The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) may issue to Respondent Republic Services of Florida, L.P. (Republic), permits to construct and operate a Class III landfill, pursuant to Permit Numbers 266830-003-SC/01 and 266830-004-SO/01, as modified as set forth below.
Findings Of Fact Background On June 30, 2009, Republic filed with DEP an application for a permit to construct and operate a Class I landfill (Application). In response to DEP's request for additional information dated July 30, 2009 (RAI), Republic filed a response dated September 14, 2009 (RRAI), upon receipt of which, DEP deemed the Application to be complete. References to the Application typically include the Application, RRAI, and other materials, such as reports, plans, and drawings, that are part of the Application, as well as three subsequent modifications, which are detailed below. Republic revised several reports, plans, and drawings in the RRAI; references to these items, such as the Engineering Report and Operation Plan, are to the versions contained in the RRAI. On November 13, 2009, DEP filed its intent to issue construction permit #266830- 003-SC/01 (Construction Permit) and intent to issue operation permit #266830-004-SO/01 (Operation Permit; collectively, the Permit). Republic Services, Inc. and its affiliates constitute the second largest waste-management operator group in the United States. Their market capitalization is just over $11 billion. The capitalization of the affiliate formed to operate the subject landfill is doubtlessly less than $11 billion, as the record does not suggest that any significant part of the overall capitalization of Republic Services, Inc., and its affiliates would be at risk in the operation of the proposed landfill. Republic presently owns and operates a Class III landfill in the City of Bartow, Polk County, known as the Cedar Trail Landfill. The oldest part of this landfill is an unlined Class III landfill of 52.5 acres in the center of the property owned by Republic. Immediately west of this unlined landfill is a 30.7-acre lined Class III landfill, which comprises cells 1-4. The Cedar Trail Landfill is located at 2500 West State Road 60, about three miles west northwest of the intersection of State Road 60 and State Road 98, which marks the center of Bartow. The landfill is immediately west of E.F. Griffin Road. Petitioners Frost live on E.F. Griffin Road, about one mile north of the Cedar Trail Landfill. Petitioner Highland Lakes Estates Homeowner's Association serves a residential subdivision known as Highland Lakes Estates. Highland Lakes Estates occupies a notch at the southeast corner of Republic's property. Aerial photographs reveal the changing land use of the land on which Cedar Trail Landfill is situated. Fifty years ago, the land was vacant with indications of agricultural uses. At the site of the proposed landfill were mostly citrus groves on the west side and some rangeland or vacant land on the east side. Ten years later, a large area immediately northeast of the subject land reveals the effects of strip mining for phosphate. Three years later, in 1971, the mined area had greatly expanded to encompass all or nearly all of the subject site and much of the surrounding area, including the western half of what would become Highland Lakes Estates. By 1980, the pits had been refilled and active mining had ceased, and the streets had been constructed for what is now known as Highland Lakes Estates. By 1993, about three dozen homes had been built in this residential, large-lot subdivision. 9. The Cedar Trail Landfill was constructed in the early 1990s as an unlined construction and demolition debris landfill. Now designated an approved landfill for Class III waste, this facility accepts such waste as is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(14) (2010), which includes construction and demolition debris, yard trash, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, paper, glass, furniture (but not white goods), plastic, and other materials not expected to produce leachate that presents a risk to the public health or environment. A zoning/land use map reveals that the land for which the proposed landfill is proposed is designated "sewage/borrow pits/spray fields." Highland Lakes Estates occupies land that is designated single-family residential with a density of one dwelling unit on up to 2.49 acres. The Cedar Trail Landfill has been the subject of three recent environmental resource permits (ERPs). Appendix R to the Application is an individual ERP issued in April 2009, and Appendix R to the RRAI is a conceptual ERP issued in March 2005. The April 2009 ERP mentions that the entire stormwater project was conceptually approved by an ERP issued on September 10, 2008, but this ERP is not part of the record. In any event, these ERPs approve the construction of a comprehensive stormwater or surface water management system for the entire Republic property. In particular, the April 2009 ERP permits the construction of a borrow pit at the southeast corner of the Republic property and a modification of the perimeter ditch/wet retention system. The April 2009 ERP states that the permitted stormwater management system will provide total onsite retention for runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The April 2009 ERP requires 2.8 acres of compensation for 2.8 acres of encroachment in the 100-year floodplain. Specific Condition 14 prohibits excavation of the borrow pits to a clay confining layer or limestone bedrock layer. Specific Condition 20 prohibits the mixing of leachate with stormwater and provides that, if leachate enters stormwater, the stormwater becomes leachate. Presumably reflecting this permitting activity, Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, is the site plan, including the unlined Class III landfill, the four-cell lined Class III landfill immediately to the west of the unlined landfill, and the eight cells proposed to accept Class I waste. These eight cells are immediately south of the four cells of the lined Class III landfill. The two northernmost of these eight cells abut, on their east boundary, the unlined Class III landfill. The remaining six cells abut, on their east boundary, an 800-foot wide borrow pit, which lies between these cells and Highland Lakes Estates. Immediately north of Highland Lake Estates is a second borrow pit, and west of this borrow pit is the unlined Class III landfill. The other major feature on the site plan is a third borrow pit running, from west to east, along the north border of the lined Class III cells, the unlined Class III landfill, and the second borrow pit. Bearing no signs of ambitious reclamation activity, the backfilled mining cuts host large water storage areas and, as described in the application for the March 2005 ERP, wetlands of "very poor quality." The backfilled soils are best described as complex surficial soils, consisting mostly of fine sands with varying amounts of organics, silts, and clays. Geotechnical investigations of the Cedar Trail Landfill suggest that mining depths, although variable, probably averaged 40 feet. Petitioners and Intervenor are substantially affected by the Permit and the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, which will stand nearly 200 feet above grade and will be the focus of substantial activity six days per week during its years of operation. Like Petitioners, Intervenor owns land in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Trail Landfill, which is in the jurisdiction of Intervenor, and Intervenor's various municipal operations are much affected by whether the proposed Class I landfill is permitted. Among other things, Intervenor has agreed to accept untreated leachate from the proposed landfill. Petitioners Frost built their home in 1980 or 1981. During the hours of operation of the existing landfill, Petitioners Frost constantly hear the beeping noise of heavy- duty equipment, presumably a safety device when the equipment is moved. Over a dozen lots in Highland Lakes Estates abut the property line of the Cedar Trail Landfill, and the closest residence is about 1000 feet from the nearest proposed Class I cell. At present, the existing landfill subjects the Highland Lakes Estates to constant noise during operating hours and a coating of dust inside their homes. Several residents of Highland Lakes Estates testified. Hard-working people, some of whom are now retired, these residents decided to purchase homes in Highland Lakes Estates because it was a sunny, healthy place to live. Over time, most of these residents, by varying degrees, have come to accept the fact of the Class III operations at Cedar Trail Landfill, but they object to the substantial intensification of land use that will result from a regional Class I landfill. One resident testified that she finds in her pool dirt that has escaped from the existing landfill, and she has become concerned about her grandchildren coming over to swim. Another resident testified that he only began closing his windows five or six years ago when the noise levels at the existing landfill increased; he eventually had to install a window air- conditioner. The same resident testified that the green herons and snowy egrets that he used to see around his house have not returned for five years, and his wife, who has health problems, including respiratory distress, would suffer from the expanded landfill operations. Application, RRAI, and Permit, Including Modifications The Permit incorporates the Application, including the RRAI, Engineering Report, Operation Plan, and drawings. Thus, all of the documents are part of the Permit. In the Application, Republic proposes to convert cells 5-8, which are not yet constructed, from a Class III to a Class I landfill and add four new cells adjacent to the unused cells. The unfilled portion of Cells 1-4 would continue to receive only Class III waste. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(13) (2010), Class I waste is all solid waste, other than hazardous waste, that is not otherwise prohibited by rule. The Application states that the proposed landfill will serve communities within 100 miles. The service area of this regional landfill will thus extend in central Florida from Marion to Osceola counties, along the Gulf Coast from Pasco to Lee counties, and along the Atlantic Coast from Volusia to Martin counties. As stated in the Application, this service area is populated by 9.7 million persons, who would daily account for 3000 tons of waste at the Cedar Trail Landfill. Initially, according to the Engineering Report, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste, but, once the existing Class III cells are filled, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste plus the 1400 tons per day of the Class III waste that is currently going into the existing landfill. As revised by the RRAI, the life expectancy of the proposed landfill is seven years. The Application states that Republic will employ an attendant, a trained operator, and 3-5 spotters at the landfill. The Application reports that the landfill would operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the working face would be covered daily. The Application reports that Republic would install seven new detection wells and use 17 existing wells for monitoring groundwater and would use two existing staff gauges for monitoring surface water, evidently at a single location, as discussed in the next paragraph. 23. Application Appendix V is the Water Monitoring Plan. Appendix V states that surface water will be monitored every time that the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area discharges offsite, but not more frequently than weekly. Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, shows that the sole surface water monitoring location is close to the leachate storage tanks, which are described below. 23. Appendix V also requires leachate monitoring, "at least annually," for five field parameters--specific conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, colors, and sheens; eight laboratory parameters--including chloride, mercury, and total dissolved solids; and the parameters listed in 40 CFS Part 258, Appendix II, which includes a comprehensive list of volatile organic compounds; persistent organic pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (a major dioxin) and Dibenzofuran; and metals, including lead and chromium. Fourteen days prior to all sampling events, Republic is required to notify DEP, so that it may obtain split samples for its own analysis. Republic is required to report the results of the groundwater monitoring quarterly and to analyze the groundwater data in a technical report filed with DEP every two years. Appendix V also requires monitoring for odors and combustible gases, mostly methane. Republic will monitor combustible gas quarterly at various ambient locations, such as the office buildings and to monitor combustible gas quarterly in the soil down to the seasonal high water table. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine combustible gas concentrations and, if they exceed 25%, take "all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health." Some confusion in the Application arises as to the issue of whether the Cedar Trails Landfill will be subject to, or voluntarily implement, the more elaborate provisions applicable to a landfill covered under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Regulated emissions for a new source might include particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and specified hazardous air pollutants. Appendix V states that the landfill will become a Title V landfill once permitted to receive Class I waste, and, at that time, it will be subject to a "more comprehensive system of landfill gas collection and monitoring." Appendix V assures that these items "will be addressed in separate documentation from this monitoring plan"--and, apparently, separate from the present record. By contrast, the Operation Plan concedes only that, based on the nature of Class I waste and the design capacity of the proposed landfill, Cedar Trail Landfill "may" become a Title V facility. The Operation Plan states: "If the regulatory thresholds at [Cedar Trail Landfill] are met [under Title V] requiring an active gas collection and control system (GCCS), [Cedar Trail Landfill] will submit as required the GCCS design plans for approval and install an active gas extraction system within the regulatory timeframes specified by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart WWW." More specific provisions in the Operation Plan identify best management practices to prevent objectionable odors. Four practices are identified, including an "active gas collection and extraction system." On the DEP form application, which is a cover sheet to the more elaborate application materials, Republic checked boxes indicating that the landfill would use active gas controls with gas flaring and gas recovery, which is probably what is meant by an "active gas collection and extraction system." The Application provides that the landfill liner would be double composite; the leachate collections system would consist of collection pipes, geonets, and a sand layer; the leachate would be stored in tanks; some of the leachate would be recirculated as spray on the working face; and the remainder of the leachate would be stored onsite and periodically transferred to a wastewater treatment center for treatment. The Engineering Report states that the waste disposal footprint will not be located where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the waste. The Engineering Report identifies appendices addressing the slope-stability analysis and foundation analysis and relies on a March 12, 1997, report by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. (Ardaman Report), January 23, 2004, report by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder Report), and June 26, 2009, report by Hanecki Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Hanecki Report). These items are discussed in greater detail below in connection with the sinkhole issue. The Engineering Report assures that the waste disposal footprint will not be within 500 feet of an existing or approved potable water well, nor will it be within 1000 feet of an existing or approved potable water well serving a community water supply. The Engineering Report adds that the minimum horizontal distance between waste deposits and the property line is 100 feet. The Engineering Report assures that the landfill footprint will not be in a dewatered pit, as the installation elevations are at least 2-3 feet higher than the seasonal high water table. The Engineering Report acknowledges that a small part of the eastern end of the four southernmost cells lies within the 100-year floodplain, as depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Map effective December 29, 2000, and as shown in Application Appendix A, Drawing 1. Claiming that the relevant map was not revised in 2000, the Engineering Report asserts that the last update to the FIRM map was in 1975, and the depicted floodplain was filled during the mine reclamation process. The Engineering Report notes that the floodplain concerns were addressed in the April 2009 ERP. 34. The Engineering Report discloses two enforcement actions against Republic at the Cedar Trail Landfill. In a letter dated October 19, 2001, DEP warned Republic about noncompliant items at the site, and, in a notice of noncompliance dated January 30, 2006, DEP warned Republic not to use a new cell prior to construction certification of the cell's stormwater system. Both matters were reportedly resolved, and Republic has not been the subject of other enforcement actions for the Cedar Trails Landfill. At DEP's urging, the RRAI elaborates on enforcement actions against Republic or, evidently, Republic affiliates at a variety of Florida facilities, not just landfills. The additional information reveals that DEP imposed a fine of $61,300 for the October 2001 violations, which included disposing of unacceptable waste, storing an excessive number of tires and exceeding groundwater standards without notifying DEP, and a fine of $1000 for the January 2006 notice of noncompliance. The other enforcement actions against Republic or affiliates concerning landfills involved consent orders about the Nine Mile Road Landfill (Seaboard Waste): in February 2003, DEP imposed a fine of $13,000 in settlement of charges that employees were not removing all unacceptable waste from the site and, in November 2005, DEP imposed a $285 fine for a failure to submit required stormwater monitoring reports. There were many other enforcement actions, generally resulting in modest fines, but they involved hauling facilities, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities, not landfills. The Engineering Report states that the proposed landfill is within six miles of, but greater than 10,000 feet from, the Bartow Municipal Airport. Airport safety is addressed in more detail below. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system, which uses materials whose physical, chemical, and mechanical properties prevent failure due to contact with Class I waste and leachate, climactic conditions, installation stress, and other applied stresses and hydraulic pressures. The Engineering Report performs no contingency sinkhole analysis. The report does not suggest that the liner system could withstand the stresses and pressures resulting from any size sinkhole, so the necessary inference is that the liner will fail if any sinkhole forms directly beneath it. The Engineering Report states that waste placement will remain within the lined containment berm. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system for use at the proposed landfill. The primary liner system and secondary liner system each comprises three layers with the top layer consisting of a composite drainage net, the middle layer consisting of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane with a minimum average thickness of 60 ml, and the bottom layer consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-9 cm/second. The Engineering Report describes in detail the leachate collection and removal system, which, sitting atop the primary liner, includes a 24-inch thick sand drainage layer with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/second, a composite drainage net, and a single perforated 8-inch diameter lateral pipe in each cell. The collection lateral pipes will gravity drain to the east to a header pipe that gravity drains to the primary leachate collection pump stations--one station for the four converted cells and one station for the four new cells. A smaller leachate collection and removal system will handle the leachate that penetrates to the leak detection layer by routing it to a secondary leachate collection pump station. Based on calculations derived from the HELP groundwater model, the leachate collection and removal system is designed to prevent leachate head from exceeding the thickness of the composite drainage net (about 1 cm) over the secondary geomembrane and from exceeding one foot over the primary geomembrane. According to the Engineering Report, flow meters will be installed at each of the pump stations to allow daily readings of the amount of leachate being pumped. At one foot of head over the primary liner, the Engineering Report expects just over three gallons per day collected at each secondary leachate collection pump station--significantly less than the leakage rate typical of a double liner system without a geosynthetic clay liner beneath the primary liner. However, the Engineering Report provides a standard action leakage rate of 100 gallons/acre/day, meaning that Republic is required to report to DEP liner leakage only when this leakage rate is attained. The pump stations will transmit the leachate to one of two above-ground, 150,000-gallon storage tanks. From these tanks, most of the leachate will be transported to an offsite location for treatment. However, up to 12,000 gallons per day of the untreated leachate will be recirculated to be sprayed on the working faces of the landfill. This is to control dust and possibly to assist with the degradation of the waste. The Engineering Report states that the Cedar Trail Landfill implements a facility-wide water quality monitoring plan. Upon completion of the pump stations for the eight cells that are the subject of the Application, Republic will expand its leachate sampling program to include annual sampling of the leachate collected in the primary and secondary leachate collection pump stations. The groundwater monitoring wells would be installed as closely as possible to the outer edge of the roadway that, with a stormwater ditch, will run the perimeter of the proposed Class I landfill. In the revised Engineering Report contained in the RRAI, Republic proposes a surface water discharge point in the stormwater pond located near the leachate storage tanks. The Engineering Report adds that Republic will continue to comply with the following prohibitions: No waste will be knowingly burned on site; Hazardous waste will not knowingly be accepted; PCB contaminated waste will not knowingly be accepted; Untreated biomedical waste will not knowingly be accepted. Please note that treated biomedical waste may be accepted at [Cedar Trail Landfill]'s Class I Landfill provided that the waste containers are marked "Treated Biomedical Waste.;" No waste disposal at the proposed Class I Landfill will occur within 3,000 feet of a Class I surface water body; [Cedar Trails Landfill] will not knowingly accept liquid waste within containers, excluding leachate and gas condensate derived from solid waste disposal operations. [Cedar Trails Landfill] will comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.300(10), FAC regarding the handling of liquid wastes; Neither oily waste nor commingled oily waste will knowingly be accepted; and Lead-acid batteries, used oil, white goods, and whole-waste tires will not knowingly be disposed of in the Class I waste disposal system. The Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, identified above, adds four items to this list of operational prohibitions: i. Garbage will not be knowingly accepted; Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste, will not be knowingly accepted; Animal carcasses will not be knowingly accepted; and Aluminum dross will not be knowingly accepted. Capitalized terms are generally defined in the Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(39) defines "Garbage" as " all kitchen and table food waste, and animal or vegetative waste that is attendant with or results from the storage, preparation, cooking, or handling of food materials." Application Appendix H is the Operation Plan, which also identifies the types of wastes to be permitted at the proposed landfill. Section 3(b) of the Operation Plan authorizes the proposed landfill to accept: Commercial waste Ash residue Incinerator by-pass waste Construction and demolition debris, including from a residence Treated biomedical waste Agricultural waste Industrial waste Yard trash, including from a residence Sewage sludge Industrial sludge Water/air treatment sludges Waste tires De minimis amounts of non-hazardous waste from incidental residential sources Section 5 of the Operation Plan provides, in relevant part: [Cedar Trail Landfill] will accept waste included in any of the waste categories identified under Section 3(b) of this Operation Plan[, but] will . . . NOT knowingly accept any hazardous waste, untreated biomedical waste, liquid waste (including paint), explosive waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste for disposal at the [Cedar Trail Landfill.] Unacceptable types of refuse are listed below and will not be knowingly accepted for disposal. --Hazardous waste --Explosive waste --Radioactive waste --Drums that have not been opened and Emptied --Refrigerators, freezers, air Conditioners (white goods) --Any toxic or hazardous materials, i.e. batteries, solvents, oil, etc. --Automobiles or parts that contain fuel, lubricants, or coolants --Untreated Biomedical waste The original Application prohibited the acceptance of septic tank pumpage, but the application form accompanying the original Application indicated that the proposed landfill would accept industrial sludge and domestic sludge. After modification by the RRAI, the prohibition against accepting septic tank pumpage was deleted, and the Operating Plan added, among acceptable wastes, sewage sludge, industrial sludge, and water- and air-treatment sludge. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(101) (2001) defines "sludge" to include solid waste pollution control residual from an industrial or domestic wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, air pollution control facility, septic tank, grease trap, portable toilet, or other source generating a waste with similar characteristics. Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200(64) (2001) defines "liquid waste" as any waste with free liquids, according to the "Paint Filler Liquids Test." As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Section 5 of the Operation Plan was amended to add the following items to unacceptable types of refuse that will not be knowingly accepted for disposal: --Garbage --Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste --Animal carcasses --Aluminum dross At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan that unacceptable waste would include Garbage contained in commercial, industrial or agricultural waste. According to the Operation Plan, the initial waste screening occurs at the gate house where the attendant interviews the driver and inspects the incoming waste load. If the attendant sees more than a negligible amount of unauthorized wastes, he will reject the load and will contact the hauler to identify the source of the waste. Additionally, Republic will notify DEP if anyone tries to dispose of hazardous waste at the proposed landfill. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, the Operation Plan was amended to provide a new paragraph between the paragraph addressing the initial waste screening at the gate house and, as discussed below, the second screening at the working face. The new paragraph provides: Any malodorous waste will be covered with mulch and/or additional soil or other approved cover materials to control odors promptly, within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. Cedar Trail Landfill will promptly cover any sludge deposited on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of the unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan, which would prohibit Republic from accepting malodorous waste or sludge that, due to exigent circumstances, it would not be able to cover within one hour from the time of unloading. If the load passes the initial waste screening, it will proceed to the working face of the landfill, according to the Operation Plan. At least one spotter will be stationed at the working face at all times that the landfill receives waste. Her job will be to detect unauthorized wastes. Republic is to assure that it has a sufficient number of spotters to find and remove unauthorized waste prior to compaction. The Operation Plan allows the spotter to work from ground level or the cab of a compactor. If the operator of a piece of heavy equipment is trained as a spotter, she may also serve as a spotter. During periods of higher waste traffic, the equipment operator will, according to the Operation Plan, "likely" need the assistance of another operator or spotter to screen the higher waste volumes. When finding unauthorized wastes in manageable volumes, the spotter or operator will remove these wastes by hand and place them into nearby containers for removal to an appropriate facility. The third waste screen occurs as the equipment operator spreads the waste, pursuant to the Operation Plan. The equipment operator is required to place any unacceptable observed wastes into containers, which will be located "within the lined area." These wastes will also be removed to an appropriate facility. In the RAI, DEP questioned the proximity of the containers to the working face, as the lined area consists of 72 acres, but, in the RRAI, Republic ignored the comment, restating only that the containers would not be located outside the lined area. The Operation Plan specifies a filling sequence. Republic will assure that the first layer of waste placed above the liner in each cell will be a minimum of four feet in compacted thickness and will be free of rigid objects that could damage the liner or leachate collection and removal system. Republic will maintain the working face to minimize the amount of exposed waste and initial cover necessary at the end of each day. The filling sequence will proceed until the permitted final grade elevations have been reached, less three feet for the final cover. The Operation Plan states that the initial cover at the Class I landfill will consist of a six-inch layer of soil that is transferred from onsite borrow pits or offsite sources. This soil will be compacted and placed on top of the waste by the end of each work day. At Republic's option, subject to DEP's approval, it may use a spray-on or tarpaulin cover, instead of a soil cover. The Operation Plan requires Republic to apply at least one foot of intermediate cover within seven days of cell completion, if additional waste will not be deposited within 180 days of cell completion. Republic may remove all or part of this intermediate cover before placing additional waste or the final cover. Through the placement of initial, daily, and intermediate cover, Republic will minimize the occurrence of moisture infiltration, fires, odors, blowing litter, and animals and other disease vectors. 59. The Operation Plan requires Republic to control litter primarily by daily waste compaction and cover. However, at least daily, if needed, employees will collect litter along the entrance and access roads and around the working face. Complaints about litter must be logged. In addition to the inspections detailed above, the Operation Plan establishes a random load-checking program to detect unauthorized wastes. Each week, Republic employees will examine at least three random loads of solid waste by requiring drivers to discharge their loads at a designated location within the landfill where the employees may undertake a detailed inspection. All random inspections will be logged. Notwithstanding the daily limit of 12,000 gallons per day, the Operation Plan prohibits Republic from spraying leachate during rain events. To apply the recirculated leachate, the lead operator will drive the leachate tanker truck on the working face, so that it can spray leachate over waste as it is being compacted, but after it has been screened by spotters. The spraying will be done to avoid causing leachate to pond atop the waste and will not be done within 50 feet of an outside slope. No restrictions apply to wind conditions. The Operation Plan states that, if the annual sampling of leachate water quality at the two pump stations reveals a contaminant in excess of the permissible limits listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24, Republic will start monthly sampling and notify DEP in writing. Also, the Cedar Trail Landfill will maintain a recording rain gauge. The Operation Plan requires Republic employees to conduct daily surveys for objectionable odors and take immediate corrective action, if odors are found at the property line. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, this portion of the Operation Plan was amended to add two odor- remediation actions and another form of odor inspection. The two additional actions to prevent odors are to 1) provide additional cover using mulch, additional soil, or other approved cover material and 2) use odor masking or neutralizing agents. The new inspection provision states: Internal inspection will be performed on a weekly basis by a properly trained odor ranger or equivalently trained person. Such individual will tour the facility, property boundary, and the subdivision of Highland Lakes Estates . . . to identify any odors leaving the Landfill's property boundaries. The results of each weekly inspection will be document, and any odors identified will be mitigated. Another new provision from the Joint Stipulation for Permit Modification applies to the handling of sludge. As amended, the Operation Plan states: When accepting sludge from a new source or distributor, [Republic] will obtain information regarding the characteristics and constituents of the sludge, including a description of the industrial process or circumstances that resulted in the generation of the sludge. Upon delivery of the sludge, [Republic] will mix lime, sodium hydroxide, or any other suitable agents to eliminate objectionable odors as required during disposal of the sludge before the material is covered. Furthermore, [Republic] will obtain advance notice from contributors prior to delivery of any sludge and shall promptly cover any sludge unloaded on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as severe weather. [Republic] shall use its best efforts to avoid accepting or disposing of sludge on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. Additionally, with respect to sludge received from wastewater treatment facilities only, such sludge shall not exceed the lesser of (1) twenty percent (20%) of the total volume of waste disposed in the landfill on an average monthly basis, determined annually on the prior calendar year, or (2) two-hundred (200) tons per day, averaged over the prior 12-month calendar year. Republic is required to monitor combustible gases quarterly and transmit the results to DEP, according to the Operation Plan. If Republic detects methane above the limits specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.530 (2010), Republic must submit a gas remediation plan to DEP within seven days. The Operating Plan indicates that the separation of the waste from the groundwater prevents the saturation of the waste and, thus, the generation of odor. Sloping and compacting will promote stormwater runoff, again to discourage the generation of odor. The Construction Permit authorizes construction of the proposed landfill in accordance with the "rules[,] . . . reports, plans and other information" submitted by Republic "(unless otherwise specified)." This parenthetical reference provides that the provisions of the Construction Permit control over any contrary provisions in the other documents that are part of the Permit due to incorporation by reference. In addition to the original Application, RRAI, and drawings, the Construction Permit also incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001). The Construction Permit states that Republic may not violate the prohibitions set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Construction Permit Specific Condition A.9.a requires notification to DEP of the discovery of limestone during excavation or discovery. Specific Condition A.9.b requires notification to DEP of any surface depressions or other indications of sinkhole activity onsite or within 500 feet of the site. Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Construction Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate, during construction or operation, to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner and leachate management system. Specific Condition C.4 prohibits the acceptance of hazardous waste and does not condition this prohibition on Republic's knowledge that the waste is a hazardous waste. Specific Condition C.5 requires Republic to "control . . . odors and fugitive particulates (dust)" and "minimize the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property." "Nuisance conditions" include "complaints confirmed by [DEP] personnel upon site inspection." Specific Condition C.5 orders Republic to "take immediate corrective action to abate the nuisance" and to "control disease vectors so as to protect the public health and welfare." Construction Permit Specific Condition C.6.b requires immediate notice to DEP of any sinkholes or other subsurface instability. Specific Condition C.8 requires Republic to manage leachate in accordance with the Operating Permit and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-700.500(8). The Operating Permit incorporates the same materials that are incorporated into the Construction Permit, again "(unless otherwise specified)." Like the Construction Permit, the Operating Permit incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001) and requires immediate notice to DEP in the event of a sinkhole or subsurface instability. The Operating Permit specifies that the action leakage rate is 100 gallons per acre per day and the leachate recirculation rate is 12,000 gallons per day. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition A.1.b states: This Facility is not authorized to accept Garbage; untreated Biomedical Waste; animal carcasses; liquids and non-liquid PCB containing materials or wastes with a PCB concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million; Liquid Waste; and aluminum dross. Additionally, this facility is not authorized to accept Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste. Class III waste means yard trash, construction and demolition debris, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, or other materials approved by [DEP] that are not expected to produce leachate which are a threat to public health or the environment as defined in Rule 62-701.200(14), F.A.C. Based on this authorization to allow certain wastes as described above from residential sources, and since the landfill design, including liner and leachate collection systems, meets the requirements of Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., for Class I landfills, the facility will be entitled to [the] household hazardous waste exemption pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(1). Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner. Specific Condition C.1.c prohibits the discharge of "residual contaminants," such as gasoline, oil, paint, antifreeze, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), onto the ground or into surface water or groundwater. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides that authorized waste types are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations Plan, and unacceptable wastes shall be removed from the site as described in Sections 3(a) and 7. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides: "Waste types authorized for management at this site are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations [sic] Plan. Unacceptable wastes are those listed in Section 5 [of the Operation Plan] " Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(2) requires the use of a sufficient number of spotters to remove unacceptable wastes, but allows Republic to direct its equipment operators to serve as spotters from the equipment. This condition allows DEP to require that spotters work from the ground, if DEP determines that spotting from equipment is not effective. Specific Condition C.1.k(3) requires Republic to remove unacceptable wastes immediately and not to unload additional wastes in the immediate vicinity until placing unacceptable wastes in the designated waste containers" "near the working face" and within the lined landfill area. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.l(2) requires Republic to inspect on each operating day the property boundary for objectionable odors and, if any are detected, abate them in accordance with Specific Condition C.5. Specific Condition C.5.a requires Republic to control odors, disease vectors (insects and rodents), and fugitive particles (dust and smoke) to protect the public health and welfare. Control is defined as "minimiz[ing]" the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property. Odors confirmed by DEP personnel are a nuisance condition, and Republic must take immediate corrective action to "abate" the nuisance. Specific Condition C.5.b provides that, if odor control measures do not "sufficiently abate" objectionable odors within 30 days, Republic will submit an odor remediation plan to DEP for approval. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.8.e requires monthly reports to DEP of leachate quantities. Specific Condition C.8.h(1) prohibits recirculation of leachate at rates that result in seepage that may discharge outside the lined area. Leachate may not be sprayed when the application area is saturated or during a rainfall event. There is no prohibition against spraying during windy conditions. Operating Permit Specific Condition E details the extensive water quality monitoring requirements. However, Specific Condition E.9.b requires only annual testing of the five field parameters, eight laboratory parameters, and the comprehensive list of Appendix II parameters set forth in 40 CFR Part 258, all of which are identified below. Specific Condition E.9.c provides that, if a contaminant listed in 40 CFR 261.24 exceeds the level listed therein, Republic will notify DEP and take monthly leachate samples until no exceedances are detected for three consecutive months. Operating Permit Specific Condition F.1.a states: "This solid waste permit will meet the statutory requirement to obtain an air construction permit before . . . constructing a source of air pollution, except for those landfills that are subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of Chapter 62-212, F.A.C." Such facilities are required to obtain an air construction permit from the Bureau of Air Regulations prior to construction. Specific Condition F.1.b requires Republic to comply with Title V of 40 CFR 60, Subparts WWW and CC. This section notes that Title V permit applications must be submitted to the District Air Program Administrator or County Air Program Administrator responsible for the landfill. Aviation Safety Landfills attract birds in search of food. Flying birds may interfere with aviation safety. Thus, landfills are typically not located in close proximity to airfields to minimize the risk that flying birds will interfere with airborne aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. The nearest airport to the Cedar Trail Landfill is the Bartow Municipal Airport, which is operated by the Bartow Aviation Development Authority. This airport is over five miles from the footprint of the active landfill and 4.6 miles from the boundary of the proposed site. Republic provided notice of the Application to all airports within six miles of the proposed landfill, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation. None of these entities objected to the proposed landfill. When Republic gave the Bartow Aviation Development Authority notice of an earlier application, which sought a permit for a landfill that would accept garbage, the authority objected to the proposal due to concerns posed by birds to aviation safety. When asked about the Application, the authority's executive director testified that she still has concerns about the proposed landfill, but she did not specify the nature of her concerns or her analysis. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, these are the only facts required for a determination of whether Republic has provided reasonable assurance of aviation safety. The record provides no basis for finding that Republic has failed to provide reasonable assurance of aviation safety. Neither the FAA nor the Bartow Aviation Development Authority has objected to the proposed landfill. The executive director's unspecified concerns do not override the absence of a formal objection from these agencies. Petitioners assign too much weight to the earlier objection submitted by the authority. The composition of the authority may have changed or some authority members may have decided they were wrong in their earlier analysis. This earlier objection does not outweigh the absence of objection to the present proposal from any of the aviation agencies and the absence of any evidence of the expected nature or extent of bird usage of the proposed landfill and the extent to which these birds would interfere with existing and expected flight paths of aircraft using the Bartow Municipal Airport. Public Health Petitioners' expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. David Carpenter, is a medical doctor with a long, prestigious history of public service, including with the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the United States Public Health Service, and the New York Department of Health, where he served as director from 1980-85. At that time, Dr. Carpenter started the School of Public Health at the University of Albany. Republic's expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. Christopher Teaf, is an expert in the evaluation of environmental contamination, waste management, and toxicology, but not a medical doctor. Dr. Teaf is a professor at Florida State University and owns a small consulting firm. The major part of Dr. Carpenter's career has been devoted to research. For the past ten years, he has focused more on human health, especially human disease from exposure to environmental contaminants. Dr. Carpenter has considerable experience with the adverse effects of landfills on human health, but his experience has been mostly with older landfills, where containment measures were few and offsite releases were many. Clearly, Dr. Carpenter's experience does not extend to the role of landfill design, construction, and operation in the transmission of human disease. Thus, Dr. Carpenter is qualified to opine on the effects of pollutants that may escape landfills, but not on the relationship of landfill design, construction, and operation on the probability that a landfill will transmit pollutants. For the most part, Dr. Carpenter did not attempt to address matters outside of his expertise. However, Dr. Carpenter testified that the risk of disease or injury increased in relationship to the proximity of the person to the landfill. This testimony can only be credited if one assumes that the landfills are identical in terms of design, construction, and operation and in terms of the environmental conditions of the landfill site. In other words, in real-world applications, it is impossible to credit this element of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, especially to the extent of his implicit suggestion that public health is unreasonably endangered by the construction of a landfill, in compliance with all rules, that satisfies all of the separation criteria and design criteria set forth in the rules, as discussed below. By contrast, Dr. Teaf focused on the details of the proposed landfill. Applying his knowledge of toxicology, Dr. Teaf determined that the proposed landfill adequately protects public health. In making this determination, Dr. Teaf analyzed the effects of various design and operational characteristics of the proposed landfill, including the double liner system, the leachate collection and management system, the selection of appropriate waste types, the procedures for the evaluation and covering of sludges, the prohibition against municipal garbage, the restrictions on household items, the monitoring of groundwater and surface water, the stormwater management system, and the plans to control dust and odors. Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the literature that he sponsored suggested important links between older landfills and a wide range of human disease. But the recurring problem with Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the research articles that he sponsored was the inability to link this information to the proposed landfill. All of the landfills studied in his research articles were older, and most of them appeared to have been designed, constructed, and operated under far more relaxed regulatory regimes than exist today. Nothing in Dr. Carpenter's testimony or sponsored literature attempted to delineate the design or operational characteristics of these landfills, such as whether they were double- or even single-lined, served by leachate circulation and recovery systems, limited as to materials that they could accept, or required to install stormwater management and water monitoring systems. 93. Analysis of the risk to public health posed by the proposed landfill requires consideration of the various means of transmission of the pollutants received by the landfill: water, land, and air. Of these, water requires little analysis, on this record. Even Dr. Carpenter conceded that the proposed landfill does not appear to pose a threat to groundwater. The double liner, leachate collection and recovery system, and groundwater monitoring plan support the finding that groundwater transmission of pollutants from the proposed landfill is unlikely. Transmission by surface water is also unlikely. Compared to groundwater monitoring, surface water monitoring is limited. For instance, there is only a single monitoring site. Also, as noted above, the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area is expected to discharge stormwater offsite during excessive storm events, at which time surface water samples will be taken. However, a comprehensive surface water management system is in place at the landfill and will prevent offsite discharges in all but a few excessive rain events. Transmission by land is also unlikely. The Application contains engineering analysis of the proposed stability of the side slopes and a determination that they will be stable. The discussion of sinkholes, below, does not affect this finding. Treating dust as transmission by air, the only other means by which pollutants may transmit by land is by animals, such as insects, rodents, and birds. An important factor limiting the activity of animals in spreading pollutants offsite is the fact that the proposed landfill will not receive garbage. Although putrescible waste may be received within other categories of waste, the prohibition against receiving garbage will greatly reduce the amount of potential food sources for animals and thus the utilization rate of the proposed landfill by these animals. A further reduction in animal utilization will be achieved through the daily and intermediate cover requirements. Thus, transmission of pollutants by animals is also unlikely. Transmission by air takes several forms. Pollutants may be transmitted as or on dust, with water in the form of aerosol, or as gas. In terms of how transmission by air is addressed by the Permit, this means of transmission potentially represents a greater threat than transmission by water or land for four reasons. First, the explicit focus of the Permit, as to gas, is to avoid explosive concentrations of methane and objectionable odors, but not the transmission of other pollutants by air. Second, the effect of the Permit is to prohibit the release of pollutants into the groundwater or offsite surface water and to prohibit the release of pollutant-bearing land offsite, but no such flat prohibition applies to the offsite release of pollutants by air. Third, the leachate recirculation system provides a good opportunity for the release of certain pollutants into the air by aerosol or evaporation, but similar releases to offsite land, surface water, or groundwater are prohibited. Fourth, scientific understanding of the effects of exposure, especially by inhalation, to pollutants, especially in the form of organic compounds, is continuing to develop: with the use of chemicals increasing three fold in the 50 years preceding 1995 and approximately 80,000 chemicals in use in 2002, only a few hundreds of these chemicals have been subjected to long- or short-term study, resulting in the discovery that about 10% of the chemicals in use in 2002 were carcinogens. Transmission by dust appears to be limited by the frequent covering and spraying of the working faces. Although nearby residents complain of dust in their homes, the practices of the less-regulated Class III landfill cannot be extrapolated to the proposed Class I landfill. Thus, the prospect of dust transmission of chemicals contained in the fill received by the proposed landfill appears also to be slight. The use of untreated leachate as the spray medium to control the dust itself raises two risks, however. First, spraying leachate will release chemicals in aerosol. The potential range of aerosol is great, especially as the landfill ascends toward its design height of 190 feet. However, the risk of transmission by aerosol is reduced to insubstantial levels by adding a Permit condition that prohibits spraying during windy conditions. Second, depositing leachate on the landfill face will release chemicals through evaporation. The point of spraying the landfill face is to control dust between the addition of the waste materials to the pile and the application of the cover. Between these two events, dry conditions will sometimes intervene and may cause the evaporation of certain, but not all, pollutants. The leachate acquires pollutants as it percolates down the waste column and into the leachate collection system. As Dr. Teaf noted, the leachate becomes more concentrated as it recirculates, but, otherwise, this record is largely silent as to the likely composition of the recirculated leachate. However, for landfills accepting sludge, higher levels of mercury may be present in the leachate. As reported by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, in a report issued March 2007, and titled, "Design and Operational Issues Related to Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids and Class I Landfills--Phase III," one study found that the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that receive sludge is almost three times greater than the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that do not accept sludge. The same study reported that total dissolved solids and chlorides were present at greater concentrations at the landfills that did not accept sludge and that other parameters--unidentified in the cited article--were not significantly different between the two types of landfills. Republic proposes to recirculate substantial volumes of leachate--sufficient, for instance, to raise the moisture content of the fill from 25 percent to 28.9 percent. The Permit allows the proposed landfill to operate six days per week, for a total of 312 days annually. The Operation Plan prohibits the application of leachate during rain, but the number of days annually during which rain extends for the entire day is few, probably no more than a dozen. These numbers suggest that Republic may apply as much as 3.6 million gallons annually of untreated leachate to the landfill face. The 12,000 gallon-per-day limit and restrictions on head in the leachate collection and removal system effectively limit the quantities of leachate that may be recirculated, but the sole provision addressing leachate water quality is the annual monitoring event described above. Given the time required to analyze the many parameters included in the EPA regulation, for most of the year between tests, Republic will be applying over three million gallons of leachate whose pollutant concentrations will be completely unknown. Some assurances emerge, though, when considering air transmission of pollutants by class. In general, on this record, as to transmission by gas, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a compound's volatility, which is a measure of its ability to enter the air, and a compound's persistence. VOCs are one of the most dangerous classes of pollutants to public health and include such carcinogens as benzene, tolulene, xylene and, the most dangerous of all VOCs, vinyl chloride, which is released upon the degradation of such common substances as plastics, carpets, and upholstery. Biogas, which is generated by the anerobic decomposition of organic compounds in a landfill, contains mostly methane and carbon dioxide, but also significant levels of VOCs. When inhaled, the primary results of exposure to VOC are respiratory irritation and allergenic effects. Volatility is measured by vapor pressure, which is a measure of a chemical's ability to get into the air. As their name suggests, VOCs enter the air easily. They are also capable of traveling great distances due to their light molecule. However, VOCs are easily destroyed by sunlight and diluted by wind. Other organic compounds common to landfills are only semi-VOCs, such as PCBs. Although less volatile, these chemicals, too, are hazardous to public health--in the case of PCBs, in any amount. Due to this fact and their persistence in the environment, the United States has prohibited the manufacture of PCBs for over 30 years. However, not only are PCBs considerably less likely to enter the air than VOCs, they also travel shorter distances than VOCs due to a heavier molecule. Dr. Carpenter opined that there is little evidence that PCBs are an issue in the proposed landfill. Another class of organic compound, 1000 times less volatile than even PCBs, is phthalates, which are used in the production of plastics. Phthalates pose significant threats to public health, especially reproductive health. However, the exceptionally low volatility of this compound renders transmission by evaporation highly unlikely. Much of the regulatory framework imposed on landfill design, construction, and operation arises out of concerns for the control of human pathogens, which are infection-causing organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. One of the great advances in human longevity in the United States occurred in the early 1900s--not with the development of antibiotics or improved medical care--but with the implementation of basic sanitation control and the removal of pathogens from the drinking water. For the proposed landfill, sludge will be the primary source of pathogens. Sludge is nutrient-rich organic matter, which will be received at the proposed landfill without any treatment except possibly dewatering. Even with the acceptance of sludge, the proposed landfill presents little risk for the transmission of pathogens. Pathogens communicate disease only when a person is exposed to an effective dose and are better transmitted by direct contact or animal than air. Bacterial pathogens are themselves killed by wind, as well as sunlight, temperature, and humidity differentials, so the preferred means of air transmission would be aerosol versus gas. The record permits no findings as to the persistence of pathogenic viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. However, as noted above in connection with the land transmission of pathogens, the immediate application of lime and cover to the sludge will tend to prevent the release of effective doses of pathogens by air, as well. The last major class of pollutant that could be transmitted by air is heavy metals, such as mercury or lead. Although these metals produce a wide range of neurological diseases and generally interfere with cognition and behavior, Dr. Carpenter admitted that heavy metals were not as much of a concern as VOCs, presumably due to their resistance to vaporization. Even though transmission by air is not as tightly controlled as transmission by water or land, for the four reasons noted above, there is little risk of transmission by air--i.e., dust, aerosol, or gas--when the specific properties of likely pollutants are considered. In all but five respects, then, Republic has provided reasonable assurance that public health will not be endangered by pollutants released from the landfill by water, land, or air. First, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs a condition that prohibits spraying leachate during windy conditions, which DEP may define as it reasonably sees fit. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this is a requirement in the rules and, due to its importance, should be restated explicitly in the Permit, which restates numerous other rule requirements. Second, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs more frequent monitoring of leachate water quality, at least at the frequency, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, set forth in the rules. Large volumes of untreated leachate will be recirculated through the landfill. Even if aerosol transmission is controlled, transmission by evaporation of some pollutants, although not the heavy metals, is possible. Also, pollutants are concentrated in recirculated leachate and thus the consequences of transmission into groundwater or surface water, however unlikely, become greater. At the same time, the action leakage rate is generous--to Republic, not the groundwater. At 100 gallons per acre per day, Republic is not required to report to DEP possible liner leakage until about 7300 gallons per day are lost to the surficial aquifer. Suitable for the detection of catastrophic failures associated with most sinkholes, this action leakage rate is too high to trigger action for small liner leaks. If Republic is to be allowed this much leakage into the groundwater, it must identify the leachate's constituents and their concentrations at least semi-annually. Third, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Application must extend the right of split testing to all of the parties in these cases, if DEP fails to exercise its right to take a split sample. The spraying of untreated leachate and generous limit applied to liner leakage before reporting and remedial action are required underscore the importance to public health of independent leachate testing. There is no reason to allow budgetary constraints or administrative oversight to preclude Petitioners and Intervenor, who are uniquely situated to suffer from the escape of excessive pollutants in the leachate, from providing, at their expense, this independent leachate testing. Fourth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to restate accurately the language of the rules concerning the extent of knowledge required of Republic, if it is to be liable for the acceptance of certain prohibited wastes. Fifth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to be modified to ensure that at least one spotter, whose sole responsibility is spotting, will be assigned to each working face while the landfill is receiving waste. Sinkholes The sinkhole issue arises in the geotechnical analysis of the sufficiency of the foundation to support the considerable loads of a landfill and also in the stability of the side slopes of the landfill. This analysis starts with consideration of the geology of the area, of which Republic's property is a part, and, among other things, the potential for sinkhole formation in the area. The Cedar Trail Landfill lies within the Bartow Embayment and along the eastern slope of the Lakeland Ridge of the Central Lake District Physiographic Province. This embayment is a large erosional basin partially backfilled with phosphatic sand and clayey sand of the Bone Valley Member. At this location, the top of the Floridan Aquifer is formed by Suwannee Limestone, which consists of white to tan, soft to hard, granular, porous, very fossiliferous limestone with interbedded dolomite. This rock unit is 110-140 feet thick. Atop the Suwannee Limestone sits the Hawthorne Group, which comprises the Arcadia Formation, at the base of which is the Nocatee Member, which is a relatively impermeable sand and clay unit. Atop the Nocatee Member is the Tampa Member, which consists of hard, dense, sandy, locally phosphatic, fossiliferous limestone. The top of this member, which is the top of the Arcadia Formation, is locally referred to as the "bedrock complex," which marks the lower limit of phosphate mining. Atop the Arcadia Formation, still within the Hawthorne Group, sits the Peace River Formation, which consists of phosphatic clayey sand and clayey sand. The lower portion of the Peace River Formation is a relatively impermeable, undifferentiated clayey unit locally known as "bedclay." The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is mined for phosphate and is locally known as "matrix." Atop of the Peace River Formation are undifferentiated surficial soils, typically consisting of silty sand, clayey sand, and some hardpan and organic soils. These materials are locally known as "overburden." Phosphate mining is prevalent in the area, including, as noted above, much or all of the Cedar Trail Landfill site. Strip mining for phosphate normally removes the entire surficial aquifer, just into the bedclay. Mined areas are then backfilled with overburden spoil soils, clay, waste clay, and sand tailings. After backfilling, the soil strata bear little resemblance to premining strata. Sinkholes are prevalent in the general area surrounding the Cedar Trail Landfill. A sinkhole is a surface depression varying in depth from a few feet up to several hundreds of feet and in area from several square feet to several acres. Sinkholes are typically funnel-shaped and open broadly upward. Sinkholes form when weakly acidic groundwater creates cavities in the calcium carbonate within limestone. Soils above these cavities erode into the cavities. In the area that includes the Cedar Trail Landfill, cover-collapse and cover- subsidence sinkholes predominate among sinkhole types. A cover-collapse sinkhole, which is typically steep- sided and rocky, forms when cohesive soils over a limestone cavity can no longer bridge the cavity under the weight of overlying soil and rock. At this point, the cohesive soils suddenly collapse into the cavity. These are more common in the part of the state in which the Cedar Trail Landfill is located. A cover-subsidence sinkhole occurs due to the gradual lowering of the rock surface as solutioning occurs in the subsurface rocks. This type of sinkhole develops as subsurface soluble rock is dissolved and overlying soils subside into the resulting shallow surface depressions. Regardless of the type of sinkhole, borings into sinkholes will reveal zones of very loose soil sediments that have washed downward into the cavernous voids within the bedrock. This very loose soil zone is called a raveling zone, which starts at the limestone layer, as the overlying soils begin to collapse into the solution features within the limestone. As the loosening works its way upward toward the surface, it eventually results in the subsidence of the ground surface and formation of a sinkhole. Considerable sinkhole activity has taken place in the immediate vicinity of Republic's property. Most visibly, a sinkhole formed in 2006 in 285-acre Scott Lake, 4.5 miles northwest of the landfill. This sinkhole drained the entire lake and destroyed several structures. The Florida Geological Service sinkhole database, which consists of anecdotal reports of sinkhole activity, some of which are unverified, includes 49 sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. Two documented sinkholes have occurred within .17 mile of the landfill--one of which is reported to be 125 feet in diameter and 80 feet deep. Based upon the information contained in the preceding paragraph, Clint Kromhout, a professional geologist with the Florida Geological Survey, opined on August 23, 2009, that the potential for sinkhole formation "within the proposed site and surrounding area" is "low to moderate." Mr. Kromhout does not provide a definition of "low," but part of his opinion is shared by the Golder Report, which agrees that the sinkhole potential on the proposed site is "low." The potential for sinkhole formation in the general area surrounding the proposed landfill, as distinguished from the site itself, is at least moderate. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Republic and Intervenor necessarily concede: "All parties acknowledge that the proposed landfill site is in a general region that has a relatively high frequency of sinkholes as compared with the rest of the state of Florida." It is misleading to characterize the area surrounding the proposed landfill as of low potential for the formation of sinkholes, unless there is another category, like "nonexistent." But characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate is not determinative of the likelihood of sinkholes at the landfill's footprint, nor is a site-specific geotechnical investigation mooted by such a characterization. Rather, characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate dictates the intensity and scope of the ensuing geotechnical investigation, if the investigation is to provide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the proposed landfill. Acknowledging moderate potential for sinkhole formation in the surrounding area, Republic has appropriately relied on three geotechnical reports, including three sets of boring data. The final of these reports, the Hanecki Report, is based on the collection and analysis of boring data, as well as a review of the data and analysis contained in the two earlier geotechnical reports, the Ardaman Report and Golder Report. The boring data reveal that the proposed landfill site features four units. Nearest the surface is Unit 1, which is brown to dark brown, medium- to fine-grained sand with minor amounts of clayey silt. Unit 1 is 0-10 feet thick. Next down is Unit 2, which is tan to gray, medium- to fine-grained sand with increasing silty clay or clayey silt. Unit 2 is 5-10 feet thick and generally marks the upper limit of fine-grained, granular soils (i.e., clayed sands and silty sands). Unit 3 is orange brown to yellow brown, gray and tan silty clay to clayey silt or fine sand and silty clay. Unit 3 is 5-15 feet thick. Unit 4 is gray and tan clayey silt or silty clay with minor amounts of fine sand. This material is very stiff or very dense, and most borings terminated in this unit. The few borings that penetrated this unit suggest that it may consist of dolomitic sandy clays and silts and dolomitic limestone to depths greater than 100 feet below grade. Units 3 and 4 generally mark the upper limits of low permeability/low compressibility soils. The Hanecki investigation comprised two main steps. First, Hanecki retained a subconsultant to perform electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) along 100-foot-wide transects run across the site. Any anomalies revealed by the ERIs were to be followed by standard penetration test (SPT) borings, which permit soil testing at predetermined intervals, as well as a measure of the compressibility of the soils. Compressibility is measured during the soil-testing intervals, during which the drill bit is replaced by a soil sampler. The driller records the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to produce 12 inches of penetration. The value is expressed in N-values, where N represents the number of such blows. Looser soils produce lower N values. Another important piece of information obtained during SPT boring is the partial or total loss of circulation fluid during drilling. While the drill is penetrating soil, a slurry circulates through the borehole to prevent the collapse of the sides of the hole. This slurry is recycled during drilling, but, if the drill encounters a void, all or part of the circulation fluid is lost. The ERI survey revealed no real anomalies because of a narrow range of resistance values. However, taking relatively small differences in resistivity as an anomalies, Hanecki identified 14 features of interest. At each of these locations, Hanecki performed an SPT boring. Because the ERI transects were unable to span the two onsite ponds, Hanecki added two locations for SPT borings adjacent to each side of each pond, for a total of four additional SPT borings. At the request of DEP, Hanecki added a nineteenth SPT boring at Golder site G-11, which had revealed low N-values during Golder's borings. Hanecki extended the borings into "refusal" quality soil, which was defined as soils requiring more than 50 blows of the 140-pound hammer to achieve six inches or less of penetration. All of Hanecki's SPT borings encountered very hard limestone. Among the most significant findings of Hanecki's borings, only one boring, G-11, experienced any circulation fluid loss, and this was estimated at 50 percent. However, it is more likely that this partial circulation fluid loss is due to loosely deposited sands than a void that might be indicative of conditions suitable for sinkhole formation. Not all circulation losses indicate voids that that will result in sinkhole formation. Also significant among Hanecki's findings is a clayey soil, or bedclay, at every SPT boring, which severely limits hydraulic recharge to the limestone. By impeding vertical migration of surface and shallow subsurface water to the limestone layer, this bedclay "greatly inhibits limestone erosion." This bedclay also supports the looser soils above the bedclay and thus prevents raveling, without which sinkholes cannot form. Two borings--G-11 and F3-1--lacked a layer of Unit 3 or 4 soil above the limestone, but Hanecki concluded that the Unit 2 layers above the limestone at these locations contained sufficient clay or clayey sand to serve the same functions of impeding the downward movement of groundwater and preventing the downward movement of loose soils. This conclusion appears reasonable because Unit 2 is the uppermost reach of the finer- grained materials, of which clays and silts are examples when compared to sands. There is obviously some variability in the distribution of finer- and coarser-grained materials within each occurrence of Unit 2 soils. Hanecki's findings indicated intervals of loose soils, sometimes at depth, which typically would suggest raveling zones. At the proposed location, though, these findings do not support raveling due to the underlying bedclay layer and the history of mining, which probably introduced looser soils typically found closer to the surface through the entire 40-foot depth of the mine cut. Based on these findings, the Hanecki Report concludes that, regardless of at least moderate potential for sinkhole potential in the area, the footprint of the proposed landfill has an acceptably low risk of sinkhole development to permit development of the proposed landfill. This is a reasonable conclusion because it is supported by the data collected by Hanecki and his reasoned analysis of these data. Hanecki's conclusion is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Golder Report and Ardaman Report, which are based on an additional 84 SPT borings, post- reclamation. Only about 12 percent of these SPT borings reached the limestone, and they cover all of Republic's property, not merely the footprint of the proposed landfill. Even so, these borings confirm two important findings of the Hanecki Report. First, they produced data indicative of an extensive bedclay layer intact on Republic's property. Second, the Ardaman and Golder borings reveal only two or three instances of partial circulation loss that, like the sole occurrence of partial circulation loss in the Hanecki borings, are located on Republic's property, but outside the footprint of the proposed landfill. Republic has provided reasonable assurance that the site will provide an adequate foundation for the proposed landfill and sinkholes are unlikely to undermine the structural integrity of the proposed landfill.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Construction Permit and Operation Permit, but only if the Operation Permit is modified by the addition of the five items identified in paragraphs 172, 174, 175, 181, and 187. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi A. Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ronald L. Clark, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801-5271 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Jennings Kemp Brinson, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801 Sean R. Parker, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 North Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-4620 Ralph A. DeMeo, Esquire Hopping, Green, & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paula L. Cobb, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 John W. Frost, Esquire Frost Sessums Van den Boom & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 2188 Bartow, Florida 33831 John Stanley Fus Highland Lakes Estates HOA 2190 Boardman Road Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issues 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 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).
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 Whether Beker Phosphate Corporation should be granted a hermit to construct an industrial waste water facility pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. By application, dated April 8, 1975, Beker Phosphate Corporation (hereinafter Beker) , sought a permit to construct an industrial waste water facility in Manatee County, Florida, from the Department of Pollution Control (now and hereinafter DER) . The application was received on April 11 and, after advising Beker that the application was incomplete a meeting was held on May 9th between DER and Beker representatives with the result that Beker filed a new application dated June 11, that was received by the DER in July. Further meetings were held in the fall of 1975 and additional in formation was received as to the application. On December 16, 1975, DER secretary. Jay W. Landers, Jr., issued a Notice Of Intent To Grant A Permit With Conditions. The conditions were unspecified in the letter of intent (Exhibit 1.) Subsequently, on December 23 and December 24, 1975, Sarasota County (hereinafter Sarasota) and the Town of Longboat Key (hereinafter Longboat Key), respectively, filed petitions with the DER alleging that their substantial interests would be adversely affected by approval of the permit application and setting forth in their petitions certain disputed questions of fact for determination. After a prehearing conference, Amended Petitions were filed by those parties to clarify and expand on such questions of fact and to resolve procedural matters. Additionally, during this period, George Browning, III, of Sarasota, Florida was granted status as an intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Beker proposes to construct a phosphate rock mine and beneficiation plant on a tract of approximately 11,000 acres in a predominately agricultural and ranching area of Manatee County about 10 miles from Myakka City, Florida. The mining will be performed by two dredges. One will mine overburden and return it to the mined-out area and the other will mine phosphate rock matrix which will be pumped to the beneficiation plant. The plant will consist essentially of two circuits. The first is a washer where the matrix pumped from the dredging operation is partially cleaned of clay and fine sand, and the coarser phosphate particles "pebbles" are separated as a product. The "fines" from the washing operation consist of small phosphate rock particles, sand, and clay. This mixture will be treated in the second section of the plant by "flotation" methods to recover the small phosphate rock particles as a product. During initial operation, the sand and clay will be stored in a temporary waste material storage area, but as the mining proceeds and the dredge pits open up, the sand and clay material will be pumped back to the dredge pits so that sand, and overburden will be mixed and redeposited to reclaim the land. Approximately 8 million gallons of fresh water per day will be drawn from the Floridian aquifer to be used in the flotation circuits. From the plant the water flows in two types of streams--one containing sand suspended in water and one containing clay suspended in water. Both streams flow into a settling pond surrounded by an earthen dam where sand and clay solids settle to the bottom. The clarified water is then decanted through six spillway structures into a hydraulic recirculation ditch outside the dam and flows back to the plant for re-use. The ponds and canals that make up the hydraulic circuit are planned to have sufficient capacity to contain rainwater falling on the site and pond system during the wet season when there are heavy rainfalls (approximately from May to September). Excess water will be decanted from the hydraulic recirculation ditch through a structure into a pipe and then discharged into Wingate Creek. The settling pond will occupy approximately 225 acres and its capacity will be about 8,458 acre- feet. The pond itself can be used to act as a reservoir and water can be built up in the pond during periods of high rainfall. It will not be necessary to release the water at any particular time. It can be released at will when the effluent contains a minimum of pollutant materials (Exhibit 1). Matrix is an unconsolidated mixture of phosphate pebbles and boulders of partly phosphatized limestone, quartz and clay. The washing operation removes unwanted oversized material and fine clays. The purpose of the flotation plant is to recover fine phosphate rock that might otherwise be lost. In the flotation process, flotation reagents, including sulfuric acid, number 2 fuel oil, tall oil, sodium hydroxide, and amines are used for treatment. The wastes are then moved to the settling pond where over a period of time the "slimes", (sands and clays) will settle to the bottom forming an impervious layer which will seal the pond. The settling process removes more than 90 percent of the contaminants from the influent. The coarser clay particles settle first and many of the fine particles settle in a process called "flocculation" by which electrical forces bring the particles together. However, some of the particles will not flocculate and remain suspended in the water. These extremely small particles constitute the total suspended solids that remain in the effluent when it is discharged from the settling area. They probably will not settle out entirely during their course from Wingate Creek into the Myaaka River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. However, even if it were assumed that such materials would settle somewhere between the point of discharge and Charlotte Harbor, over the entire 20 year proposed life of the mine they would form a deposit much less than 1/10th of an inch. Although it is technically possible to treat water to the degree that it would result in distilled water, realistic concepts of treatment establish that an additional settling or "polishing" pond for the proposed facility might not improve the quality of the wastewater finally discharged in state waters to any appreciable degree. Alternative proposals for the reduction of pollutants by additional processing, such as the intentional growth of water hyacinths in settling areas or use of chemical coagulants would result in creating other waste materials and thus be counterproductive (Testimony of Bromwell; Exhibit 1). The applicant's discharge of wastewater to Wingate Creek will average approximately 3.19 million gallons per day. However, since discharge will be effected primarily during periods of excessive rainfall, actual discharges can reach a maximum of about ten million gallons per day during this period. The effluent contained in such discharge will meet the test of at least 90 percent removal of organic and inorganic wastes specified by Rule 17-3.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, when measured by the influent into the settling pond and the effluent leaving that area. This treatment, however, will not produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by the "highest quality municipal waste treatment." The highest degree of treatment that has been reached by municipalities is "advanced waste treatment" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The water quality characteristics of the effluent will meet the standards of Rule 17-3.05 as to concentrations of those pollutants reasonably anticipated to be fond in the wastewater based on samples taken where the waters are discharged into Wingate Creek (Testimony of Gilgallon, Davis, Edwards, Heinzman, Bromwell, Bartow, Wellford, Exhibit 1). In preparing the application, no consideration was given to the need of meeting treatment standards for highest quality municipal waste treatment or advanced waste treatment. Neither did the recommending official of the DER, Mr. Edwards, then Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region, consider this standard because he had been advised by the DER legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) did not apply to Wingate Creek since it was not a tributary to one of the bodies of water listed in subparagraph (c) of the rule 17-3.04(2). This determination was based upon Resolution No. 74-83, September 17, 1974, of the Florida Pollution Control Board that was issued after legal challenges had been made to an interpretation by the Department of Pollution Control legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) required advanced wastewater treatment for industrial waste discharges. The Board, in its resolution, determined that since evidence had not been taken concerning treatment standards for industrial waste discharges at the time of adoption of the effluent standards for sanitary waste contained in Rule 17-3.04(2), the advanced wastewater treatment standards in the aforesaid rule would not be enforced against industrial dischargers pending full hearings on a new Rule to clearly express the Board's intent in this regard (Testimony of Gilgallon, Edwards; Exhibit 1). Special conditions that the Southwest Region, Department of Environmental Regulation, recommends should be attached to any issuance of a construction permit, other than standard conditions and those relating to other types of permits, are as follow: Approval by DER prior to the construction of any above grade phosphatic clay storage facility other than the initial settling pond. Removal efficiencies for oil and grease shall be a minimum of 90 percent and shall not exceed 14 milligrams per liter measured in the discharge effluent. Discharge effluent to Wingate Creek shall meet the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3.05(2) at the point of discharge prior to mixing with the receiving stream. Further treatment of the discharge will be required in the event compliance with proviso (c) above cannot be achieved or significant degradation of the receiving stream occurs as determined by the DER. In addition to required routine monitoring, a detailed analysis of the untreated and treated wastewater to be conducted once on representative samples during (1) month of July and (2) month of February. Such analyses shall, as a minimum, include all the parameters listed in 17-3:05(2). Applicants shall conduct an investigation into total retention possibilities of the effluent including, but not limited to, the following areas: recharge wells retention and storage of excess water during the "wet" season with subsequent reuse during the "dry" season for process and/or irrigation purposes. A report of these investigations shall be submitted prior to submission of operation permit application The location of monitoring wells shall be down gradient from the settling pond. Detailed proposal, subject to the DER approval, regarding exact location and number of wells to adequately ascertain the impact of seepage to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to commencement of operation. Bond to be posted for damages that may result from a clay settling area dam failure. Oral and written communications from the public were received at the hearing and included the following: Announcement by the County Attorney, Manatee County, that the county did not plan to appeal the DER Notice of Intent to Grant the permit (Statement of E.N. Fay, Jr.). The Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, fears that the construction of the phosphate mine up-stream from the Myaaka diver State Park poses a serious potential threat to its aquatic habitat due to the possibility of a dam failure. It also fears that pollutants from the project will tend to settle as the river waters flow through the two lakes in the park. It therefore, opposes the construction until assurance can be given that proper safeguards have been taken to prevent such problems (Testimony of Alverez). The Longboat Key Garden Club believes that the project would involve too much water consumption and also that phosphate mining should be halted until further government studies are made to assure that the safety and health of the populace and the environment will not be endangered through polluted runoff and phosphate spills (Testimony of Monroe). The Save Our Bays Association in Manatee County has collected petitions from citizens in Manatee County requesting a referendum on a ballot this November for or against phosphate mining. The Association believes that such a vote should be taken before final decision is made on the subject. Its spokesman fears that if the quality and quantity of the drinking water is disrupted, it will interfere with continued tourist trade (Testimony of Howard Greer). The Palma Sola Parks Association opposes the Beker Application until there is greater assurance of environmentally safe mining (Testimony of Blankenship) A former physical and health education director is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient data collected on the effect of radioactive materials in runoff and waste. She believes there should be more research in these areas and asked that the public be protected from such hazards (Testimony of Mary Kay Greer). The Manasota-88 project for environmental qualities of 1968 and 1988 believes that issuance of the permit should be withheld until health implications can be determined concerning potential hazards to the Myakka and Manatee Rivers' watersheds (Exhibit 7). A former member of the Manatee County Planning Commission that approved the Beker application prior to action by the County Commission of Manatee County is in favor of the proposed project because Beker's plan to impound water will augment the water facilities of the county (Testimony of Reasoner). The City of Bradenton believes that since it is being required to meet advanced water treatment standards of discharge for sanitary sewage, Beker Phosphate Corporation should be required to meet similar standards (Testimony of Mayor A.K. Leach). A member of the Myakka City Civic Association who is an adjacent land owner to Beker Phosphate Corporation feels that the project is necessary in order to produce jobs for individuals in that area of the county (Testimony of Mizell). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that proposed construction of two dams by the applicant will destroy approximately (4) acres of mangrove areas, three acres of pasture land and about 185 acres of bottom land or hardwood habitat. It recommends an alternative method of backup levies constructed around the primary settling bases on the applicant's land to contain any spills and prevent destruction of the streams and associated wetlands (Testimony of Johnston) The Conservation Council of Manatee County believes that Beker's unique mining and reclamation plan will help the farming industry and also create necessary water reserviors and recreation areas, and therefore endorses its proposal to mine in Manatee County (Testimony of Kent, Exhibit 14). Petitions were submitted at the hearing from approximately 3,000 individuals living in Manatee and Sarasota Counties opposing the issuance of the permit because they believe that phosphate mining is dangerous to the quality and supply of the water and endangers the health of the people (Composite Exhibit 9, Testimony of Humphrey).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Textron Petroleum Products Company, Inc., has applied for a construction permit to construct a sanitary landfill in Sections 3 and 10, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, Leon County, Florida. The proposed site consists of ninety (90) acres and is approximately 2,000 feet from U.S Highway 90 at Its closest point to that highway. The application is in proper form and contains all information required by the Department of Environmental Regulation. towns and areas to be served by the application are the City," of Tallahassee and Leon County. The facility is designed to serve a population of 135,000 people. Although evidence was presented for the purpose of showing that the City of Tallahassee and Leon County, as governmental entities, do not intend to use the proposed sanitary landfill as an "official" landfill site for those governmental bodies, this evidence did not establish that the area to be served and the population to be served by the proposed sanitary landfill is other than that stated above. The applicant, Textron Petroleum Products Company, Inc. does not have a franchise from any county, municipality or other governmental agency with regard to solid waste resource recovery and management responsibilities. The applicant, Textron Petroleum Products Company, Inc., had not, at the time of hearing, posted a performance bond or other approved security with the agency within whose jurisdiction the proposed site is located. The "owner" as that term is used in Section 17-4.21(1)(d), F.A.C., is the applicant, Textron Petroleum Products Company, Inc. The unrebutted evidence presented,at hearing established that the applicant has a net worth of $1 million and is financially responsible. The evidence presented did not establish any violation of the State Resource Recovery And Management Program set out in Part II, Chatper 17-7, F.A.C. There is a public supply well located in the Homestead Ridge area. This system serves 38 or more customers at an averave rate of about 200,000 gallons per month. The well is located more than 2,700 feet from the site boundary of the proposed sanitary landfill. As found by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, even if the consumption of that well system were increased to 2.16 million gallons of water per month, the drawdown at a radius of 2,000 feet would be 0.13 feet. Therefore, it was concluded that the cone of influence of the public water supply does not extend under the proposed sanitary landfill site. As a condition for issuance of a construction permit the Department of Environmental Regulation proposes the requirement of a monitoring system of wells which would include a deep well located between the proposed site and the Homestead Ridge public supply, the purpose of which would be to detect the potential intrusion of leachate or other contaminants into the public water supply from the sanitary landfill. It is improbable that the proposed sanitary landfill will produce any significant quantity of leachate. However, the application proposes that if monitoring indicates that lechate control is needed, a well point system will be installed in the completed cells and underground pipe drains installed in the new cells. It further provides that, dependent upon the quantities involved, the leachate.will be transported to the City of Tallahassee Sewage Treatment Facilities for disposal or it will be treated on-site by transporting the leachate to the settling pond which will at that time be equipped with suitable aeration and chlorination equipment for treatment of the leachate. The proposed design of the sanitary landfill provides that all final discharge from the sedimentatlon pond will conform to the water quality standards set out in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C, even though this may require the constrjction of treatment equipment by the applicant. The application, at pages 12 and 14,.provides for the equipment to be used on-site in the operation of the proposed sanitary landfill as well as for the method of providing adequate site supervision. No evidence was presented showing these provisions to be other than adequate. The evidence presented did not establish that the utilization of U.S. Highway 90 by vehicles transporting waste to the proposed sanitary landfill would create any unusual 0rincreased traffic and safety hazard. The application, at page 3, proposed the installation of electronic signalization equipment to alleviate any hazard which might be created by traffic using the proposed site. No evidence was presented showing this proposal to be inadequate. According to a letter to Mr. James Barrineau, Leon County Department of Pollution Control, from Mr. Mark Stamps, Assistant Zoning Director, Tallahassee Leon County Planning Department, the proposed site is currently zoned Agricultural 2. The letter further states that an Agricultural 2 zoning allows a sanitary landfill as a permitted use. A small portion of the proposed sanitary landfill site is open to public view from,U.S. Highway 90 which is a major thoroughfare. It was estimated by a witness that the distance to the proposed site from that section of U.s. Highway 90 from which the site was open to public view was one (1) mile. An examination of the plot plan of.the proposed site contained in the application shows that at the closest point, the site boundary is approximately 2,000 feet from U.5 Highway 90. The site is screened from public view from most places on Highway 90 by the existing topography and ground cover.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether a permit should be issued, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, authorizing TLA-Cambridge, LLC (“Cambridge”), to construct and operate a “waste processing facility” (“facility”) on a site (“site”) located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners (Kate Wright, Joette Hill, and Jimmy Walker) are individuals who live in Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, DERM, is a division of Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, Cambridge, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in Florida. On January 4, 2008, Cambridge filed an application with DERM pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710, for the Permit authorizing the construction and operation of the facility. Cambridge’s application was reviewed by DERM pursuant to an agreement (“Operating Agreement”) that delegates certain authority from DEP to Miami-Dade County. The Operating Agreement requires DERM to follow DEP’s rules and procedures when determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility. On August 18, 2008, DERM issued its ("Intent to Issue") the Permit to Cambridge. The Site Cambridge intends to construct and operate the facility on a site that is approximately 5.7 acres in size and located at 3250 N.W. 65th Street, in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida. The site is owned by Florida East Coast Railway L.L.C. (“FEC”). Cambridge has entered into a 20-year lease agreement with FEC that authorizes Cambridge to use the site for the proposed facility. The site is located in an industrial warehouse district. Warehouses are adjacent to the north, south, and west sides of the site. The warehouses are served by trucks and railcars. A railroad track is adjacent to, and enters the south end of the site. Other warehouses, rail yards, and railroad tracks are located west of the site. The industrial district extends north, south, and west of the site. The eastern side of the site is bounded by N.W. 32nd Avenue, a four-lane road that runs in a north-south direction. Across the street from the site, on the east side of N.W. 32nd Avenue, is a business district. Even farther to the east is a residential area where the Petitioners live. The site previously was paved with asphalt and enclosed with a chain-link fence. An old gatehouse is located at the entrance to the site, where N.W. 65th Street dead-ends into the site. The Facility Cambridge intends to construct: (a) a one-story building (“transfer station”) that will be used to receive and process construction and demolition (“C&D”) debris; (b) a one- story office building; (c) a weigh station for weighing trucks; (d) extensions of the existing railroad tracks; and (d) a new railroad track that will pass through the transfer station. Cambridge also will renovate the gatehouse. The existing pavement on the site will remain intact, except where the new improvements will be located. The chain-link fence will be retained and enhanced to restrict access to the site. Trees and shrubs will be planted along N.W. 65th Street and N.W. 32nd Avenue to screen the public’s view of the facility and to help alleviate airborne dust. The Transfer Station will be approximately 30,000 square feet in size. It will have a roof, 4 walls, and a concrete floor that is 10 inches thick. The north side of the transfer Station will have 10 bay doors to allow access for trucks and one smaller utility door. There also will be one door on the southeast side and one door on the west side of the Transfer Station to allow railcars to move through the building. Proposed Operations C&D debris is the material that is generated when a building is constructed, renovated, or demolished. C&D debris includes concrete, lumber, wallboard, asphalt shingles, metal pipes, glass, plastic, and similar materials. Other types of solid waste cannot be accepted by the facility; they are prohibited by the Draft Permit. Cambridge’s customers will deliver C&D debris to the facility in trucks. The trucks will approach the facility from the west (i.e., the industrial district) on Northwest 65th Street and they will enter the site at the gatehouse. There will be no access to the site from Northwest 32nd Avenue. A trained attendant will perform a preliminary visual inspection of the trucks and interview the truck drivers at the gatehouse to determine whether the trucks are carrying C&D debris. If the gatehouse attendant determines that the truck is hauling garbage or other types of solid waste that cannot be accepted at the Transfer Station, the truck will be denied access to the site. Upon entering the site, some trucks will be weighed on the truck scales and then directed to the transfer station. Trucks that do not require weighing will proceed directly to the transfer station. A Cambridge employee will direct the truck to an appropriate bay door for entry into the transfer station. The truck then will back up an inclined grade into the transfer station, the tarpaulin (tarp) will be removed from the truck’s load, and the truck will dump the load onto the floor (i.e., “the tipping floor”) of the transfer station. The unloading and processing of C&D debris will only occur inside the transfer station. Cambridge will employ trained spotters and operators to process the C&D debris. DEP’s rules require that at least one spotter and one operator must be present whenever C&D debris is received at the facility. By comparison, Cambridge typically will have 4 to 6 spotters present whenever the facility is receiving C&D debris. Cambridge employees will spread the load on the tipping floor with mobile equipment and then determine how the load should be processed. “All incoming C&D debris shall be tipped, processed and stored entirely under roof in the enclosed building . . . and . . . evaluated through visual inspection by trained spotter(s) for any unacceptable solid waste (e.g., furniture, tires, etc.) or prohibited wastes (e.g., garbage, treated or painted wood, hazardous wastes, etc.)” in compliance with the Draft Permit. Unacceptable and prohibited wastes will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in separate containers (e.g., metal dumpsters), which will be removed from the site and taken to appropriate disposal facilities. Dense non-recyclable material (e.g., asphalt shingles) will be moved to an area on the tipping floor where it will be loaded directly into a railcar for transportation to a disposal site. Potentially recyclable material will be processed in a shredder, which will reduce the material to a size of approximately 12-inches by 12- inches. After the material is shredded, smaller pieces will be removed from the C&D debris with a mechanical screen and placed in a bunker with non-recyclable material. The remaining, larger materials will be placed on a conveyor belt. Recyclable materials (e.g., aluminum, copper, ferrous metal, clean lumber) will be removed from the conveyor by hand, placed in separate bunkers, and then hauled off-site and sold to recycling facilities. Materials that are not removed from the conveyor will be placed in a bunker with other non-recyclable materials. If necessary, Cambridge employees will drive a compactor over the non-recyclable materials to reduce the size and increase the density of the material. The non-recyclable materials will then be loaded into railcars inside the transfer station. The facility is designed to process C&D debris at a rate of 100 tons per hour, which equates to 1,000 tons (approximately 4,000 cubic yards) during a 10-hour operating day. The Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from accepting more than 4,000 cubic yards per day. The facility has the capacity to process all of the C&D debris on the same day that it is delivered to the facility, so that the tipping floor can be empty at the end of each day. The Draft Permit requires Cambridge to process all of the C&D debris within 48 hours after it is delivered to the facility. . Recyclable and non-recyclable materials will be removed from the site quickly. Each container of recyclable material will be removed from the site when the container is filled, which typically will occur several times each week. When a railcar is filled with non-recyclable material, the railcar will be removed from the transfer station and staged on a railroad track on the south end of the site. The filled railcars will be removed from the site by FEC on a daily basis, Monday through Friday. The railcars will be taken to a landfill in Alabama where the C&D debris will be disposed. If rail service to the facility is interrupted and cannot be resumed in a timely manner, any railcars that are staged on the site will be taken back inside the transfer station. Cambridge will unload the cars and arrange for the C&D debris to be shipped by truck to an appropriate disposal facility. Under such circumstances, Cambridge will stop receiving C&D debris at the facility until rail service is resumed. Cambridge expects to recycle at least 9% of the C&D debris and hopes to recycle as much as 30%. The exact amount of material that will be recycled will depend on market conditions— i.e., whether there is a viable market for the materials in the C&D debris. Garbage The facility will receive only “de minimis” amounts of garbage as essentially accidental, very minor contents of loads of C&D debris. Cambridge’s gatehouse attendant and spotters will reject any truck that contains identifiable quantities of garbage. Nonetheless, a bag or small quantity of garbage may be hidden in a load of C&D debris that is dumped onto the tipping floor. If that occurs, the garbage will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in an enclosed container inside the transfer station. If garbage is mixed with a load of C&D debris on the tipping floor, the affected part of the load will be placed in an enclosed container. The garbage will be taken off-site for disposal, as quickly as necessary to ensure that the garbage does not generate objectionable odors. In all cases, Cambridge must remove the garbage (“Class I waste”) from the site within 48 hours, in compliance with the Draft Permit and related rules. Odors The facility will not cause objectionable odors in any off-Site areas because the C&D debris, recyclable materials, and non-recyclable materials received at the facility will not generate objectionable odors. Incidental garbage could be a potential source of objectionable odors, but garbage is prohibited at the facility, the facility will receive very little garbage, and Cambridge’s plan to segregate and quickly remove garbage will ensure that objectionable odors are not created inside the transfer station. In the unlikely event that objectionable odors occur outside of the transfer station, Cambridge will use a deodorizing or odor-neutralizing agent to treat any odorous portions of the tipping floor. If necessary, Cambridge also will use the "DustBoss," water-misting machines to spray odor control agents throughout the transfer station. The Petitioners’ expert witness, Joseph Fluet, agreed that Cambridge’s odor control plan, as described in the Respondent's testimony by Mr. Enriquez, would be adequate, if implemented. This is in addition to the operational plan proposed to DERMA and should be required to be implemented as a permit condition. Vectors The facility is not expected to attract rats, bugs, or other disease-carrying vectors because C&D debris is not a food source for vectors. Nonetheless, Cambridge will hire a professional pest control firm to take all necessary measures to control vectors on the site. These measures, combined with the other components of Cambridge’s operations plan, will control disease-carrying vectors on the site and thus ensure that the facility does not pose a public health hazard. Dust The Draft Permit provides that “dust resulting from the processing operation is not allowed beyond the property boundary [of the site].” The term “dust” in the Draft Permit is synonymous with “visible emissions” or “particulate matter” (“PM”). The Draft Permit also provides that a “dust control system shall be utilized to eliminate dust throughout the storage and working areas [inside the transfer station].” Cambridge will comply with these requirements by implementing a comprehensive dust control program at the facility. Dust Control Inside the Transfer Station The transfer station is fully enclosed on four sides and thus it can effectively control any dust that is generated by the activities conducted inside the transfer station. In order to minimize the potential for dust to escape from the transfer station, Cambridge will: (a) keep all of the transfer station’s doors closed at night and when the facility is not operating; (b) minimize the number of doors open during operations; and (c) require its staff to be judicious when deciding whether to open doors, and to give due regard to wind direction and velocity. Only three bay doors will be open during normal conditions when the facility is receiving and processing its maximum C&D volume of 1,000 tons per day (i.e., an average of approximately 15 trucks per hour). Fewer doors will be open when there are fewer delivery trucks or the wind hinders Cambridge’s ability to control the dust generated inside the facility. Cambridge will use two "DustBoss" machines to eliminate dust generated inside the transfer station. The DustBoss machines will spray a fine mist (fog) of water, which will physically impact and knock-down the dust in the air. The DustBoss machines will be deployed inside the transfer station, near the bay doors, but they can be moved within the building to where they are most effective. The DustBoss machines are fully adjustable--they can oscillate automatically or be directed toward a specific location where dust is being generated. The amount of mist generated by the DustBoss can be increased or reduced, as necessary. Each DustBoss machine is designed to blow mist up to 200 feet and control dust in an area up to 20,000 square feet. The two DustBoss machines in the transfer station will have the combined capacity to control dust in an area of approximately 40,000 square feet, which is substantially more capacity than is needed in the transfer station (30,000 square feet). Dust Control Outside Of The Transfer Station In order to minimize the potential for dust outside of the transfer station, Cambridge normally will require a hauler to keep its load of C&D debris covered with a tarp until the hauler’s truck is completely inside the transfer station. Cambridge may allow a hauler to remove its tarp immediately before the hauler’s truck enters the transfer station, but this will only occur if there are trucks waiting to enter and the winds are calm. The removal of a tarp, by itself, will not release a significant amount of dust because any dust that may have been on the tarp at a job site will be blown off while the truck is driving to the facility. To further minimize the potential for dust, Cambridge will use a piece of mobile equipment to collect and remove dust from the pavement outside of the building. This mobile equipment will be fitted with a moist broom and a water tank, thus allowing it to function like a street sweeper. Cambridge will use this equipment as often as necessary to control dust outside the transfer station. Mr. Fluet, the Petitioner's expert, agreed that using a "moist broom" to remove soil and mud on the site “would deal with virtually all the issues” concerning the control of dust outside the transfer station. Dust From Railcars Railcars will enter and leave the transfer station through two doors. These doors normally will be open only when Cambridge is bringing railcars into the building for loading or taking them outside after they are filled. The DustBoss misting system will prevent dust from escaping out of these railroad doors. The C&D debris will not be loaded above the sides of the railcars and thus will not be exposed to the wind when the railcars are taken outside the transfer station. In addition, the filled railcars will be covered with a mesh tarp before they are taken outside. The mesh tarp will prevent dust from blowing out of the railcars while they are staged on the railroad track next to the transfer station. The Ventilation System The transfer station will be equipped with an emergency ventilation system to prevent the build-up of carbon monoxide (“CO”) or nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”) on the tipping floor. The ventilation system will discharge CO and NO2 through exhaust fans located approximately 30 feet above the tipping floor on the north wall of the transfer station. Fresh air will be drawn into the building through louvers located approximately 27 feet above the tipping floor on the south side of the building. The ventilation system will turn on automatically if CO or NO2 sensors detect unsafe levels on the tipping floor. It is anticipated that such levels will not be reached and the ventilation system will operate “rarely, if ever.” The ventilation system also could be operated manually, but Cambridge does not intend to do so. Dust will not be emitted from the louvers at the transfer station. The DustBoss misting system will knock-down the dust inside the transfer station before the dust reaches the louvers, which are high above the tipping floor. Moreover, the louvers will be covered with a mesh that will further reduce the potential for dust emissions. Finally, the prevailing winds at the site are from the south/southeast and they will blow into the louvers (not out) most of the year, thus preventing dust from escaping. Reasonable Precautions To Prevent Fugitive Emissions DEP Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), requires “reasonable precautions” to be used to control fugitive emissions of PM, such as the dust generated by truck traffic on the site. Cambridge will satisfy this requirement by: (a) having pavement on the site in areas where there will be truck traffic; (b) using mobile equipment and a moist broom to remove dust from the paved areas of the site; (c) planting vegetative buffers on the site; (d) placing mesh tarps on the railcars before the railcars are taken outside the transfer station; (d) limiting the height of the C&D debris in the railcars; and (e) keeping tarps on the delivery trucks when the trucks are outside the transfer station during windy conditions. Analysis Of Potential Airborne Emissions Dust may be generated inside the transfer station when C&D debris is unloaded, moved, processed, or loaded into trucks or railcars. Dust may be generated outside the station by vehicular traffic on the site. Cambridge quantified these potential PM emissions by using standard procedures and reference documents approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Cambridge’s analysis was based on conservative (“worst-case”) assumptions, which were designed to overestimate the actual emissions from the facility. Using this approach, Cambridge determined that the maximum emissions of PM from the entire facility will be approximately 4 pounds per hour during those hours when the facility is operating. Four pounds per hour is approximately one ounce per minute. The insignificance of this emission rate can be appreciated by imagining three people standing in the bay doors of the transfer station (i.e., one person in each of the three open bay doors during normal operations) while each person pours one-third of one ounce (1/3 oz.) of flour into the air over a 60 second interval. This emission rate will result in total annual emissions of approximately 6 tons per year (TPY), but the instantaneous emissions will be negligible. Facilities that emit less than 10 TPY of PM are exempt from the DEP requirement to obtain an air permit. Consequently, Cambridge will not need a DEP air permit for the facility. A comparable facility would be a fast food restaurant, which has airborne emissions from cooking, but is not required to obtain a DEP air permit. The facility’s emissions of PM will be so small that Cambridge will not be required by DEP to prepare an analysis of the facility’s impacts on ambient air quality. An impacts analysis would not be required unless the facility’s PM emissions were expected to be greater than 250 TPY. There are no ambient air quality standards or other DEP requirements applicable to the airborne emissions from the facility, except for the requirement to use reasonable precautions to control fugitive emissions in the areas of the site located outside of the transfer station. There are no DEP emission limits or other standards applicable to the CO and NO2 emissions, if any, from the facility’s ventilation system. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.711 governs crushing and grinding operations in certain areas of the state, but this rule is not applicable in Miami-Dade County. Similarly, DEP does not consider tailpipe emissions from mobile equipment and trucks on the site when DEP evaluates the airborne emissions from the facility. DERM will regulate the opacity (visible emissions) of the facility’s PM emissions (dust) at the property line. DERM also will regulate the mass emissions from the facility. The applicable DERM limit for opacity is 20% and the limit for mass emissions of PM is 40 pounds per hour. The facility will comply with these DERM standards. As noted above, there will be no visible emissions of PM at the property line or beyond and the mass emissions will be no more than 4 pounds per hour under worst-case conditions. The facility will have an insignificant impact on air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue. The facility’s impacts on the ambient air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue will not be measurable or discernable. The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County are from the east and southeast most of the year. When the wind is from the east or southeast, the wind at the site will blow away from the Petitioners’ residences, which are located east-northeast of the site. For these reasons, it will be physically impossible for any dust or odor from the Site to reach the Petitioners’ residences approximately 90% of the time. The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County blow from the north only about 4% or 5% of the year. Consequently, 95% or 96% of the time the facility will have no impact on the air quality at the Martin Luther King Park, which is located south of the site. Petitioners’ Allegations Regarding Dust The Petitioners’ witness, Mr. Fluet, acknowledged that “judicious use of the misters [DustBoss] and the door positions will effectively provide reasonable assurance” concerning the dust inside the transfer station. Nonetheless, the Petitioners are concerned because nothing explicitly prohibits Cambridge from opening more than three of the bay doors to the transfer station and causing excessive emissions of dust. The Petitioners’ concerns about this issue are not established by preponderant evidence, however, because (a) the Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from causing visible emissions beyond the property boundary, (b) Cambridge has demonstrated that it will operate the facility in compliance with the Draft Permit, and (c) DERM will inspect the facility at least once each month to ensure that the facility is operated properly. Cambridge’s obligation to comply with the Draft Permit will effectively limit the number of doors that are open and the amount of dust that is emitted at any given time. Even if the bay doors are open, the enclosed design of the building prevents the wind from blowing through the transfer station. Further, Cambridge’s expert on air issues (David Buff) explained that, when the wind is calm, Cambridge will be able to control dust emissions effectively with the DustBoss machines, even if all the bay doors are open. His testimony in this regard, is accepted as persuasive. Mr. Fluet opined that Cambridge may manually turn on the ventilation system if the temperature inside the transfer station becomes too hot. Mr. Fluet acknowledged, however, that misting systems are used to cool the public at amusement parks and the mist from the DustBoss machines will have the same cooling effect in the transfer station. This acknowledgment somewhat belies his suggestion that the ventilation system will need to be activated. Mr. Fluet’s opinion also is countered by the fact that Cambridge’s application and witnesses have confirmed that the ventilation system will be used only for emergencies, and not for hot weather ventilation or evacuation of dust. Finally, even if it is assumed, hypothetically, that the ventilation system may be turned on for Cambridge’s convenience, the Petitioners failed to prove that the operation of the ventilation system will cause violations of any applicable air quality standard. Should such become the case, as revealed by the monthly inspections, the use of the filters referenced by Mr. Fluet should be implemented. Mr. Fluet expressed concern that contamination problems may occur if painted or treated wood is shredded at the facility. This concern has been alleviated because the Draft Permit and the Respondent's testimony shows that the acceptance for processing of painted or treated wood will be prohibited. Prohibited and unacceptable waste must be removed from the C&D debris stream and taken off-site for disposal. Leachate Water that comes in contact with C&D debris is deemed to be “leachate.” Since C&D debris is generally non-hazardous and not water soluble, C&D debris is not expected to produce leachate that is harmful to groundwater. The transfer station has been designed with a roof and four walls. The design of the station will minimize the potential for generating leachate and minimize the potential for standing water inside the facility. Cambridge’s “design strategy for the facility is to prevent contact between rainfall or stormwater and C/D materials [C&D debris] at all times, thereby entirely preventing the generation of leachate.” C&D debris is relatively dry material. If a container of C&D debris is exposed to rain before the container is brought to the facility, the rainwater typically will (a) be absorbed by the C&D debris or (b) leak out of the container before the container reaches the facility, because the containers used to collect C&D debris are not water-tight. Even if some liquid is spilled on the tipping floor with a load of C&D debris, the liquid will be absorbed by the C&D debris when the load is moved across the floor. Liquids normally will not be tracked into the transfer station by trucks. Trucks will enter the transfer station by slowly backing up an inclined grade, through the bay doors, and onto the tipping floor. Although some rainwater may be tracked into the station by the trucks or truck tires, it will only be a negligible amount. Even less water will be tracked out of the transfer station. The mist from the DustBoss machines is not likely to cause puddles to form on the tipping floor. The C&D debris will absorb any mist that lands on it. Mist landing on the tipping floor will be absorbed when the C&D debris is pushed across the floor. After each truck unloads, the tipping floor must be cleared to make space for the next truck. If there is a puddle on the floor, the C&D debris will be pushed through the puddle to absorb it. In the alternative, the puddle will be pushed into the C&D debris. Cambridge employees will monitor the tipping floor for liquids. The employees will use mobile equipment (i.e., a skid- steer) fitted with a rubber-edged blade to push the liquids, like a squeegee, if necessary. Since the facility will receive up to 1,000 tons of C&D debris per day, there will be a substantial amount of material available to absorb any liquids on the floor. The tipping floor will be equipped with a sump that can hold approximately 359 gallons of liquid. In the event there are liquids on the tipping floor, Cambridge’s employees can push the liquids into the sump by using the rubber-edged blade on the skid-steer equipment. The sump will be used rarely, if ever. One of Cambridge’s solid waste experts, Kenneth Cargill, testified that he had never seen liquids in the floor drain (sump) at a C&D debris transfer station in Ft. Myers, even though that transfer station is open on one side (170’ wide and 40’ high) and rain can blow onto the tipping floor. The sump in Ft. Myers is empty during the rainy season, as well as the dry season. If any liquids are collected in the facility’s sump, a third party contractor will pump the liquids out of the sump, as frequently as necessary, to ensure that the sump is never overtopped. Any liquids removed from the sump will be taken by the contractor to a permitted disposal facility, such as a wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”). The liquid in the sump is not expected to upset the operation of the WWTP, so the DEP does not require the liquid to be tested before it is delivered to the WWTP. The railcars used to transport C&D debris from the facility will be fully sealed at the bottom. The railcars will not leak if rainwater falls into them. Mr. Cargill, Mr. Leonard Enriquez (Cambridge’s General Manager), and Mr. Hardeep Anand (the Chief of DERM’s Pollution Regulation and Enforcement Division (“PRED”)) collectively established that the Transfer Station is well-designed and has a generally satisfactory leachate control system. The leachate will be controlled and contained inside the Transfer Station by using an enclosed building, a concrete floor, a sump, a good operating plan, and diligent employees. Petitioners’ Contentions Regarding Leachate Mr. Fluet contended that (a) the leachate control system is not adequate, (b) leachate will escape from the transfer station and enter the environment, and (c) the tipping floor will not minimize standing water. According to Mr. Fluet, all of these problems will occur primarily because the tipping floor is flat—i.e., it is not sloped toward a drain and has no lip, berm or raised edge to contain liquids. It was undisputed, however, that the DEP rules do not require a sloped floor. Although Mr. Cargill always designs transfer stations with a sloped floor, he concluded that Cambridge’s transfer station is “well designed” and can be operated successfully by using conscientious employees. Indeed, even Mr. Fluet acknowledged he could operate the transfer station in compliance with the FDEP rules, without having a sloped floor. Mr. Fluet would install a “lip” (raised edge) around the tipping floor, but he agreed the transfer station could be operated in compliance with the applicable rules. Petitioners contend that the tipping floor must be washed weekly, and allege that this activity may result in water escaping from the transfer station. This contention is fatally flawed because (a) the DEP rules do not require routine washing of the floors at C&D debris transfer stations, (b) washing is not necessary to control odors, and (c) Cambridge plans to use other odor control measures, rather than washing, in the unlikely event there are odors at the facility. When asked whether Cambridge had provided reasonable assurances that it would minimize the amount of leachate produced in the Transfer Station, Mr. Fluet implied the answer is yes, “to a great extent by the fact that it’s [the transfer station] enclosed.” He also agreed that the design of the building (i.e., the roof) will minimize the amount of standing water on the tipping floor. Nonetheless, Mr. Fluet suggested that the use of the DustBoss machines may be inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3), which requires an applicant to minimize standing water in a waste processing facility. He raised the possibility that liquids may accumulate on the tipping floor because the two DustBoss machines are capable of using approximately 30,000 gallons of water per hour while producing mist. He acknowledged, however, that “a lot” of the mist (water) will evaporate before it reaches the tipping floor. Mr. Fluet’s concerns about this issue are not entirely supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Cargill and Mr. Enriquez established that the mist will evaporate or be absorbed by the C&D debris. Moreover, the DustBoss machines can be adjusted to reduce the amount of mist that is produced and thus reduce the potential for creating puddles on the tipping floor. The DustBoss machines presumably will not need to run continuously at maximum capacity because the two machines have the combined capacity to cover approximately 40,000 square feet of building space, and the transfer station is only about 30,000 square feet. On balance, in consideration of this testimony concerning flexibility in use and management of the DustBoss machines, and Mr. Fluet's concern about standing water on the tipping floor, reasonable assurances can best be established by a slight design alteration to provide for a lip or berm around the tipping floor. The fact that the rail track traverses the building also serves to render this appropriate. The permit should be so conditioned. Mr. Fluet postulated that the DEP rules will be violated if rainwater (a) drips off of the C&D debris in the delivery trucks while the trucks are on the site and then (b) flows into the stormwater management system on the site or enters the groundwater. According to Mr. Fluet, the rainwater will constitute leachate, because the water came into contact with C&D debris, and the DEP rules prohibit the mixing of any leachate with stormwater or groundwater. Mr. Fluet conceded, however, that the same problem occurs at every transfer station in Florida when rainwater/leachate drips from delivery trucks. Mr. Fluet claimed that the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will contain more demolition debris and residential waste than the C&D debris in other parts of Florida and thus the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will produce worse leachate. However, Mr. Fluet acknowledged the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County already is being handled in the County’s existing C&D debris facilities and he has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those facilities. Moreover, Mr. Fluet could not identify any C&D transfer station where there were violations of DEP standards for groundwater or surface water because of the scenarios he described, or the concerns he raised about Cambridge’s Facility. Mr. Fluet's opinions were based on his expertise and experience. The Petitioners offered no empirical data to support their claims or concerns. Mr. Fluet admitted that he did “not perform any studies, calculations, or engineering analyses” concerning the proposed Facility. Mr. Fluet and the Petitioners did not quantify the amount of leachate that allegedly will be released into the environment from the tipping floor, or the amount of leachate that will drip from delivery trucks, or the amount of water that may accumulate on the tipping floor when the DustBoss machines are operating. They presented no information concerning the chemical constituents or chemical concentrations in any of the liquids that allegedly will be released under any of their potential scenarios. No data was presented concerning the quality of the liquids collected in the sumps at other transfer stations. They did not present any evidence demonstrating that DEP’s groundwater or surface water quality standards will be violated as a result of the quantity or quality of the leachate that allegedly will enter the environment as a result of the facility’s operations. Mr. Anand explained that DEP does not evaluate the possibility that rainwater will drip from delivery trucks, or that trucks will track liquids out of a transfer station, when DEP is determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701. Even if these impacts were considered, the likelihood of these events causing contamination is “negligible.” Mr. Anand testified that DERM currently has eight (8) C&D debris transfer stations in Miami-Dade County. Groundwater monitoring data are collected at some of the sites, but DERM has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those sites. Similarly, Mr. Cargill was unaware of any cases in Florida where a transfer station for C&D debris caused contamination of groundwater or stormwater as a result of liquids dripping from the trucks that are entering or leaving the facility. C&D debris is not expected to be water soluble or hazardous. The leachate from C&D debris is not expected to cause groundwater contamination. Accordingly, the DEP rules do not require C&D debris to be placed inside water-tight containers when the C&D debris is stored at a job site. The DEP rules do not prohibit the permanent disposal of C&D debris in unlined disposal facilities. There is nothing to prevent rainwater from passing through the C&D debris and entering directly into the groundwater at a job site or an unlined C&D disposal facility. Given all of the foregoing facts, Mr. Cargill and Mr. Anand testified that the Cambridge Facility should have “little or no impact” on the quality of the soils, surface water, or groundwater at the site. Their testimony is credible, persuasive, and accepted. Comparison To Other Transfer Stations The design of the Cambridge Facility is a significant improvement over the typical design of a C&D debris transfer station. The measures that Cambridge will use to control dust and liquids at the facility are superior to the measures used to control dust and liquids at typical C&D transfer stations. There are 8 C&D debris transfer stations lawfully operating in Miami-Dade County. Only one of these facilities is enclosed. Some C&D debris facilities have a roof, but no walls. A transfer station within one mile of the site has no roof and no walls. At most transfer stations, dust is controlled by manually spraying the C&D debris with a hose. None of the transfer stations in Miami-Dade County use DustBoss machines to control dust. None of the facilities in Miami-Dade County use a moist broom and sweeper equipment on a routine basis to control dust. Although the existing facilities in Miami-Dade County comply with the DEP rules, the Cambridge facility has gone beyond the minimum requirements established by DEP. Stormwater Permits DEP issued an Environmental Resource Permit for the construction and operation of a stormwater management system serving the facility. Miami-Dade County issued a Class VI Drainage Permit for the construction and operation of an exfiltration trench that will handle the stormwater from the facility. No one challenged or otherwise appealed the DEP Environmental Resource Permit or the Miami-Dade County Class VI permit. Site Assessment A “Phase I” (preliminary) environmental assessment of the site was conducted by Cambridge and further investigations were recommended; however, Cambridge has not yet conducted a “Phase II” assessment or collected any field data. Mr. Fluet speculated about potential “indications” of contamination, but he had no data to prove that any contamination actually exists. In the absence of any field data, he admitted that “we don’t know” whether the site is a “Brownfield” site and “cannot speak” to whether the site is contaminated. Financial Assurance The cost of closing the facility was estimated by Cambridge to be approximately $231,000. Cambridge’s estimate did not include the cost of pumping the liquids (if any) out of the sump, which may be $2,000 to $3,000 (i.e., less than 1% of the financial assurance provided by Cambridge). This omission is insignificant, it can be corrected before Cambridge commences operations of the facility, and it does not warrant the denial of Cambridge’s application for the Permit. Irresponsible Applicant Cambridge Project Development, Inc., is the minority partner in Cambridge. TLA-Miami, Inc., is the managing partner. TLA-Miami, Inc., is an affiliate of Transload America, Inc. (“TLA”). None of these entities or their affiliates have previously owned or operated a solid waste management facility in Florida, or violated any environmental laws, permits, or other requirements in Florida. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.320(3), DEP considers the applicant’s prior operations in Florida when determining whether an applicant for a solid waste processing facility permit is an “irresponsible applicant.” The applicant’s operations in other states are not considered. In this case, DERM properly concluded that Cambridge is not an irresponsible applicant. Cambridge’s Operating Plan And Building Design Cambridge submitted a written operating plan (the “Operating Plan”) with its application to DERM. The Operating Plan sets forth Cambridge’s plan for operating the facility in compliance with the applicable DEP requirements. Additional details concerning Cambridge’s method of operation were provided by preponderant evidence at the hearing, in a de novo context. The Operating Plan satisfies the DEP requirements. During the hearing, Mr. Enriquez explained that the design of the transfer station will be better than the design initially proposed in Cambridge’s application to DERM. The sump will be bigger, the concrete in the tipping floor will be thicker, and the strength of the concrete will be greater than originally proposed. DEP’s Review Of Permit Applications The Petitioners contend that DEP and DERM should have evaluated a variety of issues that are of interest to the Petitioners. However, it was undisputed that DEP does not consider the following issues when deciding whether to issue a permit for a solid waste processing facility: zoning and comprehensive plan designations; land use compatibility; traffic; noise; public benefits; aesthetics; geotechnical issues, such as differential settlement; structural design issues, such as the structural design of a tipping floor or push wall; the adequacy of a fire control system; the adequacy of a ventilation system; the economic or ethnic makeup of the areas near a proposed site; whether the proposed location is the best site; or whether there is a need for the proposed facility. In the instant case, many of these issues were addressed by other governmental entities, such as the Building Department for Miami-Dade County. Public Notice Cambridge provided two notices to the public concerning the facility. On January 15, 2008, notice of Cambridge’s application was published. On August 26, 2008, notice of DERM’s proposed agency action was published. These notices satisfied the applicable DEP requirements. Reasonable Assurances Cambridge has provided reasonable assurances that the facility will be constructed and operated in compliance with all of the applicable DEP requirements in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701, for a waste processing facility. Cambridge also has provided reasonable assurances that it will comply with all of the conditions contained in the Draft Permit, and established by the preponderant evidence.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting Cambridge's application to construct and operate the facility on the site, including the conditions contained in the Draft Permit and in the above findings and conclusions, to include a design alteration providing for a slight lip or berm around the tipping floor, as supported by the preponderant, persuasive evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Quick, Esquire Michelle D. Vos, Esquire Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2009. Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L. 525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Peter S. Tell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County 111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 David S. Dee, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 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 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (agency or DEP) should issue renewal permit No. SO36-26769E to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida (WMI) for the operation of an existing Class I landfill, the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill (GCSL) in Lee County, Florida. In the prehearing stipulation, Petitioners specifically dispute whether WMI has provided reasonable assurances: (1) regarding control of off-site odors emanating from the landfill, (2) that it has an approved closure plan, and (3) that leachate from the landfill will not pollute the air and water.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The applicant, WMI, provides waste management services in the state of Florida. These activities include the hauling, transfer, and recycling of solid waste, as well as the construction and operation of landfills. WMI operates GCSL, the facility that is the subject of the permit application, in Lee County, Florida. WCI is a Delaware limited partnership engaged in the business of developing multiple use communities in Southwest Florida. It owns or holds options to purchase lands adjacent to or near GCSL. WCI is also the developer of a planned unit development known as Gateway, which includes residential and commercial properties in close proximity to the landfill. George Sanders owns, personally or as trustee, lands adjacent to or near GCSL. Lee County is a political subdivision of the state with statutory responsibility to plan for and provide efficient, environmentally acceptable solid waste management. Lee County has contracted with WMI to provide solid waste disposal services to citizens of Lee County at GCSL. DEP is the agency of the state with statutory responsibility to regulate and permit landfills such as GCSL. As stipulated, the Petitioners and Intervenor have standing in this proceeding. The Landfill Facility The GCSL is a Class I landfill located at 11990 State Road 82, East, in Lee County, Florida, east of Interstate I-75. The landfill is in a remote, undeveloped area and has been in operation for over 20 years. The Gateway development is south of the landfill. The GCSL includes three parcels of land that have been used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, each about 40 acres, are unlined Class I landfills that have been closed and no longer receive any solid waste. Neither liners nor leachate collection were required when these parcels were constructed and operated. Parcel 3 is a lined Class I landfill that is approximately 80 acres in size. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 are closed and have received final cover. Approximately 30 acres still are used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 3 was constructed in phases. In 1984, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "east hill" and "west hill"--i.e., two separate disposal areas in Parcel 3 where solid waste was placed above grade. In 1989, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "valley fill"--i.e., a disposal area where solid waste was used to fill in the valley between the east hill and the west hill. Parcel 3 now consists of a single mound of solid waste. As each phase of Parcel 3 was developed, liners and leachate collection systems were installed in Parcel 3 before the commencement of solid waste disposal operations. The liners and leachate collection systems met or exceeded all of the applicable regulatory requirements that were in effect at the time when the waste disposal areas were permitted. Parcel 3 is a well-designed, well-constructed, and well-operated landfill. William Krumbholz is in charge of landfill compliance and enforcement at DEP's district in Ft. Myers. He reports that the GCSL has an "exceptional operation record," and the GCSL is the "best operated Class I landfill" in the district. The GCSL currently is subject to a DEP operation permit (DEP file number S036-180572), as modified. On March 21, 1995, WMI filed an application for a renewal of its operation permit. On or about September 25, 1996, DEP issued its notice of intent to issue the permit to WMI. If issued, the permit would allow WMI to operate the GCSL for an additional five years. See Rule 62-701.330(2), Florida Administrative Code. The landfill is not yet at design capacity and is not expected to reach that capacity during the next five years. WMI desires to renew the operation permit for the GCSL because WMI wishes to continue to provide solid waste management services to Lee County, consistent with WMI's contractual agreement to do so. WMI also wishes to continue operating the GCSL in order to construct Parcel 3 to its final design grades for closure. The design grades will maximize the site's ability to shed stormwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Continuing to build Parcel 3 to its design grades is environmentally preferable to closing Parcel 3 at this time in its present configuration. Prior to 1994, the GCSL received approximately 1000 tons of municipal solid waste each day. Approximately 90 per cent of the solid waste was household garbage and about 10 per cent was construction and demolition (C&D) debris. The GCSL did not receive industrial waste. The composition of the waste stream changed in August 1994, when Lee County began to operate a waste-to-energy facility. All of the household garbage generated in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Lee County is taken to the Lee County waste-to-energy facility, where it is burned, and the ash residue is taken to the GCSL. Currently, the GCSL receives only about 450 tons per day of solid waste, which consists of 65-70 per cent ash residue from the waste-to-energy facility, 30-35 per cent C&D debris, and approximately 2-5 per cent municipal solid waste. DEP would allow WMI to accept more solid waste at the GCSL. However, Lee County has the contractual right with WMI to dictate the types of materials deposited in the GCSL, and it is the county's intent to use the waste-to-energy facility, not the GCSL, for the disposal of putrescible wastes. Lee County is contractually obligated to send all of the county's municipal solid waste to the county's waste-to-energy facility, and the county has a financial incentive to do so. Lee County will send municipal solid waste to the GCSL only if an emergency occurs, but even then the county will try to limit the duration and extent of the County's use of the GCSL. Objectionable Odors Objectionable odors at a landfill typically are related to the facility's operating practices (e.g., the size of the working face) and the presence of putrescible, organic materials that degrade and produce gases when they come in contact with water. In this case, the GCSL's operating practices minimize odors. The majority of the waste now received at the GCSL is ash residue, which contains little or no organic material and thus produces little or no odor. In addition, because the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill," any putrescible waste is not likely to degrade and cause odors. There have been no violations of the DEP odor rules at the GCSL since 1991 and only two instances, in 1987 and 1991, when off-site odors were verified by DEP's inspector. WCI filed odor complaints in 1995, but the complaints were investigated by DEP and the county and found to be invalid. Petitioners presented no evidence of present or anticipated future odor problems at the GCSL. To the contrary, the DEP inspectors and other witnesses established that there are no objectionable odors at the property boundary of the GCSL. WMI's Approved Closure Plan WMI has a closure plan for the GCSL that was approved by DEP when DEP issued the existing operation permit. In the current application WMI asked DEP for authorization to close the remaining portions of Parcel 3 in the same manner that WMI used when closing the other areas at the GCSL. If WMI's request is not granted, WMI may be required to close Parcel 3 with a geomembrane cover or "cap," in accordance with DEP's new requirements for final closure plans. Although DEP's landfill engineer recommends approval of WMI's request for authorization to use an alternate cover material, no proposed agency action has been taken on that request, and DEP will provide notice and a new point of entry for affected persons when the agency decides whether to grant WMI's request. It is, therefore, inappropriate to address the merits of WMI's "alternate procedure" request in this hearing. As provided in Rule 62-701.310(3), Florida Administrative Code, the agency's decision is action subject to a separate Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, proceeding. WMI's closure plan for the GCSL has little significance in this proceeding. The closure plan is used to calculate the cost of closure, which in turn is used to determine whether WMI has the financial resources to pay the cost of closing the landfill. As part of its approved closure plan, WMI previously demonstrated that it has the financial ability to pay the cost of closing the landfill. WMI could be required to spend an additional $1,000,000 to close the GCSL if WMI's request for approval of the alternate procedure is denied by DEP, but it is undisputed that WMI has the ability to pay this additional cost for closure. WMI must submit a revised closure plan at the time when WMI is prepared to close Parcel 3. DEP then will determine again whether the closure plan for Parcel 3 is adequate and in compliance with the DEP standards in effect at the time. (See paragraphs 38-42, "Specific Conditions," appended to the Intent to Issue, WMI Exhibit 4) Leachate Generation Rate at the GCSL While evaluating WMI's request for approval of an alternate closure plan, DEP noted that the amount of leachate collected in Parcel 3 (i.e., approximately 900,000 gallons per year) is relatively low when compared to the amount of leachate generated at other landfills. DEP was concerned that the low leachate collection rate may indicate a problem in the leachate collection system, so DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate at the GCSL in more detail. WMI subsequently presented additional information to DEP. Leachate is defined by DEP as the liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste. Rule 62-701.200(50), Florida Administrative Code. Leachate is generated when rainwater falls on the landfill, sinks in, and percolates through the garbage. One of the primary factors reducing leachate at the GCSL is the use of ash as cover material. The ash, which contains lime, undergoes a reaction and "sets up like mortar." It is extremely hard, cannot be penetrated easily, and has a very low permeability. The permeability of the ash is in the same range as the permeability of the barrier layer that is used in a final cover material. The ash "sets up so well" that the surface water runoff is much greater than with a normal cover material. There is an additional, significant reason why Parcel 3 of the GCSL has a low leachate generation rate. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 already have been closed with a final cover which is designed to shed rainwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Since most or all of the remaining 30 acres of Parcel 3 have been covered with ash, virtually all of Parcel 3 is covered with low permeability materials that minimize leachate generation. Leachate in Parcel 3 also is minimized because WMI employs good operational practices to limit its generation. WMI uses a small working face and stormwater berms to reduce the size of the area where rainwater may infiltrate. WMI maintains aggressively graded slopes that quickly direct stormwater away from the working face and off of the landfill. WMI's "close-as- you-go" strategy means that the waste at the GCSL is covered before it becomes saturated with rainwater. Specific conditions in the Intent to Issue require that these practices continue. After DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate in Parcel 3, WMI hired a firm to clean the inside of all of the pipes in the leachate collection system in Parcel A television video camera was used to visually inspect the inside of all of the pipes. This work confirmed that "at least 99.9 per cent" of the leachate collection pipes are clean and functional. WMI promptly repaired the leachate collection pipes in two small areas where there was blockage due to a crushed riser and a valve that was left closed. It is highly unlikely that leachate is mounding up inside the landfill or overtopping the perimeter berm that surrounds Parcel 3. The leachate levels inside Parcel 3 generally are and historically have been less than two feet. The leachate levels at the GCSL do not threaten the liner's integrity. The pipes are working, and no seepage has been observed through the side slopes. WMI verified that the liner and leachate collection systems in Parcel 3 were constructed properly and in accordance with the DEP-approved design. Construction Quality Assurance reports were prepared by professional engineers when the liner systems were installed in Parcel 3. In these reports, the engineers certified that each section of the liner was installed, inspected, and tested appropriately to ensure that there are no holes in the liner. Where necessary due to failed tests, the reports reflect that repairs were made before any waste was deposited. The HELP Model In response to DEP's questions about the leachate generation rate at the GCSL, WMI's staff attempted to calculate the rate by using a computer program referred to as the HELP model. WMI initially ran the model with default input values which produced a predicted rate of 7.5 million gallons per year (MGY). WMI questioned the validity of the model results, but submitted the results to DEP because it was the best data then available. Given the discrepancy between the model results and the actual field data, WMI hired a nationally recognized consulting firm, Post, Buckley, Shuh, and Jernigan (Post Buckley), to perform a more refined analysis using the HELP model. The HELP model is used to calculate water balances at landfills. The model calculates the amount of water that will move across, into, and through landfills under different conditions. The model is a useful tool for comparing the performance of two alternate landfill designs, but it has limited value when used to predict the actual performance of an operating landfill. The model can be run with default values or with site- specific information. However, the model is designed to be conservative and overpredict the actual leachate generated. In its application of the model, Post Buckley adjusted several input parameters to reflect the actual conditions at the GCSL. Most significantly, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameters for the moisture content of the waste in the GCSL and for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Curve Number. These adjustments were "reasonable and well-considered." The HELP model assumes that the solid waste in the landfill is at field capacity--i.e., saturated with rainwater. However, it is well established that the solid waste in landfills is not saturated. At the GCSL, the ash cover material and WMI's "close-as-you-go" practices would reduce the likelihood that the waste would be saturated. Indeed, Post Buckley's on-site inspections revealed that the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill." The users' manual for the HELP model indicates that the Curve Number should be adjusted in certain cases to account for increased stormwater runoff that will occur during short duration, high intensity storms. The default value is used in areas where the rainfall occurs over a 24-hour period. In this case, Post Buckley concluded that the SCS Curve Number should be adjusted because the GCSL receives about 54 inches of rainfall annually during approximately 90 short duration, high intensity storms. Accordingly, Post Buckley adjusted the model's input parameters to increase runoff by 23 per cent of precipitation. Post Buckley's adjustment to the Curve Number and runoff value is consistent with the findings contained in a report by Benson and Pliska, which in the opinion of WMI's expert is the best study performed to-date on the calibration of the HELP model and which is similar or equivalent to the Peyton and Shroeder calibration relied on by Petitioner's expert. Post Buckley ran the HELP model with three different sets of conditions. In one run, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameter for the moisture content of the waste and calculated an leachate generation rate of 100,000 gallons per year. In the second run, Post Buckley adjusted the Curve Number and calculated a rate of 1.3 MGY. In the third run, Post Buckley adjusted both the Curve Number and the moisture content and calculated a rate of zero gallons per year. Given Post Buckley's landfill experience and its knowledge about the operational practices at the GCSL, the ash used as cover material, the climatological conditions in southwest Florida, and the limitations of the HELP model, Post Buckley concluded that 1.3 MGY is a reasonable estimate or approximation of the actual leachate generation rule for Parcel 3 of the GCSL. The leachate generation rate for the GCSL also has been evaluated by other witnesses. Mr. Joe Fluet calculated that approximately 960,000 gallons to 1,030,000 gallons of leachate are generated annually in Parcel 3. Mr. Fluet is a nationally recognized landfill expert who was selected by DEP to serve as the chairman of a technical advisory group that helped DEP develop the current DEP landfill rules. Mr. Fluet's conclusion is consistent with the leachate collection data for the GCSL, the Post Buckley analysis, the measurements of leachate in the sumps at the landfill, and his own personal observations of the landfill and WMI's operational practices. It is unlikely that leachate generation in Parcel 3 is as high as 2.0 MGY. This rate would produce about three feet of leachate on the liner. WMI's field data show that the "head" (depth) of leachate over the liner in Parcel 3 generally is less than two feet. By comparison, Post Buckley's estimated rate of 1.3 MGY would produce about 1.8 to 2.5 feet of leachate over the liner, which is more consistent with WMI's field data. Petitioners also attempted to calculate leachate generation for Parcel 3 by running the HELP model. Using default values, Petitioners calculated a rate of approximately 7 MGY. Petitioners also ran the model after adjusting several input parameters. Among other things, Petitioners decreased the slope from 20 per cent to 4 per cent, and Petitioners increased runoff by 30 per cent, as compared to the default value. With these adjustments, Petitioners calculated a rate of 4.2 MGY. The various experts' calculations with the HELP model produced leachate generation rates of 0 to 7.5 MGY. The magnitude of the range reflects the limitations of the model and underscores the need for sound professional judgment when adjusting the input parameters. In this case, the most persuasive and credible testimony was presented by Mr. Bonaparte, a recognized landfill expert who is assisting EPA with its efforts to calibrate the HELP model, and Mr. Fluet. Consistent with their testimony, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the leachate generation rate for Parcel 3 of the GCSL is most likely to range between 960,000 gallons and 1.3 MGY. The Petitioners' calculated range of 4.2 to 7.0 MGY is not credible. Even the low end of Petitioners' range is more than twice as much (2.0 MGY) estimated by any other witness. In addition, Petitioners' entire range of calculated leachate generation rates is inconsistent with the other evidence of record, as described below. Petitioners' leachate generation calculations were prepared by Marcus Pugh, who has not visited the GCSL nor performed any site specific field work concerning the GCSL. Mr. Pugh had never used the HELP model before to predict the generation rate of an operating landfill, but rather has used it as others commonly do, to size and design facilities. Although Mr. Pugh initially criticized Post Buckley's calculation of the slopes at the GCSL, he subsequently conceded that the HELP model results obtained by Post Buckley are independent of slopes. Missing Leachate? Based on their HELP model calculations that Parcel 3 actually is generating 4.2 to 7.0 MGY of leachate and since WMI is collecting 900,000 gallons per year, Petitioners speculate that there is "unaccounted for" or "missing" leachate (i.e., 3.3 to 6.1 MGY), which must be leaking through the GCSL's liner or seeping out of the sides of the GCSL, or both. Petitioners' allegations, however, are not supported by the evidence of record, which favors a finding that the facility is simply not generating the vast amounts of leachate predicted by Petitioners. The liner and leachate collection systems under Parcel 3 were "state-of-the-art" and in full compliance with all of the applicable DEP rules at the time of their installation. These systems were installed properly, in accordance with standard quality assurance procedures, as certified by a professional engineer. Mr. Bill Krumbholz, the DEP inspector, personally witnessed the installation of portions of the liner. Mr. Fluet also was personally involved with the certification for the landfill. Even the Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he had no concerns about or disagreements with the certifications for Parcel 3. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the liner or leachate collection systems were damaged at the time when they were installed. Petitioners theorize that the liner in the GCSL may have been damaged after it was installed, but Mr. Pugh readily admits that this contention is based on "pure speculation" based on the notion that a minimum wage laborer on heavy equipment might damage the liner. Petitioners presented no direct or credible evidence to support their contention. After the completion of construction and the commencement of operations large scale breaches of a landfill liner are not a common or even occasional occurrence. As part of its standard management practices, WMI places a four-to six-foot thick "fluff" layer of select household garbage over any new landfill liner system. The fluff layer is used to protect the liner and ensure that the liner is not accidentally damaged. This WMI policy was followed when the liners were installed in Parcel 3 of the GCSL. As a result, there is no reason to believe that the liner in Parcel 3 was damaged after installation. There is no circumstantial evidence to support Petitioners' claims. Since 1976, WMI has monitored the water quality at the GCSL in accordance with a DEP-approved ground water monitoring plan, which is designed to detect any significant leakage from the landfill. No groundwater quality violations have been recorded at the GCSL. However, if one were to assume that Petitioners' theory is correct, then one also would have to assume that over the last five years approximately 16.5 to 30.5 million gallons of leachate have leaked through the liner in Parcel 3 and entered the adjacent groundwater, but somehow have evaded detection in the monitoring wells. Respondents' witness Mr. Fluet calculated that a maximum of 56,000 gallons per year of leachate might possibly leak through the liner system in Parcel 3. His calculation conservatively assumed that there may be as many as ten 0.1 cm2 holes in each acre of the liner in Parcel 3. Petitioners have offered no credible theory that would produce a leakage rate of several million gallons per year. To create a leakage rate of even one million gallons per year, there would have to be at least ten and perhaps dozens of large holes in the liner. Each of the holes would need to be 10-feet long and several inches wide. However, large holes or breaches in a liner system normally are identified and repaired during the installation and quality assurance process. There is no evidence of poor quality assurance or poor operational practices at the GCSL to support Petitioners' speculation. WMI witness, Rudolph Bonaparte, has never encountered a situation where there was evidence of the kinds of "major flaws" that would be necessary to generate the leakage rates hypothesized by Petitioners. Mr. Fluet also was unable to identify any plausible scenario that would support Petitioners' theory. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he has never worked on a lined landfill where 4-to 7-MGY of leachate leaked through the liner. Petitioners questioned whether settlement would affect the liner or leachate collection systems in Parcel 3. Since ash is denser than MSW, the disposal of ash in the GCSL may affect the settlement of the subsurface soils to some extent, but there will be no shearing or failure of the liner due to any differential settlement. The amount of differential settlement that may occur would be extremely small. Settlement could create a 1000 gallon "puddle" of leachate in the valley fill portion of Parcel 3, or the slope in some portions of the leachate collection system may flatten, but these are relatively minor impacts. Conversely, increased settlement in the base of Parcel 3 would help improve the overall drainage of the east hill and the west hill areas. Petitioners contend that the "unaccounted for" leachate may be escaping from the GCSL through side slope seepage, but this theory is not supported by any direct or credible evidence. It was undisputed that any significant amount of side slope seepage from a landfill is readily apparent. Leachate seeps typically "look ugly and smell bad." When seeps occur, the soil is discolored, the vegetation is killed, and there is sheering, gullying, rilling, and other signs of erosion. There has been no side slope seepage from Parcel 3, as established by numerous site visits and personal observations of the DEP staff, county representatives, and other witnesses. Petitioners' witnesses have not observed any side slope seepage at the GCSL. Although Petitioners noted that there are discolored areas on Parcel 3, those are the areas where WMI recently excavated into the sides of the GCSL to complete the repairs to the leachate collection system. The leachate would have to mound up inside the landfill before there would be the amount of seepage predicted by Petitioners. This mounding would create tremendous head pressure in the cleanout pipes. However, no such pressure has been found in the cleanout pipes at the GCSL. Petitioners suggest that leachate may be seeping from the toe of Parcel 3 into the drainage ditch that leads to the stormwater retention pond. Again, the evidence does not support this hypothesis. The liner in Parcel 3 goes over the top of a berm which is built completely around the perimeter of Parcel 3. The berm and the liner rise 3 feet above the base of the leachate collection system. Leachate could not seep from the toe of Parcel 3 unless the leachate level rose above the functioning leachate collection pipes, avoided being drained away by the leachate collection system, and then flowed uphill over the berm. Even if the leachate went up and over the berm, the leachate would enter the ditch from the top of the berm, where it would be readily visible to site inspectors as side slope seepage. No such seepage has been observed at the GCSL, even when people were looking for it. Ground Water Monitoring at GCSL There are three aquifers underlying the GCSL: (a) the surficial water table aquifer; (b) a sandstone aquifer; and (c) the Hawthorne formation. Each of the aquifers is separated by a low-permeability, confining layer of varying thickness. The confining layer below the surficial water table aquifer is between 40 and 80 feet in thickness. Based on field data and reports of other scientists, including Petitioner's expert, Thomas Missimer, hydrogeologist Martin Sara derived a vertical flow rate of approximately 0.1 feet per year. At this rate, ground water would take approximately 40 to 50 years to move vertically downward through the confining layer. Petitioners contend that the GCSL is affecting the surficial water table aquifer. The surficial water table aquifer contains fresh water and is used extensively as a source of potable water in Lee County, but not in the area of the GCSL. Ground water samples collected from the surficial water table aquifer on Petitioners' property had average total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of approximately 500 mg/l. Similar TDS values have been reported for the surficial water table aquifer in the area surrounding the GCSL. In general, the regional groundwater flow in the vicinity of the GCSL is to the northwest. There is a northwesterly flow from WCI's property onto the GCSL that is consistent year after year and during all seasons. Extensive historical monitoring data for the site confirm that the ground- water flow under the GCSL also primarily is to the northwest, but with some likely localized flow to the west, at least during special events such as landfill dewatering in 1982. The only significant exception to this trend occurs in the area of the stormwater retention pond, where the groundwater usually flows radially outward in all directions. Groundwater monitoring began at the GCSL in 1976, when the facility opened. The groundwater monitoring system at the GCSL has complied with or exceeded the DEP requirements at all times since 1976. Currently there are seven groundwater monitoring wells, each approximately 30-feet deep, in the surficial water table aquifer at the GCSL. These wells surround the perimeter of the GCSL. At the final hearing, Lee County attempted to address concerns about the groundwater monitoring program for the GCSL by agreeing to pay for the redevelopment and installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells. Lee County and WMI stipulated that two existing groundwater monitoring wells (wells 14-S and 18-S) will be redeveloped and a new ground water monitoring well will be installed in the surficial aquifer between existing wells 20-S and 21-S. The two redeveloped wells and the new well will be sampled on a semiannual basis for chloride and the field parameters of pH, specific conductivity, field turbidity, and temperature for the life of the permit. The monitoring may be discontinued if the GCSL closes. The monitoring well network at the GCSL is adequate to monitor the type of area-wide plume that might originate from the GCSL. The evidence demonstrates that any holes in the liner in Parcel 3 are likely to be small and spread widely across the entire site. Although the plume from a single hole may be narrow and elongated, the plume from the entire landfill would be approximately 2400-feet wide. Under most if not all plausible scenarios, leachate leaking out of the liner beneath Parcel 3 will move with the regional groundwater flow toward the monitoring wells located along the western and northern perimeters of Parcel 3. Potential leakage from Parcel 3 will be pushed toward these monitoring wells by the regional groundwater flow and the radial flow from the retention pond. DEP has concluded and the evidence confirms that WMI's groundwater monitoring plan, as modified by Lee County's stipulation, is protective of the environment and satisfies all applicable DEP requirements. Under the facts of this case, it is not necessary to add any additional monitoring wells or otherwise modify the groundwater monitoring plan, except as stipulated by Lee County. It was undisputed that the leachate generated at the GCSL is and always has been "very weak" in comparison to the leachate from other landfills. The leachate contains relatively few contaminants and has low contaminant concentrations. The GCSL's leachate has few volatile or hazardous constituents. It also was undisputed that there have been no violations of DEP groundwater standards detected in any of the groundwater monitoring wells at the GCSL. There have been one- time exceedances or anomalies, but such events do not constitute a violation of the DEP standards. Chloride In the Ground Water Chloride is present in the GCSL's leachate. Over the last ten years, the average chloride concentration in the leachate has been 1021 parts per million (ppm), and the highest concentration has been 2070 ppm. The Department has no primary (i.e., health-based) groundwater quality standard for chloride. The only groundwater quality standard for chloride is a secondary standard of 250 ppm. Secondary standards are intended to address concerns about odor, taste, and aesthetics. If chloride concentrations become too high in drinking water, people simply stop drinking the water before there are any health implications, because the water is too salty. WMI evaluated Petitioners' claim that chloride leaking from Parcel 3 may affect the water quality on Petitioners' property. First, WMI performed a mass balance calculation and concluded that the maximum rate of leakage from Parcel 3 would increase the chloride concentrations beneath the landfill by only 7 to 14 ppm. WMI then used a dispersion model and determined that the maximum leakage rate would increase the chloride concentrations in the groundwater only 3.5 ppm at a distance of 100 feet from the landfill. This increase in chloride could not be distinguished from the existing background concentrations in the groundwater. WMI also analyzed the groundwater data to determine whether the GCSL is causing an increase in the chloride concentration measured in monitoring well 21-S. WMI plotted the data on trilinear diagrams, consistent with techniques that have been commonly used by hydrogeologists for many years. The trilinear diagrams clearly show that the increased levels of chloride in monitoring well 21-S are not caused by the leachate from the GCSL. The trilinear diagrams do not identify the source of the chloride found in monitoring well 21-S. However, it appears that the chloride originated from a source of "brackish" water. There are several potential sources of the chloride in well 21-S. In the past, there was an irrigation well on WCI's property that pumped water with high chloride concentrations and created a large plume of chloride-enriched groundwater on WCI's property. Historic groundwater monitoring data indicate that the chloride plume was approximately 6000-feet wide and flowing towards the GCSL. This large plume may have reached the GCSL and affected the water quality in well 21-S. There also were irrigation wells located on the site of the GCSL that may have contributed to the chloride concentrations in well 21-S. Historic water quality data indicate that these irrigation wells produced elevated chloride concentrations in the groundwater at the GCSL. Petitioners' Stormwater Data On May 12, 1997, Petitioners collected samples of the water in the stormwater retention pond at the GCSL. Petitioners also collected a sample of the water in a concrete culvert that carries stormwater runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. The samples were collected during a severe rainstorm when it was "raining cats and dogs." Based on these samples, Petitioners speculate that the "unaccounted for" leachate is entering the stormwater retention pond via a perimeter drainage ditch and the concrete culvert. This speculation is not supported by the evidence. Leachate generated in the GCSL has an ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the range of 700 to 800 ppm. The stormwater collected from the culvert pipe had an ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 1.7 ppm. The disparity between these two values belies the possibility that the stormwater in the ditch contains leachate from the GCSL. Although Petitioners contend that ammonia-nitrogen in the leachate could be oxidized while flowing in the ditch, it would be virtually impossible for the oxidation of stormwater in the ditch to reduce ammonia-nitrogen levels from 700 or 800 to 1.7 ppm. WMI's extensive experience with leachate has demonstrated that it is "very difficult" to treat and reduce the ammonia-nitrogen levels in the leachate through volatization and aeration. The water collected by Petitioners in the culvert had a chloride concentration of 2900 ppm, which significantly exceeds the highest chloride level ever found in the GCSL's leachate (2070 ppm). The pH in Petitioners' sample (8.87) also was notably higher than the pH found in the landfill's leachate (e.g., 7.20 in WCI Exhibit 14). The disparity between the values found in Petitioners' sample and the values found in the landfill's leachate suggests that the Petitioners' sample is not representative of leachate from Parcel 3. Stormwater flowing over the ash residue on the top of Parcel 3 is the most probable source of the elevated chloride and high pH found in Petitioners' sample. The ash at the GCSL has elevated chloride concentrations. It also has high pH, due to the addition of lime at the waste-to-energy facility. Both WMI's witness, Mr. DeBattista, and Petitioner's witness, Dr. Missimer, saw stormwater washing over the ash and entering the stormwater conveyance system that led to the culvert where Petitioners' sample was collected while Petitioners were at the GCSL collecting samples. Petitioners noted that the water in the stormwater ditch was discolored. However, Petitioners' photograph of the site (WCI Ex. 10) reveals that the water in the ditch is the same color as the mulch (compost) that is stockpiled on Parcel 3 and used for intermediate cover. During Petitioners' site visit, stormwater was flowing over the mulch on Parcel 3 before entering the stormwater ditch. Dr. Missimer conceded that the color of the water in the ditch could be caused in part by the mulch and stormwater runoff. Dr. Missimer raised a number of other issues about the GCSL. He claimed that the sediments in the stormwater retention pond have elevated metals concentrations, but he does not contend that the metals concentrations in the sediments violate any applicable DEP standard. He also does not contend that the metals are leaving the site. Dr. Missimer noted that there was "foam" in a stormwater ditch. However, Petitioners presented no competent evidence about the source of the foam or its chemical composition. Finally, Dr. Missimer heard gas escaping from a cleanout pipe at a different location on the landfill, but there were no odors associated with it. There is no evidence to demonstrate that gas in the riser pipes is a cause for concern. In response to Petitioners' chloride data, WMI is taking steps to manage its stormwater better. WMI has placed intermediate cover over 10 acres of exposed ash, thus reducing the potential for the rainwater to come in contact with the ash and convey chloride into the stormwater management system. WMI also is determining whether it should remove a culvert that served as a conduit for the runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. It was undisputed that the GCSL is an "existing installation," as that term is defined by DEP. Parcels 1 and 2 of the GCSL were unlined and were reasonably expected to release contaminants into the ground water on or before July 1, 1982. The GCSL has operated consistently with the applicable DEP statutes and rules relating to groundwater discharges in effect during the time of its operation. Since the GCSL is an existing installation, WMI is entitled to a zone of discharge that extends to WMI's property boundary. The groundwater within the zone of discharge is not required to meet the DEP water quality standards. Modifications to Conditions of Draft Permit and Summary of Findings In addition to the modification to the ground water monitoring plan described in paragraph 59 above, WMI has requested and DEP has agreed to make minor changes to the language in Specific Conditions 10, 19, 32, 38, and 45(e) of the draft permit. These changes relate respectively to gas monitoring, daily cover, acceptance of C & D debris, data to support the alternate procedure request for final cover, and the zone of discharge. These modifications are reasonable, supported by the evidence, and consistent with DEP rules. Moreover, WMI has provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all applicable DEP rules for continued operation of the GCSL. As amply demonstrated in this proceeding, highly competent professionals can disagree. Petitioners' witness Dr. Missimer, has had years of experience in studying the hydrogeology of Lee County and the area of the landfill and Gateway. His data collected during the development of Regional Impact Studies for Gateway have been relied on by DEP and others. His conclusions, however, regarding enormous amounts of leachate escaping the landfill are simply not supported by the results of years of monitoring the landfill's operations. With continued monitoring, the applicant should be permitted to continue to operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order approving Waste Management, Inc., of Florida's application for a permit renewal to continue to operate the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill, subject to the parties' stipulation regarding additional groundwater monitoring wells and subject to the revisions to the draft permit that are described herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire Michael P. Petrovich, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese Garner Haverfield Dalton Harrison & Jensen Post Office Box 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 David S. Dee, Esquire John T. LaVia, III, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David M. Owen, Esquire Lee County Assistant Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should issue a permit to Broward County authorizing construction of the proposed Cell 14 extension of the Broward County landfill located in the Town of Davie, Florida. Broward County and the Department of Environmental Regulation contend that Broward County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will meet the requirements of the Department's rules and regulations and not cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards. The Town of Davie contends that the proposed facility will not meet the Department's requirements and will result in pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Findings Of Fact Broward County presently operates a landfill known as the Davie Landfill on a tract of land comprising 200 acres within the Town of Davie, Broward County, Florida. The existing sanitary landfill includes 13 cells which cover approximately 20 acres on the northeastern portion of the site. The landfill had an original design elevation of50 feet. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in a separate permitting proceeding, has authorized an increase to the height of the existing landfill to 90 feet. The permit authorizing increasing the height of the existing landfill has been challenged by the Town of Davie and is the subject of a separate proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The site which includes the landfill also has a sludge lagoon and trash landfill located in close proximity to the sanitary landfill. The sludge lagoon was used until sometime in 1981 for disposal of septic tank clean-out, sludges, grease trap waste, and wastewater treatments. The trash landfill was designed primarily for disposal of yard trash. The existing landfill has vertical side slopes of 3.5 to l. In other words, the height of the landfill increases along sides by i foot for every 3.5 feet traveled horizontally. Through this application, Broward County is seeking approval to expand its sanitary landfill by adding a proposed Cell 14. Cell 14 would constitute a Class I landfill since it will receive in excess of 20 tons of solid waste per day. The proposed Cell 14 would be constructed along the existing western face of Cells 1 through 13. It would ultimately be constructed to a height of 90 feet and would be capped with an impervious substance. The western side slope of the proposed cell would also be 3.5 to 1. Cell 14 would cover approximately 11 acres, bringing the total size of the sanitary landfill to just over 30 acres. With Cell 14, the sanitary landfill would continue to operate until approximately 1986. Containing leachate and preventing it from entering surface or ground waters is a most important consideration in determining whether to permit sanitary landfills. Leachate is water that has passed through refuse and been contaminated by the refuse. If significant amounts of leachate from Cell 14 enters into surface and ground waters, violations of the Department's water quality standards would be likely. Several features have been designed into Cell 14 to prevent introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The base of the cell would have a high density polyethylene liner to prevent percolation of Leachate that collects at the bottom of the cell into groundwater. A leachate collection system consisting of pipes and manholes has been devised. As leachate collects at the base of the cell, it will be dumped into tank trucks and carried to nearby wastewater disposal plants where it will be treated. A stormwater collection system has been designed so that initial stormwater runoff will be pumped to the leachate collection system and tested. If significant pollutants are contained in the stormwater runoff, it can continue to be pumped into the leachate collection system and ultimately removed to off-site treatment plants. If there are not significant pollutants in the runoff, runoff will be collected in a swale system and ultimately percolate into groundwater. Water that leaves the site in this manner is not likely to cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards either in surface or ground waters. Numerous technological advances have occurred since Cells 1 through 13 of the Davie Landfill were designed and constructed. These cells have a designed-in leachate collection system. The system presently functions adequately, except that the liners under the earlier cells appear to be breaking down. It is apparent that the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has deteriorated to the extent that all leachate from these cells is not collected in the leachate collection system, but enters the groundwater below the landfill. Leachate from a landfill of this sort and magnitude that enters groundwater is likely to cause pollution in violation of the Department's standards. Leachate is presently entering the groundwater from Cells 1 through 4. The nature of the liner under the remaining original cells is not known. It is thought to be made of asphalt. Many forms of asphalt, obviously including the kind that was used to line Cells 1 through 4, are not capable of containing Leachate for an extended period of time. If the liner breaks down, the leachate collection system under all of the original cells will no longer function, and leachate will enter the groundwater, causing violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. There will not be an impervious liner between the existing cells of the Davie Landfill and the proposed Cell 14. It has been estimated that the cost of such a liner would be prohibitive. There will be limerock placed between the existing cells and the proposed cell; however, limerock is permeable. Some Leachate from Cell 14 will seep into the existing cells. Some of the leachate from the proposed Cell 14 that enters the existing Cells 1 through 4 will find its way into groundwater under the landfill. Leachate that enters the remaining cells will also find its way into groundwater if the liner under these cells breaks down as the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has broken down. If Leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to cause pollution in violation of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. Groundwater in the area of the Davie Landfill flows generally from the northwest to the southeast. Some of the groundwater from the site of the sanitary landfill is likely to find its way into a canal which is located just to the south of the site. this is the C-11 Canal. If leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to ultimately cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards in the C-11 Canal. Except for the fact that the liners under the existing cells of the sanitary landfill are subject to deterioration, the leachate collection system can function appropriately. The leachate collection system for the proposed Cell 14 can also function without allowing introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The leachate collection systems utilize pipes that are presently buried under the existing landfill and will be further buried by the construction of Cell 14. The pipes that are presently being used, and are proposed to be used, are designed to withstand pressure greater than would be imposed on them. Furthermore, they are being placed in such a manner (surrounded by rock and utilizing ball joints) as to reduce the pressure imposed upon them. It is possible that one of the pipes could break and that leachate could thus escape from the Leachate collection system. This possibility is not a likely one, however, given the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation. The fact that the leachate collection system for existing cells of the Davie Landfill would be buried under the proposed Cell 14 does not raise a significant danger that the system will break down. Again, the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation render breakage unlikely. The sludge pit that is located just to the southwest of the sanitary landfill and the trash landfill that is located just to the south of the sanitary landfill offer potentially severe threats to the integrity of ground and surface waters on and off of the site. The sludge pit is a hazardous waste site. The trash landfill is not designed to prevent substances placed on the landfill from percolating into groundwater. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 addition to the sanitary landfill would increase the risk of pollution that the sludge pit and trash landfill present. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 would cause significant additional surface or ground water flows that would increase the risk of material from the sludge pit or the trash landfill from entering surface or ground waters. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that its proposed addition to the Davie Landfill will not result in violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards contained in Chapters 17-3, 17- 4, and 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. While the proposed cell has been designed with appropriate liners and with an appropriate leachate collection system, its location abutting an existing landfill which does not have an adequate liner preventing percolation of leachate into groundwater increases the risk of that occurring. It appears that the only means of preventing or reducing that risk is either to close off the existing cells, or to place a liner between the existing cells and any addition in order to prevent flows of Leachate from new landfill activities into the existing cells.
The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the wasteload allocations set forth in respondent's interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constitute a rule subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner, a municipal corporation, applied to the respondent for renewal of its permit to operate a sewage treatment plant. The respondent gave notice of its intent to deny said application on the ground that petitioner had not met the wasteload allocations established for the upper part of the Peace River Basin. A petition for a hearing on this denial was filed by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), and a hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, 1978. At the commencement of this hearing, it became apparent that petitioner was also alleging that the wasteload allocations set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constituted a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore must be adopted pursuant to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent not being prepared to meet this allegation and the petitioner not having filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56, the scheduled hearing was continued and petitioner was granted leave to file a petition pursuant to Section 120.56 challenging the validity of the wasteload allocations as an invalid rule. Petitioner properly filed its petition for an administrative determination of the validity of a rule and the two petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes. The "rule" being challenged herein contains revised wasteload allocations for four municipalities in Polk and Hardee Counties. These four include Bartow, Ft. Meade, Bowling Green and Wauchula, each of which discharges effluent into the Upper Peace River Basin. As noted above, these allocations are set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, and were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Wasteload allocations are derived from mathematical calculations fed into a scientific model. They are based upon information pertaining to the treatment plant, the type of effluent, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving waters and the number and nature of other discharges to the receiving waters. In developing said allocations, the respondent relies upon information received from the applicant, as well as existing water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological data, local programs and university studies. The purpose of developing wasteload allocations is to determine the chemical effect of the discharge upon the receiving body of water and to determine whether a certain volume of effluent treated to a specified degree will depress water quality below the standard established for a particular class of water. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each individual discharger to determine whether a reduction in water quality will occur. When an application for a discharge permit is made to respondent, allocations for several dischargers in close proximity affecting the same portion of a body of water may be calculated at the same time, as was done in the September 8th memorandum. However, the other individual allocations become effective and applicable only when those dischargers seek a permit from the respondent. At that time, the allocation is revisited and recalculated based upon the most recent, available information and data. The wasteload allocations have applicability only when a facility seeks a permit to discharge effluents into surfaced waters. In the State of Florida, there are approximately 1,300 domestic and municipal sewage treatment plants and 230 industrial dischargers. A uniform wasteload allocation for 1,530 dischargers would be impossible and meaningless because each has its own unique characteristics based upon the type and method of discharge and the nature of the receiving body of water. Accordingly, the wasteload allocations are established by respondent on a case by case basis in the permitting process. Approximately 1.6 million dollars in capital expenditures will be necessitated in order for petitioner to comply with the wasteload allocations established by the respondent. There would also be increases in operating and management costs for new capital improvements. Alternative methods of sewage treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner.
