlling submicron particulate matter (and dioxins/furans condensed on such matter) and heavy metal vapors. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the reverse jet fabric filter will have a maximum air to cloth ratio of 5 to 1. 3/ Under some conditions, a 5 to 1 air to cloth ratio may result in the filter bags becoming clogged with ultrafine particulates. The baghouse is intended to have a removal efficiency of greater than 99% for submicron particulate matter. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the baghouse, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. A substantial amount of manufacturer literature related to dry scrubbers, baghouses (including the fabric filter bags), and emissions monitoring equipment is included in the application, but is of no probative value given that the applicant has not committed to using any of the equipment for which literature is included. The application indicates that the incineration facility will include a "crossover" between the two APC systems, to provide for the possibility that one APC system could fail. During such "upset" conditions, there is a substantial potential for visible and fugitive emissions, as well as odors and smoke. The applicant has not yet designed the crossover mechanism and has no information related to the actual planned operation of a crossover mechanism. Standard incinerator design provides for the utilization of bypass stacks which permit the discharge of uncontrolled emissions upon the failure of an APC system. The crossover theoretically would shift the discharge from one incinerator's failed APC system to the second incinerator's APC system, during which time the operation of the second incinerator unit would be reduced or would cease in order to provide adequate capacity in the operating APC system for the discharge from either or both operating incinerators. The application does not provide information related to the operation, design or location of the crossover mechanism. There is no information as to how the facility would address the potential situation where, with only one incinerator and APC system operating, an APC system failure would occur. The utilization of the crossover mechanism is unique, there being no similar medical waste incineration facility crossovers in use elsewhere. It is not possible to determine, given the lack of detail in the application, whether the crossover mechanism could be expected to adequately and successfully address potential "upset" situations. The site plan identifies two buildings on the site, one for incineration operations and the second for ash storage. There is no information supplied related to the location or storage of delivered, but unincinerated, biohazardous wastes, although, if the site plan is accurate, such storage apparently occurs within the incineration building. The application states that solid wastes (ash and lime) will be collected and disposed of off-site in an approved landfill. At hearing, BMS submitted an ash residue management plan, providing the applicant's plan to manage ash from the incinerators and the baghouse discharge. The plan was not signed or sealed by the applicant's professional engineer although he attested to the plan at hearing. According to the plan, incinerator bottom ash generated by the facility "will be handled in a manner which will prevent danger of contamination or release to the environment". Ash will be removed from "the consumat Model CS 1200 incinerator" 4/ unit by means of an ash ejection ram and collected in a wet sump, designed to eliminate dust and blowing ash. The wet ("quenched") ash is removed from the water-filled sump by a drag chain from which excess water will drain for reuse in the ash sump. The wet ash will exit the building by conveyer and be deposited into a covered, metal, "roll-off"-type, water tight storage container. When full, the container contents will be sampled and a representative sample provided to a DER-approved laboratory for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ("TCLP") analysis. The container will thereafter be sealed, and the ash trucked to an approved disposal facility. Baghouse waste will include fly ash and reagent waste related to the dry scrubber treatment. Such waste will be removed through a bottom drop hopper discharging into 55 gallon drums. The hopper/drum system will be shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere. Upon filling, the drums will be sampled for the TCLP analysis and then sealed and transported to the approved disposal site. The BMS Ash Residue Management Plan also states: "Type A class waste will be disposed of by Waste Managements, Inc., at their facility located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073. In the event ash residue would not be classified as Type A waste, it will be disposed of by Chemical Waste Management, Inc., whose offices are also located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073." The Ash Residue Management Plan is insufficient to comply with the DER's requirement related to such plans. The plan fails to indicate the capacity of the disposal site or whether the disposal site is intended to receive ash residue from the solid waste combustor for the life of the facility. The plan is ambiguous as to whether the identified sites are actual disposal sites or are offices of the company which will allegedly handle disposition of the ash. The plan fails to address the beneficial uses, if any, of ash residue, although the plan does state that ash recycling is not anticipated. The plan fails to identify contractual requirements, or notification and inspection procedures, which assure that hazardous wastes are not received or burned in the facility. Although the plan states that the incinerator ash will be placed into a wet sump to eliminate dust and blowing ash, and that wet sump water will be recycled into the sump, the plan fails to address the cumulative effects such water reuse and the potential impact of exposure to humans or the environment. As to the baghouse hopper/drum system (shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere) the plan fails to consider other pathways of human or environmental exposure such as through direct contact or ingestion, and the potential for soil and ground water contamination. The application states that any liquids generated from wash-downs and cleaning operations will be collected in a holding tank and thereafter incinerated. The application contains no design or engineering data which identifies the means for incinerating such liquids or establishes that such liquid incineration will be accomplished in a manner which will not adversely affect incinerator or APC operation. Petitioners assert that the facility is experimental in nature because the design is rudimentary and the crossover mechanism is not used in medical waste incinerators of this type. Respondents assert that the facility is not experimental, and that the various types of equipment proposed are in use at other incineration facilities elsewhere. The evidence fails to establish that the entire facility should be properly identified as "experimental", however, there is no credible test data available for a facility utilizing this proposed combination of equipment in the configuration identified in the application. It is likely to expect a biohazardous waste incinerator to emit multiple air pollutants. Such pollutants include particulate matter and hydrogen chloride (HCI), as well as toxic pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents. As to toxic pollutants, the DER reviewed the anticipated chemical emissions of arsenic, mercury, manganese, cadmium, chromium VI, nickel, zinc, lead, tetrachlorodibenzo dioxin (TCDD), and hydrochloric acid. The draft permit in this case requires the proposed facility to conduct emissions tests for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, oxygen and carbon monoxide within 60 days of initially operating the facility, and to conduct annual emissions tests thereafter. At hearing, the applicant agreed to monitor emissions for the toxic pollutants arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents, and further agreed to continuously monitor carbon monoxide and opacity. The DER has established a policy related to the control of toxic emissions from an air pollution source. The "Air Toxics Policy" is an effort by the DER to protect public health from the potential dangers posed by inhalation of excessive levels of toxic air emissions. The DER has a working list of 756 chemicals for which acceptable emission levels have been established. In identifying chemicals for inclusion on the working list, the DER utilized sources which referenced chemicals of concern and also reviewed data related to the air toxics programs of other regulatory agencies. The DER air toxics working list suggests acceptable ambient air concentration levels for the identified toxic chemicals. The acceptable levels are identified as "no threat levels" or "NTL's" and are set forth at average eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentration levels. The DER asserts that the NTL's are conservative figures and that adverse public health consequences are unlikely to occur when ambient concentration emission levels do not exceed the NTL's. In establishing the average eight and 24 hour concentration NTL's, the DER utilized the more conservative of figures available from either the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The OSHA and ACGIH figures are applicable to exposure of a healthy employee to a single chemical for an eight hour working period. The annual NTL's are directly based on EPA health data values listed in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. Of the three NTL's, the EPA- based annual levels are considered to be more accurate. In situations where the eight and/or 24 hour averages are exceeded, additional consideration is given to whether the annual NTL is also exceeded. The DER has not reviewed the data upon which the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH levels rely, and has not independently reviewed the statistical methodology utilized by the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH in calculating the cited agencies acceptable emissions levels. However, the weight of the testimony in support of the methodology, absent specific evidence to the contrary, establishes that such reliance is reasonable. In attempting to establish eight and 24 hour NTL's for use in the DER's Air Toxics Policy, the DER considered the likelihood that air emissions would contain multiple toxic chemicals and would impact a less healthy population (including particularly susceptible individuals) for an extended period of time. The DER reduced the eight hour OSHA/ACGIH concentration by two orders of magnitude, resulting in DER eight hour NTL's which are 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels. The DER further reduced the 24 hour OSHA/ACGIH levels by a factor of 4.2 (based upon dividing the total hours in a seven day period by a 40 hour work week) resulting in DER average 24 hour NTL's which are 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH acceptable occupational levels. Petitioners assert that the uniform safety factors calculated by the DER which resulted in the reduction of OSHA/ACGIH figures to the DER NTL's are arbitrary, and that some NTL's were likely too high and others were too low. However, Petitioners did not identify any of the 756 chemical NTL's on the DER working list as inadequate or excessive. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the DER's utilization of a two magnitude safety factor is appropriate. Based upon the lack of adverse health impacts on the working population subject to OSHA/ACGIH occupational levels, the dearth of toxicological data available for most substances of concern, and absent evidence to the contrary, the inclusion of safety factors which result in an average eight hour NTL 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels and an average 24 hour NTL 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels is a reasonable attempt to prohibit excessive emissions and protect the general public's health from dangers posed through inhalation of such toxic air emissions. The DER annual average air toxic concentration levels are directly derived from EPA data and are distinguished on the basis of whether or not a substance is a carcinogen. For carcinogens, the NTL is based upon a unit risk factor which equates to a one in one million increased risk of developing a cancer related to said chemical. For non-carcinogens, the DER NTL is based upon an "inhalation reference concentration" which relies directly upon inhalation toxicity data, where such data is available. Where "inhalation reference concentration" data is unavailable, the DER NTL is based upon an extrapolation of oral toxicity data. The evidence fails to establish that the reliance of the DER on such EPA data is inappropriate or unreasonable. The DER utilizes the air toxics working list to compare anticipated emissions from a proposed air pollution source to the NTL's. Not all 756 chemical comparisons are made in every case. The comparison is for the purpose of determining whether additional inquiry should be made related to specific chemical emissions. The instant application includes predicted emission rates supplied by engineer Baker. The Baker estimates are based upon actual uncontrolled incinerator emission test results, to which a predicted "control efficiency" was applied for each type of control technology proposed in the application. The control efficiency predictions were based upon a noncommercial Canadian pilot project utilizing a dry-scrubber/baghouse combination, on non peer-reviewed literature and, as to mercury emissions, on a telephone conversation with a representative of the municipal waste industry. At the hearing, Petitioners utilized a data base compiled by Dr. Paul Chrostowsky, who supplied emissions estimates based upon his data base. The data base consists of actual test results from incinerators (including 12 medical waste incinerators) and from peer-reviewed literature. None of the facilities in the Chrostowsky data base reflect data from facilities utilizing a dry scrubber/baghouse system. Half of the incinerators in his data base utilized no controls, one utilized a baghouse, and the remaining five utilized wet scrubbers. Dr. Chrostowsky took the average emissions levels and added one standard deviation to account for uncertainty related to the lack of an operating record for the proposed facility. The emissions estimates produced by Dr. Chrostowsky are deemed to be more reliable and are credited. Dr. Chrostowsky opined that the applicant's estimates did not reflect likely operating conditions and were unreasonably low. According to his estimates, the application underestimated emission rates for hydrogen chloride, arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. He also opined that the application's predicted mercury removal rate of 94% was excessive and that a removal rate 70% would be more likely. However, even given Dr. Chrostowsky's emissions levels, only the 24 hour NTL for hydrogen chloride is exceeded. Although Dr. Chrostowsky's calculated an exceedance of the annual average HCI NTL, the calculation was based on error. Other emissions remain at levels below the DER's level of acceptable emissions established by rule. Utilization of a 70% mercury removal rate still results in mercury emissions within the DER's range of acceptable emissions. As to Dr. Chrostowsky's estimated hydrogen chloride emission in excess of the DER's 24 hour NTL, such calculation appears to have been based on the application's estimated HCI control efficiency of 90%. The application utilized a conservative figure based upon the DER minimum requirement of 90% HCI control, when the actual HCI control efficiency could likely be greater than 90%. However, given the preliminary state of design and the lack of test results and data reflective of this particular equipment configuration, the evidence is insufficient to determine with reasonable assurance that such requirement will be met, or that the 24 hour HCI NTL will not be exceeded. It should be noted that the DER's NTL's address only potential human impact through inhalation, on the assumption that the most likely human ingestion for air emissions is through inhalation. The policy does not address human consumption of toxics though contaminated water supplies or via other pathways, Given the proximity of the proposed facility to local water supplies, the potential for other ingestion impacts exists, and should be examined. The application also included the results from engineer Baker's air dispersion modeling, performed to predict local concentrations of certain pollutants in the ambient air. The results indicate that maximum one, eight, and 24 hour concentrations will occur approximately 100 meters from the stack, and that maximum annual average maximum concentrations will occur approximately 500 meters from the stack. Mr. Baker first utilized a standard screening model developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency specifically for this purpose. Mr. Baker is not an expert in computer modeling and utilizes standard EPA programs to perform such functions. If an initial comparison demonstrates that expected emissions from a proposed pollution source exceed an NTL, additional review of anticipated emissions is conducted to determine whether the initial review data is inaccurate or, if not, whether additional APC technology is required to control the excess emission. The use of an initial screening model is standard scientific practice and is reasonable. Mr. Baker uses the screen model to determine whether there are exceedances of any relevant emissions standards. Where no exceedances occur, it is generally unnecessary to perform further modeling. The Baker screen model relied upon hypothetical meteorological data unrelated to the meteorological variables at the proposed incineration facility site. The screen model results are regarded as an estimation of maximum one hour air pollutant concentrations at or beyond a property line. A set of conversion factors is applied to the maximum one hour air pollutant concentration with the results predicting eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentrations. According to Mr. Baker's screen model results, the proposed facility's emissions did not exceed the DER's air quality standards or the NTL's in the working list. Mr. Baker subsequently utilized a more advanced EPA model, identified as the "Industrial Source Complex" (ISC) model, which projects both short-term and long-term concentrations. Mr. Baker opined that the ISC model provides a more accurate estimation of pollutant dispersion into the atmosphere. In running the model, he relied upon National Weather Service (NWS) surface meteorological data from Fort Myers and on NWS upper air meteorological data from Tampa, (as the DER had directed) and upon default EPA options. The NWS data included five years of weather information. Based on the ISC model, Mr. Baker anticipates that the emissions will not exceed the DER's air quality standards or NTL's. Meteorological conditions in LaBelle may differ significantly from the NWS Tampa upper air meteorological data. Tampa is much closer to the Gulf of Mexico than LaBelle. Lake Okeechobee, located nearby to the east of LaBelle, may impact LaBelle's local conditions. There is no reliable LaBelle meteorological data easily available, and the DER did not require collection of such site-specific data. Although an expert witness opined that, based upon Orlando's inland location, available Orlando NWS upper air data would be more representative of LaBelle conditions than the Tampa data used, the witness utilized the Tampa data to run his models. There is no actual evidence that utilization of Orlando data would have resulted in different pollutant dispersion modeling results than those included in the application. On behalf of the Petitioners, the ISC model was run utilizing the same weather data used by Mr. Baker and the emissions projections calculated by Dr. Chrostowsky, resulting in substantial agreement between the modeling results. Petitioners suggest that the applicant should have been required to provide data related to the dispersion of air pollutants during certain specific meteorological events, such as temperature inversions. Such inversions occur when warm upper air traps the cooler air below, and holds air pollutants close to the Earth's surface. Although the evidence related to such inversions is based upon a one-year frequency of fog incidence for Ft. Myers, Tampa and Orlando (rather than an analysis of temperature and air pressure data) temperature inversions may occur in LaBelle as often as 20 or more times annually. Utilization of a five year set of NWS data would include occurrences of temperature inversions. Fumigation concentrations occur when, during the dissipation of temperature inversions, the cooler and warmer air levels mix, and pollutants concentrations at the top of the cooler air level may be pulled down resulting in short, but intense, concentrations of pollutants at ground level. It is likely that fumigation events occur in the LaBelle area. Stagnation events are similar to fumigation events, although apparently affecting a larger geographic area than does a fumigation event. It is likely than stagnation events occur in the LaBelle area, however, there is no model which simulates a stagnation event. The screen model utilized in this case by the DER does simulate a fumigation event. According to the screen model predictions, maximum pollutant concentrations would occur under neutral stability conditions, not during fumigation events. The DER utilized the ISC model to predict small particle deposition ("fallout"). Fallout is specific to the meteorology of a site. The ISC model does not accurately predict fallout and such modeling is not required by the DER's regulations. However, such information, if available, could provide useful particle deposition data, given the proximity of the site to the City of LaBelle public water supply. Petitioners assert that the DER should have required a full risk assessment to determine the facility's potential for adversely affecting the local environment and residents in the area. A limited assessment, solely related to dioxin risks and acid gas risks, was performed on behalf of the Petitioners. The evidence is insufficient to establish whether or not the proposed incineration facility will result in an adverse health risk to the general population residing in the area, but given the location of the proposed facility and proximity to the local water supply and to sensitive receptors, the completion of a full risk analysis is warranted. As to dioxin levels, the limited risk assessment estimated that the BMS facility would produce a cancer risk ten to 100 times greater than the risk associated with Lee County's proposed nonbiohazardous waste incineration facility. However, the predicted dioxin emission levels are within the range established by the EPA as acceptable. The Petitioner's expert further opined that such EPA figures overestimate the cancer potency of dioxin. An acid gas analysis was performed utilizing the "hazard quotient/hazard index" method of analysis. The hazard quotient/hazard index analysis provides an acceptable approach to determining air emission health risks. Acid gases include hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen fluoride, and sulfuric acid mists. Certain meteorological conditions, including temperature inversions or fog, interact with acid gases to form acid mists and other agents injurious to human lung function. The acid gases/acid mists risk assessment indicates that the incineration facility increases the potential for hazardous health impacts on the local population.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Bio-Med Services, Inc., for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park, in LaBelle, Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact On November 1, 1985, Broward County filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a solid waste construction permit, and on August 23, 1985, an application for a dredge and fill permit. The permits would have allowed Broward County to construct a Class I landfill in southwestern Broward County, Florida. On April 19, 1986, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested solid waste permit, and on November 13, 1986, gave notice of its intent to issue the dredge and fill permit. Petitioners filed a timely request for formal hearing on each permit, and their petitions were consolidated for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the solid waste permit and the dredge and fill permit sought by Broward County be ISSUED. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1987.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondents, Enos Kerr and Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., are guilty of the violations alleged in, should take the corrective actions described in, and should pay the penalties assessed in the Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment, DEP OGC File No. 06-2382-37-HW (the NOV).
Findings Of Fact Enos Kerr is the President and manager and an owner of Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., a dry-cleaning business located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Respondents have been in business for approximately twenty-five years. For approximately ten years, Custom Care has used Vista LPA-142 as a dry-cleaning solvent. Custom Care uses a spotting agent known as "Picrin" for removal of difficult stains. Vista LPA-142 is also known as paraffinic, napthenic solvent, and aliphatic solvent. It contains 100 percent paraffinic or napthenic solvent. It looks like water but is a white oily liquid that has the odor of hydrocarbon and is a kind of "mineral spirits." "Picrin" contains more than 98 percent chlorinated hydrocarbon. It is listed at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 372.65 and exceeds the de minimis concentration defined in 40 CFR § 372.38. On August 18, 2006, John Johnson, a DEP Environmental Specialist, inspected the premises of Custom Care. He found two partially full 55-gallon steel drums of Vista LPA-142 outside of secondary containment, which contained a 110-gallon storage tank and Custom Care's Midwest dry-cleaning machine (which has a base tank that stores used Vista LPA-142 which has passed through a Filter King purification system for reuse in the dry-cleaning machine). He testified that, not only did Mr. Kerr tell him the drums were full or partially full, they were heavy enough from being full or partially full that Mr. Johnson could not move them easily. On August 18, 2006, Mr. Johnson also observed, hanging on the outside of the wall of the secondary containment area, above the 55-gallon drums, some of the clear plastic tubing, a pump, and a PVC pipe extending from the end of the tubing, which were used to transfer Vista LPA-142 from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon storage tanks. The floor beneath the transfer equipment and the 55-gallon drums was not sealed or otherwise treated to render it impervious. In another part of the premises on that date, also outside secondary containment, was a Forenta spotting board used for removal of difficult stains from fabric before placement in the dry-cleaning machine. Various chemicals, including a plastic bottle containing "Picrin," were in a box or tray attached to the spotting board. Beneath the spotting board was an open plastic waste basket used to collect and contain spotting agent suctioned from the item of clothing being cleaned and funneled to the basket. The floor under the spotting board was not sealed. Custom Care's Filter King purification system uses cloth filters. Periodically, Custom Care replaces the filters containing lint from the dry-cleaning process. The old filters are allowed to air-dry in the secondary containment area before disposal in the municipal solid waste dumpster outside the premises. At the end of Custom Care's dry-cleaning process, the dry-cleaned clothes are wrung out during a mechanical spinning cycle and then manually transferred while still damp or somewhat wet to a Huebsch dryer, which is outside secondary containment and on a floor that was not sealed on August 18, 2006. Air- drying is the last step in the process. DEP did not have the filters and lint analyzed to prove that they were contaminated with Picrin or any other hazardous substance. Instead, DEP assumed that there was some contamination, however small, and relied on the federal "mixture" rule that even the smallest amount of hazardous waste contamination turns previously unregulated solid waste into regulated hazardous waste. Count I - Secondary Containment Respondents' factual defenses to Count I, for not having the Vista LPA-142 in secondary containment on August 18, 2006, are: (1) secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent"; and (2) if secondary containment was required, all of the Vista LPA-142 was in secondary containment because the 55-gallon drums and transfer equipment were empty. In support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent because an analysis of a sample from the base tank that collects used Vista LPA-142 after use and filtration for reuse in the dry- cleaning machine indicates the presence of 0.34 percent water. However, the presence of that small amount of water in the sample did not prove that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent. Custom Care also contends that Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent" because Custom Care buys it from Phenix Supply Company, which not only sells product to dry-cleaners but also sells to other businesses for other uses, making Phenix Supply something other than a "wholesale supply facility." This contention is rejected. See Conclusion 33, infra. Also in support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents pointed to information received from the producer of Vista LPA-142 that it was biodegradable to carbon dioxide and water. However, biodegradation would occur only in the presence of water and naturally-occurring microorganisms and aerobic conditions. Such biodegradation does not mean that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum- based, dry-cleaning solvent. Respondents also believed Vista LPA-142 was not a petroleum-based dry-cleaning solvent because it has a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit. But there was no evidence to prove that having a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit means that the Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum-based, dry-cleaning solvent. In support of their second defense to Count I, Mr. Kerr denies telling Mr. Johnson the 55-gallon drums were full or partially full and maintains that the presence of a bung wrench on one of the drums was a fail-safe sign that both were empty (and, essentially, proved that Mr. Johnson was lying). Supposedly, according to Respondents, the Vista LPA-142 always is transferred immediately upon delivery from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon tank and, sometimes, also into the base tank, and that the bung wrench is placed on one of the empty drums as a signal to the supplier that the drums are empty and ready to be removed when the supplier returns in two weeks to check on the drums to see if they are empty and ready to be picked up. This explanation is not logical. To the contrary, the use of the bung-wrench signal tends to prove the opposite--i.e., that the drums were not empty. If the Vista LPA-142 always is immediately transferred in its entirety, there would be need for a bung- wrench signal. Indeed, the Vista LPA-142 could be immediately transferred by the supplier (or by the Respondents while the supplier was still on the premises). In addition, Mr. Kerr conceded that there have been many other occasions when the 55- gallon drums were not completely transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank immediately upon delivery. There also have been occasions when three 55-gallon drums have been delivered by the supplier, all of which would not fit into the 110-gallon reserve tank and the base tank. In addition, during an enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, to discuss a draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report, while noting other issues with findings in the report, Mr. Kerr did not take issue with findings concerning the 55- gallon drums. Also in support of their second defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that the transfer equipment is emptied of all Vista LPA-142 before it is re-hung on the wall. This can indeed be accomplished by quickly extracting the PVC extension from the drum, reversing its orientation by 180 degrees so that it point toward the ceiling, and continuing to run the pump until the tubing is empty. In any event, while stains on the concrete floor under where the PVC pipe is hung on the wall may be from Vista LPA-142, which would suggest that the procedure is not always followed to perfection, the NOV did not cite Respondents having the transfer equipment outside of secondary containment. Count II - Unsealed Flooring Respondents' factual defense to Count II, for not having the flooring sealed between the secondary containment area where the dry-cleaning machine was and where the Huebsch dryer was, or where the 55-gallon drums were, is that secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry- cleaning solvent." Factually, that defense already has been addressed in Findings 11-14, supra. Count III - Disposal of Solid Waste Respondents' factual defenses to Count III, for unpermitted and unauthorized disposal of solid waste (i.e., the filters and lint) on August 18, 2006, are: (1) that disposal of the filters and lint in the municipal solid waste dumpster is permitted and authorized because they are not hazardous waste; and (2) that, if they were hazardous waste, they were hazardous due to contamination with Picrin, not with tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc," as alleged in the NOV. In support of their first defense to Count III, Respondents contend that all Picrin used in spot removal would be suctioned out of the item of clothing and collected in the container below the spotting board, or would be evaporated by the steam used in the spot removal process. Indeed, Picrin's boiling point is 165 degrees Fahrenheit, which is lower than the temperature of steam. Respondents contend, as proof of their first defense, that if any trace of Picrin remained on clothing after spot removal, it would be diluted in the Vista LPA-142 used in the dry-cleaning process and then returned to the base tank for reuse after the clothes are wrung out, but that a laboratory analysis of a sample of from the base tank did not indicate the presence of anything but water. However, actually the analysis was only performed to detect the presence of water; the sample was not analyzed for the presence of Picrin, or any of its breakdown products, or anything other than water. There may be traces of Picrin in the contents of the dry-cleaning machine's reservoir. Besides, even if there is no Picrin in the dry-cleaning machine's base tank, that evidence would not preclude the possibility that Picrin is filtered out by the Filter King purification process and is present in the filters and lint. Regardless, while the first defense to Count III was not proven, DEP presented no evidence on the question whether it is likely the filters and lint would be contaminated with Picrin. Rather, DEP's evidence assumed contamination without any further proof. As to Respondents' second defense to Count III, the NOV does in fact reference tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc." However, it also calls the chemical "Picrin ® which contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." The confusion arose because, during his inspection, Mr. Johnson obtained from Custom Care's files a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Picrin. When he consulted with the manufacturer, he was told that the MSDS was out-of-date, and the manufacturer provided him with the current MSDS for Picrin. Then, the draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report discussed during the enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, referred to "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Trichloroethylene ('Perc')." Mr. Kerr pointed out that "perc" was tetrachloroethylene, not trichloroethylene. From this, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Byer understood Mr. Kerr to be admitting to the use of "perc," which he was not. In an attempt to correct the report in accordance with Mr. Kerr's comment, DEP modified the report so that the final draft referred to: "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." Even if the NOV is not defective in referring to "Perc" instead of clearly stating that Picrin was the alleged hazardous waste involved, DEP failed to prove that Picrin was mixed with the filters and lint. For that reason, DEP did not prove the allegations in Count III. Count IV - Investigative Costs The Department's proof of investigative expenses incurred consisted of the salary compensation paid to its investigators. Mr. Johnson’s salary is $17.53 per hour. He spent approximately 55 hours conducting inspections and investigating this case, which totals $964.15. Mr. Byer’s salary is $22.87 per hour. He spent approximately 96 hours investigating this case, which totals $2,195.52. Corrective Actions Upon re-inspection of the premises on November 8, 2006, Respondents were in compliance with all requirements. Deliveries of Vista LPA-142 were being transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank and base tank by the supplier upon delivery, and Respondents had sealed the flooring appropriately. It is not clear from the evidence what was being done with the filters and lint, but apparently they were being appropriately disposed of as hazardous waste at the time of the follow-up inspection. Other Mitigating Circumstances The evidence reflects a misunderstanding on the part of Respondents that, because Custom Care uses Vista LPA-142 and is considered a "mineral spirits" dry-cleaner, as opposed to a "perc" dry-cleaner that uses "perc" or some other form of chlorinated hydrocarbon that is a hazardous material in its dry- cleaning machine, it is not governed by dry-cleaning statutes and regulations.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment action.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has had diabetes since his youth and requires regular insulin and other medications for his condition. However, even with medication, Petitioner experiences a variety of symptoms due to low or high blood sugar. At the time relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner’s symptoms ranged from mild to severe and included periods of disorientation, faintness and passing out. Around October 1986, Petitioner was hired by Bay County (County) as an Equipment Operator. In that position, he was required to drive trucks. At the time of his employment, the County was aware of Petitioner’s diabetes. However, the evidence was not clear that the County was aware of the severity of Petitioner’s diabetic symptoms at the time of his hire or that Petitioner’s diabetes might have been severe enough to constitute a handicap at the time of his hire. Unfortunately, Petitioner had two accidents during his tenure as an Equipment Operator. Petitioner’s first accident occurred in 1989 and resulted in a reduction of pay. Petitioner’s second accident occurred in 1990 and led to his demotion from the Equipment Operator position. After his demotion, Petitioner assumed the position of Maintenance II with the County. In October 2005, the County changed the title of the Maintenance II position to Senior Maintenance Worker. Under either title, the duties of the maintenance position required heavy physical labor outdoors. The duties included shoveling, lifting, road work and ditch work. Such work was performed in all types of weather experienced in North Florida, including high heat conditions. Petitioner remained in the Senior Maintenance Worker position until December 2, 2007. At some point around early 2005, during Petitioner’s employment as a maintenance worker with the County, his diabetes became a handicap that impacted his major life functions. Petitioner experienced many episodes where he became uncooperative, faint and/or disoriented because of his diabetes. Some of the episodes occurred without warning when Petitioner would become uncommunicative, begin wandering, or pass out. Other episodes had some warning when Petitioner would report that he felt ill and needed to rest or take medication. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner’s supervisors and co- workers were aware of his diabetic condition and would assist him in recuperating from these hypoglycemic or other diabetic- related episodes. Additionally, although the record is not clear, there was some evidence that summer heat in combination with strenuous labor exacerbated Petitioner’s ability to control his diabetic symptoms. On the other hand, there was some evidence that indicated Petitioner could experience symptoms from his diabetes under any environmental or working conditions. In 2005, the episodes were significant enough for the County to require Petitioner to undergo a medical examination to assess his fitness to safely perform his duties as a maintenance worker. At that time, the doctor recommended that Petitioner learn to control his diabetes better and be monitored for several months to see if Petitioner gained control of his diabetic episodes. Significantly, the doctor did not find Petitioner unfit to perform his duties as a maintenance worker. Petitioner was never denied a break that he needed as a result of his diabetes and was not disciplined because of his diabetic episodes. Indeed, throughout Petitioner’s employment as a maintenance worker, the County reasonably accommodated Petitioner’s diabetic condition and, as needed, allowed him to sit in the shade, eat, rest, test his blood sugar levels, and/or take medications. County supervisors provided Petitioner candy bars or soft drinks to help resolve his diabetic episodes, allowed Petitioner to take unscheduled breaks, leave work early because of his diabetes, and, at least once, provided a County vehicle to transport Petitioner to his home to get medications. Throughout the years of his employment with the County, Petitioner submitted job interest forms to the County. The job interest forms did not demonstrate that there were job openings or positions available at the time Petitioner expressed an interest in those jobs. The jobs Petitioner expressed an interest in were equipment operator, heavy equipment operator, lab field technician, dump truck driver, parks maintenance worker, traffic sign technician, and water treatment plant operator trainee. Petitioner was interested in the positions identified in the job interest forms because he wanted to better himself professionally. Importantly, Petitioner did not pursue the jobs identified in the various job interest forms he submitted as reasonable accommodations for his diabetes. The fact that the County’s doctor indicated in a 2005 medical examination and report assessing Petitioner’s fitness for duty that work under less strenuous conditions might be warranted should Petitioner not gain better control of his diabetes does not demonstrate that Petitioner requested or required transfer to another position in order to reasonably accommodate his diabetes. Indeed, the documentary evidence demonstrated Petitioner did gain control over his diabetic episodes in 2006 and 2007 with reports of such episodes being substantially reduced and one doctor, in 2007, advising the County that Petitioner could drive a truck as long as he monitored his blood sugar adequately. The evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner sought transfer to a lighter-duty position as a reasonable accommodation until late 2007 as described later in this Recommended Order. Moreover, all but one of the job interest forms Petitioner submitted during his employment with the County sought reemployment to the equipment operator position from which he was demoted. All of these positions required driving or operating machinery. They all required heavy physical exertion and lifting between 45-to-90 pounds. All positions also required exposure to the heat from the sun and exhaust from machinery. However, the evidence demonstrated that these positions were not as strenuous as the maintenance position that Petitioner held. These positions were also promotions from his maintenance worker position. Additionally, Petitioner offered no evidence that his driving had improved or that he was qualified to operate heavy equipment or drive trucks given his insulin-dependent diabetes and the severe symptoms that he experiences as a result of his diabetes. In fact, since Petitioner’s symptoms included disorientation, faintness and passing out, it would have been negligent for the County to allow Petitioner to operate trucks or other heavy equipment. In short, none of the equipment operator/driver positions constituted a reasonable accommodation for Petitioner. As for the other jobs of Laboratory Analyst I, Parks Maintenance Worker, Traffic and Sign Technician or the Water Treatment Plant Operator Trainee positions that Petitioner expressed an interest in, Petitioner did not know the minimum qualifications for these positions and did not offer any evidence that he was qualified for such positions. Similarly, Petitioner offered no evidence that he sought these positions as reasonable accommodations for his diabetes. Additionally, Petitioner’s interest in these jobs was expressed prior to 2007 or 2008, well outside the relevant time period for purposes of this discrimination claim. In September 2007, Petitioner provided the County a Family Medical Leave Act certification from Dr. Steven Wise that stated he could perform all of the essential functions of the maintenance worker position he held. The doctor’s notes do not state that he is unable to perform the duties of his maintenance worker position under current working conditions. In fact, Petitioner never gave the County any document that stated he could not perform the duties of the maintenance worker position and needed a less strenuous and hot job in order to accommodate his diabetes. On October 18, 2007, Petitioner conducted himself in a rude, combative, and extremely argumentative manner during a County-sponsored Diabetes Awareness Seminar. As a result, Petitioner was suspended without pay for one day. On November 1, 2007, Petitioner erupted into a profanity-laced tirade at the workplace only one week after serving the suspension for his outburst during the County’s Diabetes Awareness Seminar. Petitioner gestured his middle finger at a co-worker, threatened to beat an employee’s a _ _, and told the co-worker f_ _ _you, “if you stand up I will kick you’re [sic] a _ _,” “loud mouth punk,” and “you smart mouth d _ _ _head.” Petitioner directed his threats and profanity at co- workers and supervisors in response to another person who had parked their vehicle improperly and blocked or interfered with Petitioner’s ability to move his parked vehicle. At the time, Petitioner was undergoing a change from insulin shots to a continuous insulin pump. Such a change requires a period of adjustment in order for the pump to provide the correct dose of insulin to the user. There was no evidence that the County was aware of the change in Petitioner’s insulin regimen at the time of these outbursts. Additionally, the evidence was unclear that the change in Petitioner’s insulin regimen caused either of these outbursts although such behavior is consistent with a hypoglycemic reaction. As a result of Petitioner’s behavior, the County recommended his termination. Notably, such aggressive outbursts could have led to any employee’s termination, irrespective of whether the employee was handicapped or not, since the ability to get along with co-workers is essential to any working environment. Petitioner was provided a pre-termination hearing prior to the County making a final decision on his recommended discharge. During Petitioner’s pre-termination hearing, he explained that his profanity-laced outburst resulted from a low blood sugar episode and that he felt it was due to the changes he was undergoing in his insulin regimen. Petitioner’s spouse, who is a nurse, also explained his diabetic condition to the County Manager. Petitioner also submitted a note from his physician, Dr. Steven Wise, stating that a “job requiring less heavy physical exertion” would help Petitioner control his diabetes. Petitioner asked that he remain employed with the County and be allowed to transfer to a job with little or no physical exertion, less manual labor, and that was not exposed to the elements. Based upon Petitioner’s claim that his diabetes caused the outburst, his wife’s explanation of his diabetic condition, and the doctor’s note, the County decided to provide Petitioner an opportunity to remain employed in a less strenuous position. Ms. Smith, the County’s Human Resources Director, reviewed Petitioner’s personnel file to ascertain what jobs he had previously demonstrated an interest in and what positions he might be qualified for. After review, the Solid Waste Attendant position was the only position the County had available in November 2007 that fit the less heavy physical exertion requirement requested by Petitioner. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a list of available County jobs for 2007 and 2008. The list does not indicate which of the jobs was available in November 2007 when Petitioner first sought a job transfer as a reasonable accommodation. Additionally, the jobs Petitioner expressed an interest in were the same jobs Petitioner had expressed an interest in that were discussed earlier in this Recommended Order. As to those positions, the record shows that either Petitioner was not qualified for those jobs or there was no substantial or credible evidence that demonstrated the availability of any other less strenuous positions that Petitioner was qualified for in November 2007. Sometime after the pre-termination hearing, the County offered Petitioner the position of Solid Waste Attendant. At some point, the County met with Petitioner before he accepted the Solid Waste Attendant position. At that meeting, Petitioner was told about the duties of the Solid Waste Attendant position. Those duties included counting money, inputting data into a computer, and/or processing paperwork. Two of the essential functions of the Solid Waste Attendant position were the ability to use computers and the ability to make correct change when handling cash. At the time, and even though Petitioner now admits he is not good at math and has not used a computer to any great extent, Petitioner was pleased with the Solid Waste Attendant position and did not raise any concerns or objections regarding his ability to perform the duties of that job. In fact, Petitioner testified during the hearing that he “thought that it would be a good job.” Petitioner accepted the Solid Waste Attendant position and started work on December 3, 2007. He did not lose any pay or benefits when he was transferred to the Solid Waste Attendant position. As with any other County employee, Petitioner was on performance probation status when he assumed the Solid Waste Attendant position. The County’s probationary employee policy allows employees to be discharged prior to the completion of the probationary period. Petitioner was in the Solid Waste Attendant position for approximately two and a half months. With the exception of two weeks (December 28, 2007, until January 14, 2008) that he missed because of hand surgery on his non-dominant left hand, Petitioner spent the remaining ten weeks in training. However, prior to Petitioner’s leaving for surgery on his left hand he was having problems performing the Solid Waste Attendant’s duties. Upon Petitioner’s return to work on January 14, 2008, Petitioner was placed on light duty. He was not restricted in relation to the use of his left hand. However, for a short time, use of his left hand was difficult since it required elevation. Importantly, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner’s surgery on his left hand significantly interfered with his ability to perform the duties of the Solid Waste Attendant position over the period of time he worked in that position. Nor, was there any credible evidence that Petitioner’s large hands hindered his ability to use the computer keyboard at work. Petitioner’s difficulties in mastering the duties required in the position did not involve the speed with which he could input data into the computer system. His problems did involve his ability to do math, understand the waste computer program and learn the codes for appropriately accounting for solid waste disposal. John Beals, Rose Day, and Cynthia Thompson trained Petitioner in the duties of the Solid Waste Attendant position for periods ranging from a couple of weeks to two months. Petitioner was provided training on how to complete solid waste attendant paperwork, computer operation, scale operation, customer service, and cash-handling procedures. Despite the training, his job performance in the Solid Waste Attendant position was unsatisfactory. Specifically, Petitioner was unable to retain the information necessary to complete solid waste attendant tasks, did not understand the WasteWork computer program, did not count money correctly when giving change, could not remember account numbers or material codes relevant to required environmental accounting for solid waste processing, failed to complete forms correctly, and could not multi-task while processing customers leaving waste at the solid waste facility. Petitioner’s performance did not improve after his return from the hand surgery. As a result of Petitioner’s inability to understand the Solid Waste Attendant’s job duties and unsatisfactory work performance in the position, the County terminated Petitioner’s employment during his probationary period. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner’s termination was based on his diabetic condition or was a pretext for discrimination based on his handicap. Petitioner simply could not perform the essential functions of the Solid Waste Attendant job. Finally, the evidence did not demonstrate that any other position was available to Petitioner for which he was qualified. Given these facts, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner was discriminated against based on his handicap and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31st day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecile M. Scoon, Esquire Peters & Scoon 25 East Eighth Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Reynaldo Velazquez, Esquire Velazquez Law Firm, P.A. 100 Almeria Avenue, Suite 340 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) may issue to Respondent Republic Services of Florida, L.P. (Republic), permits to construct and operate a Class III landfill, pursuant to Permit Numbers 266830-003-SC/01 and 266830-004-SO/01, as modified as set forth below.
Findings Of Fact Background On June 30, 2009, Republic filed with DEP an application for a permit to construct and operate a Class I landfill (Application). In response to DEP's request for additional information dated July 30, 2009 (RAI), Republic filed a response dated September 14, 2009 (RRAI), upon receipt of which, DEP deemed the Application to be complete. References to the Application typically include the Application, RRAI, and other materials, such as reports, plans, and drawings, that are part of the Application, as well as three subsequent modifications, which are detailed below. Republic revised several reports, plans, and drawings in the RRAI; references to these items, such as the Engineering Report and Operation Plan, are to the versions contained in the RRAI. On November 13, 2009, DEP filed its intent to issue construction permit #266830- 003-SC/01 (Construction Permit) and intent to issue operation permit #266830-004-SO/01 (Operation Permit; collectively, the Permit). Republic Services, Inc. and its affiliates constitute the second largest waste-management operator group in the United States. Their market capitalization is just over $11 billion. The capitalization of the affiliate formed to operate the subject landfill is doubtlessly less than $11 billion, as the record does not suggest that any significant part of the overall capitalization of Republic Services, Inc., and its affiliates would be at risk in the operation of the proposed landfill. Republic presently owns and operates a Class III landfill in the City of Bartow, Polk County, known as the Cedar Trail Landfill. The oldest part of this landfill is an unlined Class III landfill of 52.5 acres in the center of the property owned by Republic. Immediately west of this unlined landfill is a 30.7-acre lined Class III landfill, which comprises cells 1-4. The Cedar Trail Landfill is located at 2500 West State Road 60, about three miles west northwest of the intersection of State Road 60 and State Road 98, which marks the center of Bartow. The landfill is immediately west of E.F. Griffin Road. Petitioners Frost live on E.F. Griffin Road, about one mile north of the Cedar Trail Landfill. Petitioner Highland Lakes Estates Homeowner's Association serves a residential subdivision known as Highland Lakes Estates. Highland Lakes Estates occupies a notch at the southeast corner of Republic's property. Aerial photographs reveal the changing land use of the land on which Cedar Trail Landfill is situated. Fifty years ago, the land was vacant with indications of agricultural uses. At the site of the proposed landfill were mostly citrus groves on the west side and some rangeland or vacant land on the east side. Ten years later, a large area immediately northeast of the subject land reveals the effects of strip mining for phosphate. Three years later, in 1971, the mined area had greatly expanded to encompass all or nearly all of the subject site and much of the surrounding area, including the western half of what would become Highland Lakes Estates. By 1980, the pits had been refilled and active mining had ceased, and the streets had been constructed for what is now known as Highland Lakes Estates. By 1993, about three dozen homes had been built in this residential, large-lot subdivision. 9. The Cedar Trail Landfill was constructed in the early 1990s as an unlined construction and demolition debris landfill. Now designated an approved landfill for Class III waste, this facility accepts such waste as is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(14) (2010), which includes construction and demolition debris, yard trash, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, paper, glass, furniture (but not white goods), plastic, and other materials not expected to produce leachate that presents a risk to the public health or environment. A zoning/land use map reveals that the land for which the proposed landfill is proposed is designated "sewage/borrow pits/spray fields." Highland Lakes Estates occupies land that is designated single-family residential with a density of one dwelling unit on up to 2.49 acres. The Cedar Trail Landfill has been the subject of three recent environmental resource permits (ERPs). Appendix R to the Application is an individual ERP issued in April 2009, and Appendix R to the RRAI is a conceptual ERP issued in March 2005. The April 2009 ERP mentions that the entire stormwater project was conceptually approved by an ERP issued on September 10, 2008, but this ERP is not part of the record. In any event, these ERPs approve the construction of a comprehensive stormwater or surface water management system for the entire Republic property. In particular, the April 2009 ERP permits the construction of a borrow pit at the southeast corner of the Republic property and a modification of the perimeter ditch/wet retention system. The April 2009 ERP states that the permitted stormwater management system will provide total onsite retention for runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The April 2009 ERP requires 2.8 acres of compensation for 2.8 acres of encroachment in the 100-year floodplain. Specific Condition 14 prohibits excavation of the borrow pits to a clay confining layer or limestone bedrock layer. Specific Condition 20 prohibits the mixing of leachate with stormwater and provides that, if leachate enters stormwater, the stormwater becomes leachate. Presumably reflecting this permitting activity, Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, is the site plan, including the unlined Class III landfill, the four-cell lined Class III landfill immediately to the west of the unlined landfill, and the eight cells proposed to accept Class I waste. These eight cells are immediately south of the four cells of the lined Class III landfill. The two northernmost of these eight cells abut, on their east boundary, the unlined Class III landfill. The remaining six cells abut, on their east boundary, an 800-foot wide borrow pit, which lies between these cells and Highland Lakes Estates. Immediately north of Highland Lake Estates is a second borrow pit, and west of this borrow pit is the unlined Class III landfill. The other major feature on the site plan is a third borrow pit running, from west to east, along the north border of the lined Class III cells, the unlined Class III landfill, and the second borrow pit. Bearing no signs of ambitious reclamation activity, the backfilled mining cuts host large water storage areas and, as described in the application for the March 2005 ERP, wetlands of "very poor quality." The backfilled soils are best described as complex surficial soils, consisting mostly of fine sands with varying amounts of organics, silts, and clays. Geotechnical investigations of the Cedar Trail Landfill suggest that mining depths, although variable, probably averaged 40 feet. Petitioners and Intervenor are substantially affected by the Permit and the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, which will stand nearly 200 feet above grade and will be the focus of substantial activity six days per week during its years of operation. Like Petitioners, Intervenor owns land in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Trail Landfill, which is in the jurisdiction of Intervenor, and Intervenor's various municipal operations are much affected by whether the proposed Class I landfill is permitted. Among other things, Intervenor has agreed to accept untreated leachate from the proposed landfill. Petitioners Frost built their home in 1980 or 1981. During the hours of operation of the existing landfill, Petitioners Frost constantly hear the beeping noise of heavy- duty equipment, presumably a safety device when the equipment is moved. Over a dozen lots in Highland Lakes Estates abut the property line of the Cedar Trail Landfill, and the closest residence is about 1000 feet from the nearest proposed Class I cell. At present, the existing landfill subjects the Highland Lakes Estates to constant noise during operating hours and a coating of dust inside their homes. Several residents of Highland Lakes Estates testified. Hard-working people, some of whom are now retired, these residents decided to purchase homes in Highland Lakes Estates because it was a sunny, healthy place to live. Over time, most of these residents, by varying degrees, have come to accept the fact of the Class III operations at Cedar Trail Landfill, but they object to the substantial intensification of land use that will result from a regional Class I landfill. One resident testified that she finds in her pool dirt that has escaped from the existing landfill, and she has become concerned about her grandchildren coming over to swim. Another resident testified that he only began closing his windows five or six years ago when the noise levels at the existing landfill increased; he eventually had to install a window air- conditioner. The same resident testified that the green herons and snowy egrets that he used to see around his house have not returned for five years, and his wife, who has health problems, including respiratory distress, would suffer from the expanded landfill operations. Application, RRAI, and Permit, Including Modifications The Permit incorporates the Application, including the RRAI, Engineering Report, Operation Plan, and drawings. Thus, all of the documents are part of the Permit. In the Application, Republic proposes to convert cells 5-8, which are not yet constructed, from a Class III to a Class I landfill and add four new cells adjacent to the unused cells. The unfilled portion of Cells 1-4 would continue to receive only Class III waste. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(13) (2010), Class I waste is all solid waste, other than hazardous waste, that is not otherwise prohibited by rule. The Application states that the proposed landfill will serve communities within 100 miles. The service area of this regional landfill will thus extend in central Florida from Marion to Osceola counties, along the Gulf Coast from Pasco to Lee counties, and along the Atlantic Coast from Volusia to Martin counties. As stated in the Application, this service area is populated by 9.7 million persons, who would daily account for 3000 tons of waste at the Cedar Trail Landfill. Initially, according to the Engineering Report, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste, but, once the existing Class III cells are filled, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste plus the 1400 tons per day of the Class III waste that is currently going into the existing landfill. As revised by the RRAI, the life expectancy of the proposed landfill is seven years. The Application states that Republic will employ an attendant, a trained operator, and 3-5 spotters at the landfill. The Application reports that the landfill would operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the working face would be covered daily. The Application reports that Republic would install seven new detection wells and use 17 existing wells for monitoring groundwater and would use two existing staff gauges for monitoring surface water, evidently at a single location, as discussed in the next paragraph. 23. Application Appendix V is the Water Monitoring Plan. Appendix V states that surface water will be monitored every time that the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area discharges offsite, but not more frequently than weekly. Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, shows that the sole surface water monitoring location is close to the leachate storage tanks, which are described below. 23. Appendix V also requires leachate monitoring, "at least annually," for five field parameters--specific conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, colors, and sheens; eight laboratory parameters--including chloride, mercury, and total dissolved solids; and the parameters listed in 40 CFS Part 258, Appendix II, which includes a comprehensive list of volatile organic compounds; persistent organic pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (a major dioxin) and Dibenzofuran; and metals, including lead and chromium. Fourteen days prior to all sampling events, Republic is required to notify DEP, so that it may obtain split samples for its own analysis. Republic is required to report the results of the groundwater monitoring quarterly and to analyze the groundwater data in a technical report filed with DEP every two years. Appendix V also requires monitoring for odors and combustible gases, mostly methane. Republic will monitor combustible gas quarterly at various ambient locations, such as the office buildings and to monitor combustible gas quarterly in the soil down to the seasonal high water table. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine combustible gas concentrations and, if they exceed 25%, take "all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health." Some confusion in the Application arises as to the issue of whether the Cedar Trails Landfill will be subject to, or voluntarily implement, the more elaborate provisions applicable to a landfill covered under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Regulated emissions for a new source might include particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and specified hazardous air pollutants. Appendix V states that the landfill will become a Title V landfill once permitted to receive Class I waste, and, at that time, it will be subject to a "more comprehensive system of landfill gas collection and monitoring." Appendix V assures that these items "will be addressed in separate documentation from this monitoring plan"--and, apparently, separate from the present record. By contrast, the Operation Plan concedes only that, based on the nature of Class I waste and the design capacity of the proposed landfill, Cedar Trail Landfill "may" become a Title V facility. The Operation Plan states: "If the regulatory thresholds at [Cedar Trail Landfill] are met [under Title V] requiring an active gas collection and control system (GCCS), [Cedar Trail Landfill] will submit as required the GCCS design plans for approval and install an active gas extraction system within the regulatory timeframes specified by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart WWW." More specific provisions in the Operation Plan identify best management practices to prevent objectionable odors. Four practices are identified, including an "active gas collection and extraction system." On the DEP form application, which is a cover sheet to the more elaborate application materials, Republic checked boxes indicating that the landfill would use active gas controls with gas flaring and gas recovery, which is probably what is meant by an "active gas collection and extraction system." The Application provides that the landfill liner would be double composite; the leachate collections system would consist of collection pipes, geonets, and a sand layer; the leachate would be stored in tanks; some of the leachate would be recirculated as spray on the working face; and the remainder of the leachate would be stored onsite and periodically transferred to a wastewater treatment center for treatment. The Engineering Report states that the waste disposal footprint will not be located where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the waste. The Engineering Report identifies appendices addressing the slope-stability analysis and foundation analysis and relies on a March 12, 1997, report by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. (Ardaman Report), January 23, 2004, report by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder Report), and June 26, 2009, report by Hanecki Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Hanecki Report). These items are discussed in greater detail below in connection with the sinkhole issue. The Engineering Report assures that the waste disposal footprint will not be within 500 feet of an existing or approved potable water well, nor will it be within 1000 feet of an existing or approved potable water well serving a community water supply. The Engineering Report adds that the minimum horizontal distance between waste deposits and the property line is 100 feet. The Engineering Report assures that the landfill footprint will not be in a dewatered pit, as the installation elevations are at least 2-3 feet higher than the seasonal high water table. The Engineering Report acknowledges that a small part of the eastern end of the four southernmost cells lies within the 100-year floodplain, as depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Map effective December 29, 2000, and as shown in Application Appendix A, Drawing 1. Claiming that the relevant map was not revised in 2000, the Engineering Report asserts that the last update to the FIRM map was in 1975, and the depicted floodplain was filled during the mine reclamation process. The Engineering Report notes that the floodplain concerns were addressed in the April 2009 ERP. 34. The Engineering Report discloses two enforcement actions against Republic at the Cedar Trail Landfill. In a letter dated October 19, 2001, DEP warned Republic about noncompliant items at the site, and, in a notice of noncompliance dated January 30, 2006, DEP warned Republic not to use a new cell prior to construction certification of the cell's stormwater system. Both matters were reportedly resolved, and Republic has not been the subject of other enforcement actions for the Cedar Trails Landfill. At DEP's urging, the RRAI elaborates on enforcement actions against Republic or, evidently, Republic affiliates at a variety of Florida facilities, not just landfills. The additional information reveals that DEP imposed a fine of $61,300 for the October 2001 violations, which included disposing of unacceptable waste, storing an excessive number of tires and exceeding groundwater standards without notifying DEP, and a fine of $1000 for the January 2006 notice of noncompliance. The other enforcement actions against Republic or affiliates concerning landfills involved consent orders about the Nine Mile Road Landfill (Seaboard Waste): in February 2003, DEP imposed a fine of $13,000 in settlement of charges that employees were not removing all unacceptable waste from the site and, in November 2005, DEP imposed a $285 fine for a failure to submit required stormwater monitoring reports. There were many other enforcement actions, generally resulting in modest fines, but they involved hauling facilities, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities, not landfills. The Engineering Report states that the proposed landfill is within six miles of, but greater than 10,000 feet from, the Bartow Municipal Airport. Airport safety is addressed in more detail below. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system, which uses materials whose physical, chemical, and mechanical properties prevent failure due to contact with Class I waste and leachate, climactic conditions, installation stress, and other applied stresses and hydraulic pressures. The Engineering Report performs no contingency sinkhole analysis. The report does not suggest that the liner system could withstand the stresses and pressures resulting from any size sinkhole, so the necessary inference is that the liner will fail if any sinkhole forms directly beneath it. The Engineering Report states that waste placement will remain within the lined containment berm. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system for use at the proposed landfill. The primary liner system and secondary liner system each comprises three layers with the top layer consisting of a composite drainage net, the middle layer consisting of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane with a minimum average thickness of 60 ml, and the bottom layer consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-9 cm/second. The Engineering Report describes in detail the leachate collection and removal system, which, sitting atop the primary liner, includes a 24-inch thick sand drainage layer with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/second, a composite drainage net, and a single perforated 8-inch diameter lateral pipe in each cell. The collection lateral pipes will gravity drain to the east to a header pipe that gravity drains to the primary leachate collection pump stations--one station for the four converted cells and one station for the four new cells. A smaller leachate collection and removal system will handle the leachate that penetrates to the leak detection layer by routing it to a secondary leachate collection pump station. Based on calculations derived from the HELP groundwater model, the leachate collection and removal system is designed to prevent leachate head from exceeding the thickness of the composite drainage net (about 1 cm) over the secondary geomembrane and from exceeding one foot over the primary geomembrane. According to the Engineering Report, flow meters will be installed at each of the pump stations to allow daily readings of the amount of leachate being pumped. At one foot of head over the primary liner, the Engineering Report expects just over three gallons per day collected at each secondary leachate collection pump station--significantly less than the leakage rate typical of a double liner system without a geosynthetic clay liner beneath the primary liner. However, the Engineering Report provides a standard action leakage rate of 100 gallons/acre/day, meaning that Republic is required to report to DEP liner leakage only when this leakage rate is attained. The pump stations will transmit the leachate to one of two above-ground, 150,000-gallon storage tanks. From these tanks, most of the leachate will be transported to an offsite location for treatment. However, up to 12,000 gallons per day of the untreated leachate will be recirculated to be sprayed on the working faces of the landfill. This is to control dust and possibly to assist with the degradation of the waste. The Engineering Report states that the Cedar Trail Landfill implements a facility-wide water quality monitoring plan. Upon completion of the pump stations for the eight cells that are the subject of the Application, Republic will expand its leachate sampling program to include annual sampling of the leachate collected in the primary and secondary leachate collection pump stations. The groundwater monitoring wells would be installed as closely as possible to the outer edge of the roadway that, with a stormwater ditch, will run the perimeter of the proposed Class I landfill. In the revised Engineering Report contained in the RRAI, Republic proposes a surface water discharge point in the stormwater pond located near the leachate storage tanks. The Engineering Report adds that Republic will continue to comply with the following prohibitions: No waste will be knowingly burned on site; Hazardous waste will not knowingly be accepted; PCB contaminated waste will not knowingly be accepted; Untreated biomedical waste will not knowingly be accepted. Please note that treated biomedical waste may be accepted at [Cedar Trail Landfill]'s Class I Landfill provided that the waste containers are marked "Treated Biomedical Waste.;" No waste disposal at the proposed Class I Landfill will occur within 3,000 feet of a Class I surface water body; [Cedar Trails Landfill] will not knowingly accept liquid waste within containers, excluding leachate and gas condensate derived from solid waste disposal operations. [Cedar Trails Landfill] will comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.300(10), FAC regarding the handling of liquid wastes; Neither oily waste nor commingled oily waste will knowingly be accepted; and Lead-acid batteries, used oil, white goods, and whole-waste tires will not knowingly be disposed of in the Class I waste disposal system. The Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, identified above, adds four items to this list of operational prohibitions: i. Garbage will not be knowingly accepted; Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste, will not be knowingly accepted; Animal carcasses will not be knowingly accepted; and Aluminum dross will not be knowingly accepted. Capitalized terms are generally defined in the Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(39) defines "Garbage" as " all kitchen and table food waste, and animal or vegetative waste that is attendant with or results from the storage, preparation, cooking, or handling of food materials." Application Appendix H is the Operation Plan, which also identifies the types of wastes to be permitted at the proposed landfill. Section 3(b) of the Operation Plan authorizes the proposed landfill to accept: Commercial waste Ash residue Incinerator by-pass waste Construction and demolition debris, including from a residence Treated biomedical waste Agricultural waste Industrial waste Yard trash, including from a residence Sewage sludge Industrial sludge Water/air treatment sludges Waste tires De minimis amounts of non-hazardous waste from incidental residential sources Section 5 of the Operation Plan provides, in relevant part: [Cedar Trail Landfill] will accept waste included in any of the waste categories identified under Section 3(b) of this Operation Plan[, but] will . . . NOT knowingly accept any hazardous waste, untreated biomedical waste, liquid waste (including paint), explosive waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste for disposal at the [Cedar Trail Landfill.] Unacceptable types of refuse are listed below and will not be knowingly accepted for disposal. --Hazardous waste --Explosive waste --Radioactive waste --Drums that have not been opened and Emptied --Refrigerators, freezers, air Conditioners (white goods) --Any toxic or hazardous materials, i.e. batteries, solvents, oil, etc. --Automobiles or parts that contain fuel, lubricants, or coolants --Untreated Biomedical waste The original Application prohibited the acceptance of septic tank pumpage, but the application form accompanying the original Application indicated that the proposed landfill would accept industrial sludge and domestic sludge. After modification by the RRAI, the prohibition against accepting septic tank pumpage was deleted, and the Operating Plan added, among acceptable wastes, sewage sludge, industrial sludge, and water- and air-treatment sludge. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(101) (2001) defines "sludge" to include solid waste pollution control residual from an industrial or domestic wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, air pollution control facility, septic tank, grease trap, portable toilet, or other source generating a waste with similar characteristics. Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200(64) (2001) defines "liquid waste" as any waste with free liquids, according to the "Paint Filler Liquids Test." As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Section 5 of the Operation Plan was amended to add the following items to unacceptable types of refuse that will not be knowingly accepted for disposal: --Garbage --Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste --Animal carcasses --Aluminum dross At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan that unacceptable waste would include Garbage contained in commercial, industrial or agricultural waste. According to the Operation Plan, the initial waste screening occurs at the gate house where the attendant interviews the driver and inspects the incoming waste load. If the attendant sees more than a negligible amount of unauthorized wastes, he will reject the load and will contact the hauler to identify the source of the waste. Additionally, Republic will notify DEP if anyone tries to dispose of hazardous waste at the proposed landfill. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, the Operation Plan was amended to provide a new paragraph between the paragraph addressing the initial waste screening at the gate house and, as discussed below, the second screening at the working face. The new paragraph provides: Any malodorous waste will be covered with mulch and/or additional soil or other approved cover materials to control odors promptly, within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. Cedar Trail Landfill will promptly cover any sludge deposited on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of the unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan, which would prohibit Republic from accepting malodorous waste or sludge that, due to exigent circumstances, it would not be able to cover within one hour from the time of unloading. If the load passes the initial waste screening, it will proceed to the working face of the landfill, according to the Operation Plan. At least one spotter will be stationed at the working face at all times that the landfill receives waste. Her job will be to detect unauthorized wastes. Republic is to assure that it has a sufficient number of spotters to find and remove unauthorized waste prior to compaction. The Operation Plan allows the spotter to work from ground level or the cab of a compactor. If the operator of a piece of heavy equipment is trained as a spotter, she may also serve as a spotter. During periods of higher waste traffic, the equipment operator will, according to the Operation Plan, "likely" need the assistance of another operator or spotter to screen the higher waste volumes. When finding unauthorized wastes in manageable volumes, the spotter or operator will remove these wastes by hand and place them into nearby containers for removal to an appropriate facility. The third waste screen occurs as the equipment operator spreads the waste, pursuant to the Operation Plan. The equipment operator is required to place any unacceptable observed wastes into containers, which will be located "within the lined area." These wastes will also be removed to an appropriate facility. In the RAI, DEP questioned the proximity of the containers to the working face, as the lined area consists of 72 acres, but, in the RRAI, Republic ignored the comment, restating only that the containers would not be located outside the lined area. The Operation Plan specifies a filling sequence. Republic will assure that the first layer of waste placed above the liner in each cell will be a minimum of four feet in compacted thickness and will be free of rigid objects that could damage the liner or leachate collection and removal system. Republic will maintain the working face to minimize the amount of exposed waste and initial cover necessary at the end of each day. The filling sequence will proceed until the permitted final grade elevations have been reached, less three feet for the final cover. The Operation Plan states that the initial cover at the Class I landfill will consist of a six-inch layer of soil that is transferred from onsite borrow pits or offsite sources. This soil will be compacted and placed on top of the waste by the end of each work day. At Republic's option, subject to DEP's approval, it may use a spray-on or tarpaulin cover, instead of a soil cover. The Operation Plan requires Republic to apply at least one foot of intermediate cover within seven days of cell completion, if additional waste will not be deposited within 180 days of cell completion. Republic may remove all or part of this intermediate cover before placing additional waste or the final cover. Through the placement of initial, daily, and intermediate cover, Republic will minimize the occurrence of moisture infiltration, fires, odors, blowing litter, and animals and other disease vectors. 59. The Operation Plan requires Republic to control litter primarily by daily waste compaction and cover. However, at least daily, if needed, employees will collect litter along the entrance and access roads and around the working face. Complaints about litter must be logged. In addition to the inspections detailed above, the Operation Plan establishes a random load-checking program to detect unauthorized wastes. Each week, Republic employees will examine at least three random loads of solid waste by requiring drivers to discharge their loads at a designated location within the landfill where the employees may undertake a detailed inspection. All random inspections will be logged. Notwithstanding the daily limit of 12,000 gallons per day, the Operation Plan prohibits Republic from spraying leachate during rain events. To apply the recirculated leachate, the lead operator will drive the leachate tanker truck on the working face, so that it can spray leachate over waste as it is being compacted, but after it has been screened by spotters. The spraying will be done to avoid causing leachate to pond atop the waste and will not be done within 50 feet of an outside slope. No restrictions apply to wind conditions. The Operation Plan states that, if the annual sampling of leachate water quality at the two pump stations reveals a contaminant in excess of the permissible limits listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24, Republic will start monthly sampling and notify DEP in writing. Also, the Cedar Trail Landfill will maintain a recording rain gauge. The Operation Plan requires Republic employees to conduct daily surveys for objectionable odors and take immediate corrective action, if odors are found at the property line. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, this portion of the Operation Plan was amended to add two odor- remediation actions and another form of odor inspection. The two additional actions to prevent odors are to 1) provide additional cover using mulch, additional soil, or other approved cover material and 2) use odor masking or neutralizing agents. The new inspection provision states: Internal inspection will be performed on a weekly basis by a properly trained odor ranger or equivalently trained person. Such individual will tour the facility, property boundary, and the subdivision of Highland Lakes Estates . . . to identify any odors leaving the Landfill's property boundaries. The results of each weekly inspection will be document, and any odors identified will be mitigated. Another new provision from the Joint Stipulation for Permit Modification applies to the handling of sludge. As amended, the Operation Plan states: When accepting sludge from a new source or distributor, [Republic] will obtain information regarding the characteristics and constituents of the sludge, including a description of the industrial process or circumstances that resulted in the generation of the sludge. Upon delivery of the sludge, [Republic] will mix lime, sodium hydroxide, or any other suitable agents to eliminate objectionable odors as required during disposal of the sludge before the material is covered. Furthermore, [Republic] will obtain advance notice from contributors prior to delivery of any sludge and shall promptly cover any sludge unloaded on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as severe weather. [Republic] shall use its best efforts to avoid accepting or disposing of sludge on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. Additionally, with respect to sludge received from wastewater treatment facilities only, such sludge shall not exceed the lesser of (1) twenty percent (20%) of the total volume of waste disposed in the landfill on an average monthly basis, determined annually on the prior calendar year, or (2) two-hundred (200) tons per day, averaged over the prior 12-month calendar year. Republic is required to monitor combustible gases quarterly and transmit the results to DEP, according to the Operation Plan. If Republic detects methane above the limits specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.530 (2010), Republic must submit a gas remediation plan to DEP within seven days. The Operating Plan indicates that the separation of the waste from the groundwater prevents the saturation of the waste and, thus, the generation of odor. Sloping and compacting will promote stormwater runoff, again to discourage the generation of odor. The Construction Permit authorizes construction of the proposed landfill in accordance with the "rules[,] . . . reports, plans and other information" submitted by Republic "(unless otherwise specified)." This parenthetical reference provides that the provisions of the Construction Permit control over any contrary provisions in the other documents that are part of the Permit due to incorporation by reference. In addition to the original Application, RRAI, and drawings, the Construction Permit also incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001). The Construction Permit states that Republic may not violate the prohibitions set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Construction Permit Specific Condition A.9.a requires notification to DEP of the discovery of limestone during excavation or discovery. Specific Condition A.9.b requires notification to DEP of any surface depressions or other indications of sinkhole activity onsite or within 500 feet of the site. Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Construction Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate, during construction or operation, to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner and leachate management system. Specific Condition C.4 prohibits the acceptance of hazardous waste and does not condition this prohibition on Republic's knowledge that the waste is a hazardous waste. Specific Condition C.5 requires Republic to "control . . . odors and fugitive particulates (dust)" and "minimize the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property." "Nuisance conditions" include "complaints confirmed by [DEP] personnel upon site inspection." Specific Condition C.5 orders Republic to "take immediate corrective action to abate the nuisance" and to "control disease vectors so as to protect the public health and welfare." Construction Permit Specific Condition C.6.b requires immediate notice to DEP of any sinkholes or other subsurface instability. Specific Condition C.8 requires Republic to manage leachate in accordance with the Operating Permit and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-700.500(8). The Operating Permit incorporates the same materials that are incorporated into the Construction Permit, again "(unless otherwise specified)." Like the Construction Permit, the Operating Permit incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001) and requires immediate notice to DEP in the event of a sinkhole or subsurface instability. The Operating Permit specifies that the action leakage rate is 100 gallons per acre per day and the leachate recirculation rate is 12,000 gallons per day. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition A.1.b states: This Facility is not authorized to accept Garbage; untreated Biomedical Waste; animal carcasses; liquids and non-liquid PCB containing materials or wastes with a PCB concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million; Liquid Waste; and aluminum dross. Additionally, this facility is not authorized to accept Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste. Class III waste means yard trash, construction and demolition debris, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, or other materials approved by [DEP] that are not expected to produce leachate which are a threat to public health or the environment as defined in Rule 62-701.200(14), F.A.C. Based on this authorization to allow certain wastes as described above from residential sources, and since the landfill design, including liner and leachate collection systems, meets the requirements of Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., for Class I landfills, the facility will be entitled to [the] household hazardous waste exemption pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(1). Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner. Specific Condition C.1.c prohibits the discharge of "residual contaminants," such as gasoline, oil, paint, antifreeze, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), onto the ground or into surface water or groundwater. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides that authorized waste types are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations Plan, and unacceptable wastes shall be removed from the site as described in Sections 3(a) and 7. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides: "Waste types authorized for management at this site are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations [sic] Plan. Unacceptable wastes are those listed in Section 5 [of the Operation Plan] " Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(2) requires the use of a sufficient number of spotters to remove unacceptable wastes, but allows Republic to direct its equipment operators to serve as spotters from the equipment. This condition allows DEP to require that spotters work from the ground, if DEP determines that spotting from equipment is not effective. Specific Condition C.1.k(3) requires Republic to remove unacceptable wastes immediately and not to unload additional wastes in the immediate vicinity until placing unacceptable wastes in the designated waste containers" "near the working face" and within the lined landfill area. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.l(2) requires Republic to inspect on each operating day the property boundary for objectionable odors and, if any are detected, abate them in accordance with Specific Condition C.5. Specific Condition C.5.a requires Republic to control odors, disease vectors (insects and rodents), and fugitive particles (dust and smoke) to protect the public health and welfare. Control is defined as "minimiz[ing]" the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property. Odors confirmed by DEP personnel are a nuisance condition, and Republic must take immediate corrective action to "abate" the nuisance. Specific Condition C.5.b provides that, if odor control measures do not "sufficiently abate" objectionable odors within 30 days, Republic will submit an odor remediation plan to DEP for approval. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.8.e requires monthly reports to DEP of leachate quantities. Specific Condition C.8.h(1) prohibits recirculation of leachate at rates that result in seepage that may discharge outside the lined area. Leachate may not be sprayed when the application area is saturated or during a rainfall event. There is no prohibition against spraying during windy conditions. Operating Permit Specific Condition E details the extensive water quality monitoring requirements. However, Specific Condition E.9.b requires only annual testing of the five field parameters, eight laboratory parameters, and the comprehensive list of Appendix II parameters set forth in 40 CFR Part 258, all of which are identified below. Specific Condition E.9.c provides that, if a contaminant listed in 40 CFR 261.24 exceeds the level listed therein, Republic will notify DEP and take monthly leachate samples until no exceedances are detected for three consecutive months. Operating Permit Specific Condition F.1.a states: "This solid waste permit will meet the statutory requirement to obtain an air construction permit before . . . constructing a source of air pollution, except for those landfills that are subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of Chapter 62-212, F.A.C." Such facilities are required to obtain an air construction permit from the Bureau of Air Regulations prior to construction. Specific Condition F.1.b requires Republic to comply with Title V of 40 CFR 60, Subparts WWW and CC. This section notes that Title V permit applications must be submitted to the District Air Program Administrator or County Air Program Administrator responsible for the landfill. Aviation Safety Landfills attract birds in search of food. Flying birds may interfere with aviation safety. Thus, landfills are typically not located in close proximity to airfields to minimize the risk that flying birds will interfere with airborne aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. The nearest airport to the Cedar Trail Landfill is the Bartow Municipal Airport, which is operated by the Bartow Aviation Development Authority. This airport is over five miles from the footprint of the active landfill and 4.6 miles from the boundary of the proposed site. Republic provided notice of the Application to all airports within six miles of the proposed landfill, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation. None of these entities objected to the proposed landfill. When Republic gave the Bartow Aviation Development Authority notice of an earlier application, which sought a permit for a landfill that would accept garbage, the authority objected to the proposal due to concerns posed by birds to aviation safety. When asked about the Application, the authority's executive director testified that she still has concerns about the proposed landfill, but she did not specify the nature of her concerns or her analysis. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, these are the only facts required for a determination of whether Republic has provided reasonable assurance of aviation safety. The record provides no basis for finding that Republic has failed to provide reasonable assurance of aviation safety. Neither the FAA nor the Bartow Aviation Development Authority has objected to the proposed landfill. The executive director's unspecified concerns do not override the absence of a formal objection from these agencies. Petitioners assign too much weight to the earlier objection submitted by the authority. The composition of the authority may have changed or some authority members may have decided they were wrong in their earlier analysis. This earlier objection does not outweigh the absence of objection to the present proposal from any of the aviation agencies and the absence of any evidence of the expected nature or extent of bird usage of the proposed landfill and the extent to which these birds would interfere with existing and expected flight paths of aircraft using the Bartow Municipal Airport. Public Health Petitioners' expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. David Carpenter, is a medical doctor with a long, prestigious history of public service, including with the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the United States Public Health Service, and the New York Department of Health, where he served as director from 1980-85. At that time, Dr. Carpenter started the School of Public Health at the University of Albany. Republic's expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. Christopher Teaf, is an expert in the evaluation of environmental contamination, waste management, and toxicology, but not a medical doctor. Dr. Teaf is a professor at Florida State University and owns a small consulting firm. The major part of Dr. Carpenter's career has been devoted to research. For the past ten years, he has focused more on human health, especially human disease from exposure to environmental contaminants. Dr. Carpenter has considerable experience with the adverse effects of landfills on human health, but his experience has been mostly with older landfills, where containment measures were few and offsite releases were many. Clearly, Dr. Carpenter's experience does not extend to the role of landfill design, construction, and operation in the transmission of human disease. Thus, Dr. Carpenter is qualified to opine on the effects of pollutants that may escape landfills, but not on the relationship of landfill design, construction, and operation on the probability that a landfill will transmit pollutants. For the most part, Dr. Carpenter did not attempt to address matters outside of his expertise. However, Dr. Carpenter testified that the risk of disease or injury increased in relationship to the proximity of the person to the landfill. This testimony can only be credited if one assumes that the landfills are identical in terms of design, construction, and operation and in terms of the environmental conditions of the landfill site. In other words, in real-world applications, it is impossible to credit this element of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, especially to the extent of his implicit suggestion that public health is unreasonably endangered by the construction of a landfill, in compliance with all rules, that satisfies all of the separation criteria and design criteria set forth in the rules, as discussed below. By contrast, Dr. Teaf focused on the details of the proposed landfill. Applying his knowledge of toxicology, Dr. Teaf determined that the proposed landfill adequately protects public health. In making this determination, Dr. Teaf analyzed the effects of various design and operational characteristics of the proposed landfill, including the double liner system, the leachate collection and management system, the selection of appropriate waste types, the procedures for the evaluation and covering of sludges, the prohibition against municipal garbage, the restrictions on household items, the monitoring of groundwater and surface water, the stormwater management system, and the plans to control dust and odors. Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the literature that he sponsored suggested important links between older landfills and a wide range of human disease. But the recurring problem with Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the research articles that he sponsored was the inability to link this information to the proposed landfill. All of the landfills studied in his research articles were older, and most of them appeared to have been designed, constructed, and operated under far more relaxed regulatory regimes than exist today. Nothing in Dr. Carpenter's testimony or sponsored literature attempted to delineate the design or operational characteristics of these landfills, such as whether they were double- or even single-lined, served by leachate circulation and recovery systems, limited as to materials that they could accept, or required to install stormwater management and water monitoring systems. 93. Analysis of the risk to public health posed by the proposed landfill requires consideration of the various means of transmission of the pollutants received by the landfill: water, land, and air. Of these, water requires little analysis, on this record. Even Dr. Carpenter conceded that the proposed landfill does not appear to pose a threat to groundwater. The double liner, leachate collection and recovery system, and groundwater monitoring plan support the finding that groundwater transmission of pollutants from the proposed landfill is unlikely. Transmission by surface water is also unlikely. Compared to groundwater monitoring, surface water monitoring is limited. For instance, there is only a single monitoring site. Also, as noted above, the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area is expected to discharge stormwater offsite during excessive storm events, at which time surface water samples will be taken. However, a comprehensive surface water management system is in place at the landfill and will prevent offsite discharges in all but a few excessive rain events. Transmission by land is also unlikely. The Application contains engineering analysis of the proposed stability of the side slopes and a determination that they will be stable. The discussion of sinkholes, below, does not affect this finding. Treating dust as transmission by air, the only other means by which pollutants may transmit by land is by animals, such as insects, rodents, and birds. An important factor limiting the activity of animals in spreading pollutants offsite is the fact that the proposed landfill will not receive garbage. Although putrescible waste may be received within other categories of waste, the prohibition against receiving garbage will greatly reduce the amount of potential food sources for animals and thus the utilization rate of the proposed landfill by these animals. A further reduction in animal utilization will be achieved through the daily and intermediate cover requirements. Thus, transmission of pollutants by animals is also unlikely. Transmission by air takes several forms. Pollutants may be transmitted as or on dust, with water in the form of aerosol, or as gas. In terms of how transmission by air is addressed by the Permit, this means of transmission potentially represents a greater threat than transmission by water or land for four reasons. First, the explicit focus of the Permit, as to gas, is to avoid explosive concentrations of methane and objectionable odors, but not the transmission of other pollutants by air. Second, the effect of the Permit is to prohibit the release of pollutants into the groundwater or offsite surface water and to prohibit the release of pollutant-bearing land offsite, but no such flat prohibition applies to the offsite release of pollutants by air. Third, the leachate recirculation system provides a good opportunity for the release of certain pollutants into the air by aerosol or evaporation, but similar releases to offsite land, surface water, or groundwater are prohibited. Fourth, scientific understanding of the effects of exposure, especially by inhalation, to pollutants, especially in the form of organic compounds, is continuing to develop: with the use of chemicals increasing three fold in the 50 years preceding 1995 and approximately 80,000 chemicals in use in 2002, only a few hundreds of these chemicals have been subjected to long- or short-term study, resulting in the discovery that about 10% of the chemicals in use in 2002 were carcinogens. Transmission by dust appears to be limited by the frequent covering and spraying of the working faces. Although nearby residents complain of dust in their homes, the practices of the less-regulated Class III landfill cannot be extrapolated to the proposed Class I landfill. Thus, the prospect of dust transmission of chemicals contained in the fill received by the proposed landfill appears also to be slight. The use of untreated leachate as the spray medium to control the dust itself raises two risks, however. First, spraying leachate will release chemicals in aerosol. The potential range of aerosol is great, especially as the landfill ascends toward its design height of 190 feet. However, the risk of transmission by aerosol is reduced to insubstantial levels by adding a Permit condition that prohibits spraying during windy conditions. Second, depositing leachate on the landfill face will release chemicals through evaporation. The point of spraying the landfill face is to control dust between the addition of the waste materials to the pile and the application of the cover. Between these two events, dry conditions will sometimes intervene and may cause the evaporation of certain, but not all, pollutants. The leachate acquires pollutants as it percolates down the waste column and into the leachate collection system. As Dr. Teaf noted, the leachate becomes more concentrated as it recirculates, but, otherwise, this record is largely silent as to the likely composition of the recirculated leachate. However, for landfills accepting sludge, higher levels of mercury may be present in the leachate. As reported by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, in a report issued March 2007, and titled, "Design and Operational Issues Related to Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids and Class I Landfills--Phase III," one study found that the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that receive sludge is almost three times greater than the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that do not accept sludge. The same study reported that total dissolved solids and chlorides were present at greater concentrations at the landfills that did not accept sludge and that other parameters--unidentified in the cited article--were not significantly different between the two types of landfills. Republic proposes to recirculate substantial volumes of leachate--sufficient, for instance, to raise the moisture content of the fill from 25 percent to 28.9 percent. The Permit allows the proposed landfill to operate six days per week, for a total of 312 days annually. The Operation Plan prohibits the application of leachate during rain, but the number of days annually during which rain extends for the entire day is few, probably no more than a dozen. These numbers suggest that Republic may apply as much as 3.6 million gallons annually of untreated leachate to the landfill face. The 12,000 gallon-per-day limit and restrictions on head in the leachate collection and removal system effectively limit the quantities of leachate that may be recirculated, but the sole provision addressing leachate water quality is the annual monitoring event described above. Given the time required to analyze the many parameters included in the EPA regulation, for most of the year between tests, Republic will be applying over three million gallons of leachate whose pollutant concentrations will be completely unknown. Some assurances emerge, though, when considering air transmission of pollutants by class. In general, on this record, as to transmission by gas, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a compound's volatility, which is a measure of its ability to enter the air, and a compound's persistence. VOCs are one of the most dangerous classes of pollutants to public health and include such carcinogens as benzene, tolulene, xylene and, the most dangerous of all VOCs, vinyl chloride, which is released upon the degradation of such common substances as plastics, carpets, and upholstery. Biogas, which is generated by the anerobic decomposition of organic compounds in a landfill, contains mostly methane and carbon dioxide, but also significant levels of VOCs. When inhaled, the primary results of exposure to VOC are respiratory irritation and allergenic effects. Volatility is measured by vapor pressure, which is a measure of a chemical's ability to get into the air. As their name suggests, VOCs enter the air easily. They are also capable of traveling great distances due to their light molecule. However, VOCs are easily destroyed by sunlight and diluted by wind. Other organic compounds common to landfills are only semi-VOCs, such as PCBs. Although less volatile, these chemicals, too, are hazardous to public health--in the case of PCBs, in any amount. Due to this fact and their persistence in the environment, the United States has prohibited the manufacture of PCBs for over 30 years. However, not only are PCBs considerably less likely to enter the air than VOCs, they also travel shorter distances than VOCs due to a heavier molecule. Dr. Carpenter opined that there is little evidence that PCBs are an issue in the proposed landfill. Another class of organic compound, 1000 times less volatile than even PCBs, is phthalates, which are used in the production of plastics. Phthalates pose significant threats to public health, especially reproductive health. However, the exceptionally low volatility of this compound renders transmission by evaporation highly unlikely. Much of the regulatory framework imposed on landfill design, construction, and operation arises out of concerns for the control of human pathogens, which are infection-causing organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. One of the great advances in human longevity in the United States occurred in the early 1900s--not with the development of antibiotics or improved medical care--but with the implementation of basic sanitation control and the removal of pathogens from the drinking water. For the proposed landfill, sludge will be the primary source of pathogens. Sludge is nutrient-rich organic matter, which will be received at the proposed landfill without any treatment except possibly dewatering. Even with the acceptance of sludge, the proposed landfill presents little risk for the transmission of pathogens. Pathogens communicate disease only when a person is exposed to an effective dose and are better transmitted by direct contact or animal than air. Bacterial pathogens are themselves killed by wind, as well as sunlight, temperature, and humidity differentials, so the preferred means of air transmission would be aerosol versus gas. The record permits no findings as to the persistence of pathogenic viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. However, as noted above in connection with the land transmission of pathogens, the immediate application of lime and cover to the sludge will tend to prevent the release of effective doses of pathogens by air, as well. The last major class of pollutant that could be transmitted by air is heavy metals, such as mercury or lead. Although these metals produce a wide range of neurological diseases and generally interfere with cognition and behavior, Dr. Carpenter admitted that heavy metals were not as much of a concern as VOCs, presumably due to their resistance to vaporization. Even though transmission by air is not as tightly controlled as transmission by water or land, for the four reasons noted above, there is little risk of transmission by air--i.e., dust, aerosol, or gas--when the specific properties of likely pollutants are considered. In all but five respects, then, Republic has provided reasonable assurance that public health will not be endangered by pollutants released from the landfill by water, land, or air. First, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs a condition that prohibits spraying leachate during windy conditions, which DEP may define as it reasonably sees fit. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this is a requirement in the rules and, due to its importance, should be restated explicitly in the Permit, which restates numerous other rule requirements. Second, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs more frequent monitoring of leachate water quality, at least at the frequency, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, set forth in the rules. Large volumes of untreated leachate will be recirculated through the landfill. Even if aerosol transmission is controlled, transmission by evaporation of some pollutants, although not the heavy metals, is possible. Also, pollutants are concentrated in recirculated leachate and thus the consequences of transmission into groundwater or surface water, however unlikely, become greater. At the same time, the action leakage rate is generous--to Republic, not the groundwater. At 100 gallons per acre per day, Republic is not required to report to DEP possible liner leakage until about 7300 gallons per day are lost to the surficial aquifer. Suitable for the detection of catastrophic failures associated with most sinkholes, this action leakage rate is too high to trigger action for small liner leaks. If Republic is to be allowed this much leakage into the groundwater, it must identify the leachate's constituents and their concentrations at least semi-annually. Third, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Application must extend the right of split testing to all of the parties in these cases, if DEP fails to exercise its right to take a split sample. The spraying of untreated leachate and generous limit applied to liner leakage before reporting and remedial action are required underscore the importance to public health of independent leachate testing. There is no reason to allow budgetary constraints or administrative oversight to preclude Petitioners and Intervenor, who are uniquely situated to suffer from the escape of excessive pollutants in the leachate, from providing, at their expense, this independent leachate testing. Fourth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to restate accurately the language of the rules concerning the extent of knowledge required of Republic, if it is to be liable for the acceptance of certain prohibited wastes. Fifth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to be modified to ensure that at least one spotter, whose sole responsibility is spotting, will be assigned to each working face while the landfill is receiving waste. Sinkholes The sinkhole issue arises in the geotechnical analysis of the sufficiency of the foundation to support the considerable loads of a landfill and also in the stability of the side slopes of the landfill. This analysis starts with consideration of the geology of the area, of which Republic's property is a part, and, among other things, the potential for sinkhole formation in the area. The Cedar Trail Landfill lies within the Bartow Embayment and along the eastern slope of the Lakeland Ridge of the Central Lake District Physiographic Province. This embayment is a large erosional basin partially backfilled with phosphatic sand and clayey sand of the Bone Valley Member. At this location, the top of the Floridan Aquifer is formed by Suwannee Limestone, which consists of white to tan, soft to hard, granular, porous, very fossiliferous limestone with interbedded dolomite. This rock unit is 110-140 feet thick. Atop the Suwannee Limestone sits the Hawthorne Group, which comprises the Arcadia Formation, at the base of which is the Nocatee Member, which is a relatively impermeable sand and clay unit. Atop the Nocatee Member is the Tampa Member, which consists of hard, dense, sandy, locally phosphatic, fossiliferous limestone. The top of this member, which is the top of the Arcadia Formation, is locally referred to as the "bedrock complex," which marks the lower limit of phosphate mining. Atop the Arcadia Formation, still within the Hawthorne Group, sits the Peace River Formation, which consists of phosphatic clayey sand and clayey sand. The lower portion of the Peace River Formation is a relatively impermeable, undifferentiated clayey unit locally known as "bedclay." The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is mined for phosphate and is locally known as "matrix." Atop of the Peace River Formation are undifferentiated surficial soils, typically consisting of silty sand, clayey sand, and some hardpan and organic soils. These materials are locally known as "overburden." Phosphate mining is prevalent in the area, including, as noted above, much or all of the Cedar Trail Landfill site. Strip mining for phosphate normally removes the entire surficial aquifer, just into the bedclay. Mined areas are then backfilled with overburden spoil soils, clay, waste clay, and sand tailings. After backfilling, the soil strata bear little resemblance to premining strata. Sinkholes are prevalent in the general area surrounding the Cedar Trail Landfill. A sinkhole is a surface depression varying in depth from a few feet up to several hundreds of feet and in area from several square feet to several acres. Sinkholes are typically funnel-shaped and open broadly upward. Sinkholes form when weakly acidic groundwater creates cavities in the calcium carbonate within limestone. Soils above these cavities erode into the cavities. In the area that includes the Cedar Trail Landfill, cover-collapse and cover- subsidence sinkholes predominate among sinkhole types. A cover-collapse sinkhole, which is typically steep- sided and rocky, forms when cohesive soils over a limestone cavity can no longer bridge the cavity under the weight of overlying soil and rock. At this point, the cohesive soils suddenly collapse into the cavity. These are more common in the part of the state in which the Cedar Trail Landfill is located. A cover-subsidence sinkhole occurs due to the gradual lowering of the rock surface as solutioning occurs in the subsurface rocks. This type of sinkhole develops as subsurface soluble rock is dissolved and overlying soils subside into the resulting shallow surface depressions. Regardless of the type of sinkhole, borings into sinkholes will reveal zones of very loose soil sediments that have washed downward into the cavernous voids within the bedrock. This very loose soil zone is called a raveling zone, which starts at the limestone layer, as the overlying soils begin to collapse into the solution features within the limestone. As the loosening works its way upward toward the surface, it eventually results in the subsidence of the ground surface and formation of a sinkhole. Considerable sinkhole activity has taken place in the immediate vicinity of Republic's property. Most visibly, a sinkhole formed in 2006 in 285-acre Scott Lake, 4.5 miles northwest of the landfill. This sinkhole drained the entire lake and destroyed several structures. The Florida Geological Service sinkhole database, which consists of anecdotal reports of sinkhole activity, some of which are unverified, includes 49 sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. Two documented sinkholes have occurred within .17 mile of the landfill--one of which is reported to be 125 feet in diameter and 80 feet deep. Based upon the information contained in the preceding paragraph, Clint Kromhout, a professional geologist with the Florida Geological Survey, opined on August 23, 2009, that the potential for sinkhole formation "within the proposed site and surrounding area" is "low to moderate." Mr. Kromhout does not provide a definition of "low," but part of his opinion is shared by the Golder Report, which agrees that the sinkhole potential on the proposed site is "low." The potential for sinkhole formation in the general area surrounding the proposed landfill, as distinguished from the site itself, is at least moderate. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Republic and Intervenor necessarily concede: "All parties acknowledge that the proposed landfill site is in a general region that has a relatively high frequency of sinkholes as compared with the rest of the state of Florida." It is misleading to characterize the area surrounding the proposed landfill as of low potential for the formation of sinkholes, unless there is another category, like "nonexistent." But characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate is not determinative of the likelihood of sinkholes at the landfill's footprint, nor is a site-specific geotechnical investigation mooted by such a characterization. Rather, characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate dictates the intensity and scope of the ensuing geotechnical investigation, if the investigation is to provide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the proposed landfill. Acknowledging moderate potential for sinkhole formation in the surrounding area, Republic has appropriately relied on three geotechnical reports, including three sets of boring data. The final of these reports, the Hanecki Report, is based on the collection and analysis of boring data, as well as a review of the data and analysis contained in the two earlier geotechnical reports, the Ardaman Report and Golder Report. The boring data reveal that the proposed landfill site features four units. Nearest the surface is Unit 1, which is brown to dark brown, medium- to fine-grained sand with minor amounts of clayey silt. Unit 1 is 0-10 feet thick. Next down is Unit 2, which is tan to gray, medium- to fine-grained sand with increasing silty clay or clayey silt. Unit 2 is 5-10 feet thick and generally marks the upper limit of fine-grained, granular soils (i.e., clayed sands and silty sands). Unit 3 is orange brown to yellow brown, gray and tan silty clay to clayey silt or fine sand and silty clay. Unit 3 is 5-15 feet thick. Unit 4 is gray and tan clayey silt or silty clay with minor amounts of fine sand. This material is very stiff or very dense, and most borings terminated in this unit. The few borings that penetrated this unit suggest that it may consist of dolomitic sandy clays and silts and dolomitic limestone to depths greater than 100 feet below grade. Units 3 and 4 generally mark the upper limits of low permeability/low compressibility soils. The Hanecki investigation comprised two main steps. First, Hanecki retained a subconsultant to perform electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) along 100-foot-wide transects run across the site. Any anomalies revealed by the ERIs were to be followed by standard penetration test (SPT) borings, which permit soil testing at predetermined intervals, as well as a measure of the compressibility of the soils. Compressibility is measured during the soil-testing intervals, during which the drill bit is replaced by a soil sampler. The driller records the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to produce 12 inches of penetration. The value is expressed in N-values, where N represents the number of such blows. Looser soils produce lower N values. Another important piece of information obtained during SPT boring is the partial or total loss of circulation fluid during drilling. While the drill is penetrating soil, a slurry circulates through the borehole to prevent the collapse of the sides of the hole. This slurry is recycled during drilling, but, if the drill encounters a void, all or part of the circulation fluid is lost. The ERI survey revealed no real anomalies because of a narrow range of resistance values. However, taking relatively small differences in resistivity as an anomalies, Hanecki identified 14 features of interest. At each of these locations, Hanecki performed an SPT boring. Because the ERI transects were unable to span the two onsite ponds, Hanecki added two locations for SPT borings adjacent to each side of each pond, for a total of four additional SPT borings. At the request of DEP, Hanecki added a nineteenth SPT boring at Golder site G-11, which had revealed low N-values during Golder's borings. Hanecki extended the borings into "refusal" quality soil, which was defined as soils requiring more than 50 blows of the 140-pound hammer to achieve six inches or less of penetration. All of Hanecki's SPT borings encountered very hard limestone. Among the most significant findings of Hanecki's borings, only one boring, G-11, experienced any circulation fluid loss, and this was estimated at 50 percent. However, it is more likely that this partial circulation fluid loss is due to loosely deposited sands than a void that might be indicative of conditions suitable for sinkhole formation. Not all circulation losses indicate voids that that will result in sinkhole formation. Also significant among Hanecki's findings is a clayey soil, or bedclay, at every SPT boring, which severely limits hydraulic recharge to the limestone. By impeding vertical migration of surface and shallow subsurface water to the limestone layer, this bedclay "greatly inhibits limestone erosion." This bedclay also supports the looser soils above the bedclay and thus prevents raveling, without which sinkholes cannot form. Two borings--G-11 and F3-1--lacked a layer of Unit 3 or 4 soil above the limestone, but Hanecki concluded that the Unit 2 layers above the limestone at these locations contained sufficient clay or clayey sand to serve the same functions of impeding the downward movement of groundwater and preventing the downward movement of loose soils. This conclusion appears reasonable because Unit 2 is the uppermost reach of the finer- grained materials, of which clays and silts are examples when compared to sands. There is obviously some variability in the distribution of finer- and coarser-grained materials within each occurrence of Unit 2 soils. Hanecki's findings indicated intervals of loose soils, sometimes at depth, which typically would suggest raveling zones. At the proposed location, though, these findings do not support raveling due to the underlying bedclay layer and the history of mining, which probably introduced looser soils typically found closer to the surface through the entire 40-foot depth of the mine cut. Based on these findings, the Hanecki Report concludes that, regardless of at least moderate potential for sinkhole potential in the area, the footprint of the proposed landfill has an acceptably low risk of sinkhole development to permit development of the proposed landfill. This is a reasonable conclusion because it is supported by the data collected by Hanecki and his reasoned analysis of these data. Hanecki's conclusion is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Golder Report and Ardaman Report, which are based on an additional 84 SPT borings, post- reclamation. Only about 12 percent of these SPT borings reached the limestone, and they cover all of Republic's property, not merely the footprint of the proposed landfill. Even so, these borings confirm two important findings of the Hanecki Report. First, they produced data indicative of an extensive bedclay layer intact on Republic's property. Second, the Ardaman and Golder borings reveal only two or three instances of partial circulation loss that, like the sole occurrence of partial circulation loss in the Hanecki borings, are located on Republic's property, but outside the footprint of the proposed landfill. Republic has provided reasonable assurance that the site will provide an adequate foundation for the proposed landfill and sinkholes are unlikely to undermine the structural integrity of the proposed landfill.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Construction Permit and Operation Permit, but only if the Operation Permit is modified by the addition of the five items identified in paragraphs 172, 174, 175, 181, and 187. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi A. Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ronald L. Clark, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801-5271 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Jennings Kemp Brinson, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801 Sean R. Parker, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 North Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-4620 Ralph A. DeMeo, Esquire Hopping, Green, & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paula L. Cobb, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 John W. Frost, Esquire Frost Sessums Van den Boom & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 2188 Bartow, Florida 33831 John Stanley Fus Highland Lakes Estates HOA 2190 Boardman Road Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether a site certification should be issued to Hillsborough County for the construction and operation of a fourth municipal waste combustor unit (“Unit No. 4”) at Hillsborough County’s Resource Recovery Facility, in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant The Applicant, Hillsborough County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County owns the existing Facility and will own the proposed Project. The Facility was designed, built, and is operated by a private company pursuant to a long-term contract with the County. It is anticipated that a private company will design, construct, and operate the Project for the County. Hillsborough County’s Existing Solid Waste System The County has adopted a solid waste Comprehensive Master Plan (the “Master Plan”) in conjunction with the Cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City. The Master Plan provides for state-of-the-art technology and innovative approaches to recycling, waste reduction, and waste disposal. In accordance with the Master Plan, the County has developed: (a) an aggressive recycling program that significantly reduces the quantity of materials requiring disposal; (b) a resource recovery facility for waste reduction and energy recovery from those materials that are not recycled; and (c) a landfill for the disposal of ash and by-pass waste (i.e., materials that are not recycled or processed in the Facility). Hillsborough County and the three cities have used a cooperative, regional approach to solid waste management issues, while providing environmentally protective, cost-efficient programs for local residents. Despite the County’s comprehensive recycling program, the amount of solid waste generated in the County has increased each year since the Facility began operation, primarily due to population growth. The amount of solid waste generated in the County now significantly exceeds the Facility’s design capacity. Consequently, large quantities of solid waste currently are being diverted from the Facility to the County landfill. In 2005, the Board of County Commissioners decided to expand the Facility, consistent with the County’s long-standing Master Plan, rather than dispose of ever-increasing amounts of solid waste in a landfill. The Board’s decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the County’s solid waste disposal options. For these reasons, on November 21, 2005, the County filed an application with DEP for the construction and operation of Unit No. 4. The Site The Facility is located next to Falkenburg Road in an unincorporated area in the County. The Facility is southeast of the City of Tampa, west of Interstate 75 (“I-75"), and north of the Crosstown Expressway and State Road 60. The Facility was built on a 50.4-acre site (“Site”), which is in the southern portion of a 353-acre tract of land owned by Hillsborough County. The Surrounding Area The Facility is surrounded by a variety of governmental and industrial land uses. The Facility is bounded: on the south by the County’s Falkenburg Road Wastewater Treatment Plant and a railroad track that is owned by the CSX railroad company; on the west by a 230 kilovolt transmission line corridor and easement owned by Tampa Electric Company (“TECO”); on the north by vacant improved pasture land, the Falkenburg Road Jail, the Hillsborough County Department of Animal Services, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (District 2); and on the east by Falkenburg Road and vacant land. The Facility is compatible with the adjacent and surrounding land uses. The nearest residential area is approximately 1 mile away from the Facility. It is located on the opposite (east) side of I-75. Zoning and Land Use In 1984, the Siting Board determined that the Site and Facility were consistent and in compliance with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances. The Siting Board’s determination was based on the County’s plans for the construction and operation of four MWC units at the Facility. The Site is currently zoned “Planned Development”, and is designated “Public/Quasi-Public” under the County’s comprehensive land use plan, specifically to allow the Facility and the Project to be built and operated on the Site. The Existing Facility The Facility currently has three MWC units. Each MWC unit has a nominal design capacity of 400 tons per day (“tpd”) of municipal solid waste (440 tpd when burning a reference fuel with a higher heating value of 4500 British thermal units (“Btu”) per pound). The three MWC units are located inside a fully enclosed building, which also contains the air pollution control systems for the MWC units, the “tipping floor,” the refuse storage pit, and a turbine generator. The Facility also includes an ash management building, cooling tower, stack, stormwater management ponds, water treatment system, transformer yard, electrical transmission lines, and ancillary equipment and facilities. Municipal solid waste (e.g., household and commercial garbage) is delivered to the Site in trucks, which drive inside the refuse storage building to the tipping floor, where the trucks dump the MSW into the refuse storage pit. Two overhead cranes mix the waste in the refuse storage pit and then load the waste into the charging hoppers that feed the three MWC units. The combustion of the municipal solid waste produces heat, which is used to produce steam. The steam is used in a turbine generator to produce approximately 29.5 megawatts (“MW”) of electricity. The Project The Project involves the construction and operation of a fourth MWC unit at the Facility. The new unit will be substantially the same as the three existing MWC units, but larger. The new unit will be designed to process approximately 600 tpd of municipal solid waste (660 tpd @ 5000 Btu/lb). A new turbine generator also will be installed, which will increase the Facility’s electrical generating capacity by approximately 18 MW, thus increasing the Facility’s total net generating capacity to approximately 47 MW. In addition, the Facility’s cooling tower will be expanded, the refuse and ash management buildings will be expanded, two lime silos and a carbon silo will be installed, a new settling basin will be installed, and other related improvements will be made. Construction of Unit No. 4 The Facility was designed and built to accommodate the addition of a fourth MWC unit, thus making the construction of Unit No. 4 relatively simple, without disrupting large areas of the Site. Unit No. 4 will be located adjacent to the three existing MWC units. The construction of the other Facility improvements also will occur adjacent to the existing components of the Facility. Only about 0.3 acres of the Site will be converted from open space to a building or similar use. Construction of Unit No. 4 will occur in previously disturbed upland areas on the Site that are already used for industrial operations. Construction of Unit No. 4 will not affect any wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. No new electrical transmission lines will need to be built to accommodate the additional electrical power generated by Unit No. 4. No new pipelines or other linear facilities will need to be built for the Project. The construction of Unit No. 4 will not expand the Facility beyond the boundaries of the Site that was certified by the Siting Board in 1984. Operation of Unit No. 4 The basic operation of the Facility will not change when Unit No. 4 becomes operational. Municipal solid waste will be processed at the Facility in the same way it is currently processed. The Facility has operated since 1987 and has an excellent track record for compliance with all applicable regulations, including regulations concerning noise, dust, and odors. All of the activities involving solid waste and ash occur inside enclosed buildings. The tipping floor and refuse storage pit are maintained under negative air pressure, thus ensuring that dust and odors are controlled within the building. Since the operations at the Facility will remain the same after Unit No. 4 becomes operational, no problems are anticipated in the future due to noise, dust, or odors. The Facility’s basic water supply and management system will remain the same after Unit No. 4 becomes operational. Treated wastewater from the County’s co-located Falkenburg Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) will be provided via an existing pipeline to satisfy the Facility’s need for cooling water. Potable water will be provided to the Facility via an existing pipeline from the City of Tampa’s water supply plant. The Facility does not use groundwater or surface water for any of its operations. The Facility will not discharge any industrial or domestic wastewater to any surface water or groundwater. Most of the Facility’s wastewater will be recycled and reused in the Facility. Any excess wastewater will be discharged to the Falkenburg Road WWTP. Stormwater runoff from the Project will be collected and treated in the existing system of swales and ponds on the Site. The County will modify two existing outfall weirs to provide improved treatment of stormwater and to ensure compliance with water quality standards. A traffic analysis was performed to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the operation of the Facility, after the Project is completed. The analysis demonstrated the Facility will not have any significant impacts on the surrounding roadway network, even when Unit No. 4 is operational. Air Quality Regulations The County must comply with federal and state New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) requirements, both of which impose strict limits on the Facility’s airborne emissions. The County also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards (“AAQS”) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) standards, which establish criteria for the protection of ambient air quality. Best Available Control Technology BACT is a pollutant-specific emission limit that provides the maximum degree of emission reduction, after taking into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. As part of the BACT determination, all available and feasible pollution control technologies being used worldwide are evaluated. The Department performed a BACT determination for the Project. As part of its BACT analyses, DEP determined that (a) a flue gas recirculation system and a selective non-catalytic reduction system (“SNCR”) will control NOx; (b) a spray dryer with lime injection will control MWC acid gas; (c) an activated carbon injection system (“ACI”) will control MWC organic compounds; (d) a fabric filter baghouse will control particulate matter and MWC metals; and (e) proper facility design and operating methods will control other pollutants. These air pollution control technologies (except flue gas recirculation) and methods are currently used in the three existing MWC units and they have performed extremely well. Unit No. 4 will have better, more modern, and more sophisticated versions of these air pollution control systems, plus a flue gas recirculation system. In its analysis of the Project, DEP determined the emission limits for the Project that represent BACT. All of the emission limits determined by DEP for Unit No. 4 are as low as or lower than the emission limits established in 2006 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in the NSPS (40 CFR 60, Subpart Eb) for new MWC units. The NSPS are based on the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”). Unit No. 4 will be subject to the lowest NOx emission limits imposed on any MWC unit in the United States. The Facility will use an array of continuous emissions monitors to help ensure that the Facility is continuously in compliance with the DEP’s emission limits. Indeed, Unit No. 4 will be the first MWC unit in the United States to be equipped with a continuous emissions monitor for mercury. Protection of Ambient Air Quality The EPA has adopted “primary” and “secondary” National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"). The primary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the health of the general public, including the most susceptible groups (e.g., children, the elderly, and those with respiratory ailments), with an adequate margin of safety. The secondary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the public welfare, including vegetation, soils, visibility, and other factors, from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of pollutants in the ambient air. Florida has adopted EPA’s primary and secondary NAAQS, and has adopted some Florida AAQS (“FAAQS”) that are more stringent than EPA’s NAAQS. The County analyzed the Project’s potential impacts on ambient air quality, using conservative assumptions that were intended to over-estimate the Project’s impacts by a wide margin. These analyses demonstrate that the maximum impacts from Unit No. 4 will be less than one percent of the amount allowed by the ambient air quality standards. The maximum impact from the Facility (i.e., all four units) will be less than 2.5 percent of the amount allowed by the FAAQS and NAAQS. For these reasons, the emissions from Unit No. 4 and the Facility are not expected to cause adverse impacts on human health or the environment. The maximum impacts of Unit No. 4 and the Facility, when operating under worst case conditions, will be immeasurably small and will be indistinguishable from ambient background conditions. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments The County performed a human health and ecological impact assessment of the risks associated with the Facility’s airborne emissions. The County’s risk assessment evaluated the impacts of the entire Facility, with all four MWC units in operation. The risk assessment was designed to over-estimate the potential impacts of the Facility. The County’s risk assessment was conducted in compliance with current EPA guidance. The risk assessment considered hypothetical human receptors (e.g., infants, children, and adults) that were engaged in different types of behavior (e.g., a typical resident; a beef farmer; a subsistence fisherman) and were exposed through multiple pathways (e.g., inhalation; ingestion of soil; ingestion of local produce, beef, and/or fish) to chronic long term impacts from the Facility. The risk assessment also considered the Facility’s potential impacts on sensitive environmental receptors, including aquatic life (benthic dwelling aquatic organisms), wood storks, and river otters. The County’s risk assessment demonstrates that the potential risks associated with the Facility’s emissions will not exceed, and in most cases will be much less than, the risks that are deemed acceptable by the EPA and DEP for the protection of human health and the environment. The County’s assessment is consistent with the findings in environmental monitoring studies, epidemiological studies, and risk assessments that have been performed for other modern waste-to-energy ("WTE") facilities in the United States. The County’s findings also are consistent with the determinations made by the EPA, which has concluded that WTE facilities equipped with modern pollution control systems are a “clean, reliable, renewable source of energy.” The evidence presented by the County in this case demonstrates that the Facility is not likely to have any adverse effect on human health or the environment, even when all four MWC units are operational, if the Facility is built and operated in compliance with the Conditions of Certification. Potential Impacts on Water Quality The Facility’s emissions of nitrogen oxides (i.e., NOx) will not cause or contribute to violations of any water quality standards in any surface waterbody. Environmental Benefits of the Project The addition of Unit No. 4 will provide significant environmental benefits to the County. Unit No. 4 will reduce the volume of processible solid waste by approximately 90 percent. By reducing the volume of processible waste, Unit No. 4 and the Facility will greatly extend the useful life of the County’s landfill, thus postponing the need to build a new landfill. The Facility also will convert putrescible waste into a relatively inert ash, which poses less threat to groundwater resources. The Project will also provide environmental benefits to the State of Florida. For example, the Facility will produce electricity from discarded materials. In this manner, Unit No. 4 will reduce the need to use fossil fuels to generate electricity at traditional power plants. Unit No. 4 will eliminate the need to use approximately 4 million barrels of oil and thus will save approximately $200 million in oil purchases over the next 20 years. Socioeconomic Benefits of the Project The local economy and labor market will benefit from approximately $100 million that the County will spend to construct the Project. A significant amount of construction supplies, goods, and services are anticipated to be purchased from local businesses. The Project will provide jobs for construction workers. The daily workforce is expected to average between 25 and 75 people over a period of approximately 21 months. The addition of Unit No. 4 will also provide approximately 8 new permanent jobs at the Facility. WTE Criteria in Section 403.7061 Section 403.7061, Florida Statutes, establishes several criteria that must be satisfied before an existing waste-to-energy facility may be expanded. The County has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will satisfy all of the standards and criteria in Section 403.7061, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the County has demonstrated that the County’s waste reduction rate has consistently exceeded the State’s 30 percent recycling goal. Consistency With Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances As required by Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes, the County demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with the Hillsborough County comprehensive land use plan and Hillsborough County’s applicable zoning ordinances. Compliance with Environmental Standards The Department has concluded and the evidence demonstrates that the County has provided reasonable assurance the Project will comply with all of the nonprocedural land use and environmental statutes, rules, policies, and requirements that apply to the Project, including but not limited to those requirements governing the Project’s impacts on air quality, water consumption, stormwater, and wetlands. The County has used all reasonable and available methods to minimize the impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Facility. The location, construction, and operation of the Project will have minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the State’s lands and wildlife, and the ecology of the State’s waters and aquatic life. The Project will not unduly conflict with any of the goals or other provisions of any applicable local, regional, or state comprehensive plan. The Conditions of Certification establish operational safeguards for the Project that are technically sufficient for the protection of the public health and welfare, with a wide margin of safety. Agency Positions Concerning Certification of the Project On May 4, 2006, the PSC issued a report concluding that the Project was exempt from the PSC’s need determination process, pursuant to Section 377.709(6), Florida Statutes. The DEP, DOT, and SWFWMD recommend certification of the Project, subject to the Conditions of Certification. The other agencies involved in this proceeding did not object to the certification of the Project. The County has accepted, and has provided reasonable assurance that it will comply with, the Conditions of Certification. Public Notice of the Certification Hearing On December 19, 2005, the County published a “Notice of Filing of Application for Electrical Power Plant Site Certification” in the Tampa Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation published in Hillsborough County, Florida. On May 25, 2006, the County published notice of the Certification Hearing in the Tampa Tribune. On December 23 and December 30, 2005, the Department electronically published “Notice of Filing of Application for Power Plant Certification.” On May 26, 2006, the Department electronically published notice of the Certification Hearing. The public notices for the Certification Hearing satisfy the informational and other requirements set forth in Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-17.280 and 62-17.281(4).
Conclusions For Petitioner Hillsborough County (the “County”) David S. Dee, Esquire Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1720 For the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“Department” or “DEP”) Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-300
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting a site certification for the construction and operation of Unit No. 4 at the Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility, in accordance with the Conditions of Certification contained in DEP Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of August, 2006.
