The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Angelo's Aggregate Materials, LTD ("Angelo's") is entitled to permits from the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") to construct and operate a Class I landfill in Pasco County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency with the power and duty under chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to review and take action on applications for permits to construct and operate solid waste management facilities, including landfills. Angelo's is a Florida limited partnership authorized to conduct business under the name Angelo's Recycled Materials. Angelo's filed the permit applications which are the subject of this proceeding. Angelo's owns the property on which the proposed landfill would be constructed and operated. Crystal Springs Preserve is a Florida corporation that owns approximately 525 acres in Pasco County, Florida on which is located Crystal Springs, a second magnitude spring that flows into the Hillsborough River. The property is about 10 miles south of Angelo's proposed landfill site. Crystal Springs Preserve's primary business activities are selling spring water for bottling for human consumption and operating an environmental education center that focuses on Crystal Springs and the Hillsborough River. Crystal Springs Preserve hosts approximately 50,000 visitors annually at the environmental education center. Crystal Springs Preserve holds a water use permit which authorizes it to withdraw up to 756,893 gallons of water per day (annual average) from Crystal Springs for production of bottled water. The water is transported about three miles to a water bottling facility operated by Nestlé. Nestlé is a private corporation engaged in the business of bottling and selling spring water. Nestlé purchases spring water from Crystal Springs Preserve. Nestlé's "Zephyrhills Spring Water" brand is composed of approximately 90 percent Crystal Springs water and 10 percent Madison Blue Spring water. The only water treatment applied by Nestlé is filtering the water to remove gross contaminants and passing the water through ultraviolet light or ozone to kill any potential bacteria before bottling. Nestlé has established "norms" for its spring water and would not be able to use the water from Crystal Springs if its chemical composition varied significantly from the norms. WRB is a Florida corporation that owns 1,866 acres in Pasco County known as Boarshead Ranch. Boarshead Ranch is adjacent to the east and south of Angelo’s property and is approximately 3,000 feet from the proposed landfill at its closest point. Boarshead Ranch is currently being used for agricultural, recreational, residential, and conservation purposes, including wildlife management. Nearly all of Boarshead Ranch is subject to a conservation easement held by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The conservation easement allows WRB to continue agricultural operations. Numerous agricultural water wells are located on Boarshead Ranch. WRB holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal of 820,000 gallons per day (gpd) (annual average) for a number of uses, including production of agricultural products, animal drinking water, and personal use. The City of Zephyrhills is located in Pasco County and is a municipal corporation. Zephyrhills' water service area encompasses Zephyrhills and portions of Pasco County. Zephyrhills owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Zephyrhills holds a water use permit which authorizes nine potable water supply wells with a combined withdrawal of 2.9 million gallons per day ("mgd") (annual average). Zephyrhills has two new production wells located about two miles southeast of the proposed landfill. The City of Tampa owns and operates the David L. Tippin Water Treatment Plant, the Hillsborough River dam, and the City of Tampa reservoir on the Hillsborough River. Flows from Crystal Springs make up a substantial amount of the water in the Hillsborough River, especially during drought conditions when the spring flow accounts for about 50 percent of the flow. The City of Tampa holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal 82 mgd (annual average). The City of Tampa owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Carl Roth, Marvin Hall, and Louis Potenziano own property in Pasco County near the proposed landfill site. Roth's property is 3.5 miles west of the proposed landfill site; Hall's property is located approximately one mile southwest of the site; and Potenziano's property is 1.6 miles to the south/southeast of the site. Roth, Hall, and Potenziano have water wells on their properties. The record does not establish that John Floyd owns property in the area. Floyd and Associates, Inc., owns about 55 acres in the area and holds a water use permit authorizing the withdrawal of water for agricultural uses. The Stipulated Agreement On March 1, 2010, Angelo's filed with DOAH a "Stipulated Agreement" signed by all parties. The Stipulated Agreement states in relevant part: Angelo's shall provide a final design, revised complete permit application and site investigation (referred to jointly as "Revised Submittal") to DEP with copies to all Parties and DEP shall make a completeness determination prior to this proceeding being set for a new final hearing date. * * * Angelo's shall not revise its permit application or supporting information beyond the Revised Submittal prior to or during the final hearing except in response to issues raised by DEP. It appears that the Aligned Parties did not remember the Stipulated Agreement until the commencement of the final hearing. They did not object before then to any of the evidence which Angelo's had prepared or intended to prepare for hearing on the basis that it violated the terms of the Stipulated Agreement. At the commencement of the hearing, Nestlé argued that the Stipulated Agreement barred Angelo's from revising its application or presenting new support for its project at the final hearing. The Stipulated Agreement is unusual and the necessity for Angelo's to make any concessions to the Aligned Parties in order to obtain their agreement to an abeyance was not explained. Allowing an applicant time to amend a permit application is usually good cause for an abeyance. The Stipulated Agreement allowed Angelo's to continue to respond to issues raised by the Department. Angelo's contends that all of the evidence it presented at the final hearing qualifies as a response to issues raised by the Department. The Proposed Landfill Angelo's applied to construct and operate a Class I landfill with associated buildings and leachate holding tanks. Application No. 22913-001-SC/01 corresponds to the construction permit application and Application No. 22913-001-SO/01 corresponds to the operation permit application. A Class I landfill is a landfill authorized to receive Class I waste, which is solid waste from households and businesses. Class I waste does not include hazardous waste, yard waste, or construction and demolition debris. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(13) and (14). The proposed landfill would be approximately 30 acres in size. It is part of a 1,020-acre parcel owned by Angelo's that is west of County Road 35 and south of Enterprise Road in Pasco County. The site is currently leased for cattle grazing and hay and sod production. There are also spray fields, orange groves, and a pond on the 1,020-acre parcel. Angelo's would construct the landfill by first clearing the 30-acre site. It would then excavate and fill to create the design subgrade or floor of the landfill with slopes required for the liner system. The subgrade would be compacted with a vibratory roller. After the subgrade compaction, the grouting plan would be implemented. The grouting plan calls for grouting 39 subsurface locations on the site that have voids, loose soils, or other unstable characteristics. A liner system would be installed after the grouting is completed and the subgrade is finished. From the bottom upward, the liner system would begin with a 12-inch layer of clay, over which a reinforcement geotextile would be installed, followed by another 12-inch layer of clay. This reinforcement geotextile is in addition to the double liner system required by Department rule. Its purpose is to maintain the integrity of the liner system in the event that a sinkhole occurs beneath the landfill. Installed above the reinforcement geotextile and clay layer would be a 60-millimeter high-density polyethylene ("HDPE") geomembrane, followed by a HDPE drainage net. These last two components comprise the secondary leachate collection system. Above the HDPE drainage net would be the primary leachate collection system, consisting of another 60-millimeter HDPE geomembrane and HDPE drainage net, followed by a geotextile, then a 12-inch sand layer for drainage, and an additional 12-inch sand layer for protection against puncture of the HDPE liner. A 48-inch layer of selected waste, free of items that could puncture the liner, would be the first waste placed over the primary leachate collection system. "Leachate" is "liquid that has passed through or merged from solid waste and may contain soluble, suspended, or miscible materials." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(66). Leachate would be collected through a system of perforated pipes that empty into a sloping trench with a leachate collection pipe. The leachate collection pipe would run down the center of the landfill to the lowest point where a pump would send the collected leachate through a force main 0.25 miles to storage tanks. Five above-ground storage tanks would be installed on a concrete pad with capacity to store 90,000 gallons of leachate. The stored leachate would be periodically transported to an offsite location, such as a wastewater treatment facility, for disposal. Sinkholes and Karst The terms "sinkhole" and "sinkhole activity" are not defined by Department rule, but the statutory definitions in chapter 627, a chapter dealing with insurance coverage for homes and other buildings, are generally consistent with the scientific meanings of these terms. The term "sinkhole" is defined in section 627.706(2)(h) as: a landform created by subsidence of soil, sediment, or rock as underlying strata are dissolved by groundwater. A sinkhole forms by collapse into subterranean voids created by dissolution of limestone or dolostone or by subsidence as these strata are dissolved. The term "sinkhole activity" is defined in section 627.706(2)(i) as: settlement or systematic weakening of the earth supporting the covered building only if the settlement or systematic weakening results from contemporaneous movement or raveling of soils, sediments, or rock materials into subterranean voids created by the effect of water on a limestone or similar rock formation. Sinkholes occur throughout Florida. There have been many reported and confirmed sinkholes in Pasco County. The more common type of sinkhole that has occurred on the Brooksville Ridge is a "cover subsidence" sinkhole, which is caused by voids in the limestone and the downward movement--"raveling"--of overlying soils into the cavity. Eventually, the loss of soils in the raveling zone will propagate upward until the soils at the ground surface also move downward and a depression is formed at the surface. Cover subsidence sinkholes develop slowly and are usually small, less than ten feet in diameter. Less common are "cover collapse" sinkholes, which can form in a matter of days or hours as the result of the collapse of the "roof" of a dissolved cavity in the limestone. These sinkholes are usually large and deep. The occurrence of a sinkhole does not always mean that areas near the sinkhole are unstable. However, the occurrence of a sinkhole is reasonable cause for concern about the stability of nearby areas and a reasonable basis for the Department to require thorough geologic investigations. "Karst" refers to limestone that is undergoing dissolution and it is common in Florida. A sinkhole forms in karst. "Epikarst" is limestone that was weathered while exposed above sea level millions of years ago before being submerged again. It is generally softer and more permeable than unweathered limestone. "Paleokarst" refers to karst that is very old in geologic time. Paleosinks are old sinkhole features in the paleokarst. A paleosink may no longer be unstable because it has been filled in for thousands or millions of years. A "lineament," or a "photolineament," is a relatively straight line seen in the topography or aerial photographs of the ground surface in an area. It might be defined by soil color, sloughs, ponds, wetlands, or other land features that follow a linear path. Lineaments are sometimes, but not always, associated with subsurface fractures in the bedrock where one would expect to also find active karst, sinkholes, and relatively rapid groundwater flow. Even where there is no lineament, there can be fractures in limestone that, when extensive enough, will allow for "fractured," "preferential," or "conduit flow" of groundwater. Fractured flow can occur in a small area or may go on for miles. Springs in Florida are usually associated with fractured flow or conduit flow that allows groundwater to move through the aquifer a long distance relatively rapidly, in weeks rather than decades. Geotechnical Investigation The Department's rules require subsurface conditions to be explored and described, including soil stratigraphy, soft ground, lineaments, and unstable areas, but the rules do not require the application of any particular geologic testing technique. An applicant's testing program is primarily a function of the professional judgment of the applicant’s geologist in cooperation with Department staff. The amount of geological testing done by Angelo's during its initial testing was similar to what was done for recent landfill applications. Angelo's conducted additional testing to respond to Department concerns and to prepare for the final hearing in this case, making the total amount of testing at Angelo's proposed site more extensive than is usual for a proposed landfill. The geologic investigation conducted by Angelo's experts to determine subsurface features, including any sinkholes, employed several technologies. Split Spoon Penetrometer Test (SPT) or SPT borings were drilled with a drill rig that advances a split spoon sampler into the ground with a 140 pound hammer. The hammer is dropped 30 inches and the number of blows required to drive the sampler each successive 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and indicates soil strength and density. The higher the N value, the denser the soil. When the material is so dense the drill rod cannot (essentially) be hammered deeper, the N value is shown as "R," which stands for "refusal." SPT Bore logs also note any observed "weight of hammer," "weight of rod," or "loss of circulation." These terms describe areas where the drilling encounters very soft material or voids. Weight of rod, for example, means the weight of the drilling rod, by itself, with no hammer blow, was enough to cause the rod to fall deeper through the soil or rock. Cone Penetrometer Test ("CPT") borings were also conducted. CPT borings are relatively shallow, performed with a hand-held rod and special tip that the operator pushes into the ground. The CPT equipment continuously measures and records tip resistance and sleeve resistance as the rod moves downward through soils. It is helpful in some applications, but is less precise in determining soil type, strength, and compressibility than SPT borings and cannot be used to explore deep zones. Ground penetrating radar ("GPR") studies were used. GPR equipment transmits pulses of radio frequency waves into the ground. The manner in which the radio waves are reflected indicates the types of soil and rock encountered. It can also detect cavities and other features that would suggest karst activity. When the GPR identifies geologic features of interest, they can be further investigated with SPT borings. Another investigative tool used by Angelo's was Multiple Electrode Resistivity ("MER"). MER uses a grid of wires and electrodes and the equipment interprets the resistivity of electrical signals transmitted through the subsurface. MER data can be displayed in a two dimensional or three dimensional format, depending on the software program that is used to process the data. Like GPR, MER is useful for indentifying geologic features of interest that can be further explored with SPT borings. However, GPR generally has good resolution only near the ground surface, while MER has good resolution to a depth of 100 feet. The Regional Geology The proposed site is in a geologic transition zone on the eastern flank of a regional, geological feature known as the Brooksville Ridge. It is a transition zone for both the Suwannee Limestone and Hawthorn Group. The Brooksville Ridge was formed when it was part of the coastline. In its geologic past, the Brooksville Ridge experienced sea level changes, weathering, erosion of sediments, and beach reworking. The general layering of geologic features on the Brooksville Ridge, from the top down, begins with topsoil and a layer of sand. Under the sand layer is the Hawthorn Group, an older geologic layer consisting of a heterogeneous mix of limestone, clays, and sands which generally range in depth from slightly under 60 feet to 80 feet or more. It was formed by river and wind erosion, flushing, and re-deposition in a beach dune environment. Below the Hawthorn Group is the Suwannee Limestone Formation, which is present throughout eastern Pasco County. The upper surface of the Suwannee Limestone Formation is undulating, due to a gradual chemical weathering of its upper surface, representing a "paleokarst environment." Underlying the Suwannee Limestone Formation is the Ocala Limestone Formation. It extends throughout most of Florida. It is composed of nearly pure limestone and is considered the Floridan Aquifer. It extends across the site’s subsurface. Angelo's used the Florida Geologic Survey's data base to determine there are six sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. A seventh sinkhole, not in the data base, is the 15- foot sinkhole at the Angelo's Enterprise Road Facility landfill, a Class III landfill (yard waste and construction and demolition debris) about a mile northwest of the proposed site. Angelo's contends that the sinkhole at its Class III landfill was "induced" during construction of the facility by the diversion of stormwater runoff to an area where overburden had been removed. The average diameter of the seven sinkholes is 11.9 feet. The Geology of the Proposed Site Rule 62-701.410(2)(c) requires a geotechnical site investigation and report, which shall: Explore and describe subsurface conditions including soil stratigraphy and ground water table conditions; Explore and address the presence of muck, previously filled areas, soft ground, lineaments, and sinkholes; Evaluate and address fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas as described in 40 C.F.R. 258.13, 258.14 and 258.15; Include estimates of the average and maximum high ground water table across the site; and Include a foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the landfill. It may include geotechnical measures necessary to modify the foundation to accommodate the imposed loads and stresses. The foundation shall be analyzed for short-term, end of construction, and long-term stability and settlement conditions. Considering the existing or proposed subgrade conditions and the landfill geometry, analysis shall include: Foundation bearing capacity; Subgrade settlements, both total and differential; and Subgrade slope stability. Angelo's conducted a geotechnical site investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below and in sections I. and J. The proposed landfill site is geologically complex, having features that are discontinuous horizontally and vertically. The site has karst features or areas where the limestone has dissolved. There is a clay layer in some areas, but it is not continuous and its depth and thickness vary. There are deposits of hard and soft sands at various depths. There are pinnacles of limestone surrounded by softer materials. Photographs from a quarry called the Vulcan Mine, located on the western flank of the Brooksville Ridge, show exposed features in the top 20 to 30 feet of the Suwannee Limestone in the region. The features at the Vulcan Mine are roughly similar to features at the Angelo's site. There are a number of shallow depressions on the surface of the ground on the Angelo's site. The origin and significance of these depressions was a matter of dispute. The Aligned Parties believe they represent sinkhole activity, but the evidence presented did not rise to the level of proof. However, Angelo's did not prove they were unassociated with geotechnical issues that could affect the proposed landfill. Angelo's offered no reasonable explanation for the depressions. Determining the exact cause of the depressions may not be possible even with more extensive investigation, but it was Angelo's responsibility as the permit applicant, pursuant to rule 62-701.410(2)(c), to make a greater effort to account for them. Angelo's initial permit application identified two intersecting lineaments on Angelo's property, based on aligned lowlands, enclosed valleys, and ponds. Angelo's contends the lineaments do not reflect an unstable subsurface or fractured limestone. The Aligned Parties contend that the lineaments are regional features and reflect fractures in the bedrock. They also contend that the onsite pond, which is located along the lineament, is an old sinkhole. The Aligned Parties did not prove the proposed landfill site is above an area of fractured bedrock, but the evidence presented by Angelo's was incomplete and insufficient to show there are no fractures. The limestone on the site was not adequately investigated for voids and fractures. Angelo's did not refute the possibility that the lineaments reflect a significant subsurface feature that could affect both site stability and groundwater movement. The Regional and Local Hydrogeology Rule 62-701.410(1) requires a hydrogeological investigation and site report, which shall: Define the landfill site geology and hydrology and its relationship to the local and regional hydrogeologic patterns including: Direction and rate of ground water and surface water flow, including seasonal variations; Background quality of ground water and surface water; Any on site hydraulic connections between aquifers; For all confining layers, semi-confining layers, and all aquifers below the landfill site that may be affected by the landfill, the porosity or effective porosity, horizontal and vertical permeabilities, and the depth to and lithology of the layers and aquifers; and Topography, soil types and characteristics, and surface water drainage systems of the site and surrounding the site. Include an inventory of all the public and private water wells within a one-mile radius of the proposed landfill site. The inventory shall include, where available: The approximate elevation of the top of the well casing and the depth of each well; The name of the owner, the age and usage of each well, and the estimated daily pumpage; and The stratigraphic unit screened, well construction technique, and static water levels of each well. Identify and locate any existing contaminated areas on the landfill site. Include a map showing the locations of all potable wells within 500 feet of the waste storage and disposal areas to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 62- 701.300(2)(b), F.A.C. Angelo's conducted a hydrogeological investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below. Angelo's and the Aligned Parties disputed the hydrogeological characteristics of the proposed landfill site and region. The principal disputes related to the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. Angelo's contends that groundwater flows from the landfill site to the west, making the proposed landfill site part of the Withlacoochee River groundwater basin. The Aligned Parties contend that groundwater flows south toward Crystal Springs and, therefore, the site is within the "springshed" of Crystal Springs. A United States Geological Survey map of the Crystal Springs springshed shows Angelo's proposed landfill site within the springshed. A springshed study done for SWFWMD also indicates the site is within the Crystal Springs springshed, but the District has not always been consistent in its statements about the groundwater basin boundaries in this area. A water chemistry analysis of the groundwater in the area of Angelo's proposed landfill indicates that the site is an area of higher recharge and within the Crystal Springs springshed. The springshed boundary can shift, depending on rainfall. Angelo's hydrogeological evidence was not sufficient to refute the reasonable possibility that the proposed landfill site is within the Crystal Springs springshed. Therefore, the Department's determination whether Angelo's has provided reasonable assurances must account for the threat of contamination to Crystal Springs and the other public and private water supply sources to the south. There are no creeks or streams and only a few lakes in the area between Crystal Springs and the Angelo's site. The absence of surface runoff features indicates it is an area of high recharge to the groundwater. Crystal Springs is in an area of conduit flow. The hydrologic investigation conducted by Angelo's was not thorough enough to characterize surficial aquifer flow and flow between aquifers. The preponderance of the evidence shows more groundwater recharge to the Floridan Aquifer in the area than estimated by Angelo's. Angelo's hydrogeological investigation was inadequate to refute the possibility of fractured flow or rapid groundwater movement at the proposed landfill site. Angelo's contends there is a continuous clay confining layer that would prevent contamination from moving into deep zones, but the preponderance of the evidence shows discontinuity in the clay and large variations in thickness and depth. The landfill's impermeable liner will impede water movement downward from the landfill, but groundwater will still recharge from outside the landfill to carry any contaminants deeper. If fractured flow or conduit flow extends south from the proposed landfill site, any leachate released into the groundwater beneath the landfill could travel rapidly toward the water supply sources of the City of Zephyrhills, Crystal Springs, Nestlé, and the City of Tampa. Whether the Proposed Landfill is in an Unstable Area Rule 62-701.200(2)(a) prohibits the storage or disposal of solid waste "[i]n an area where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the solid waste." However, the Department has adopted by reference a federal regulation, 40 C.F.R. 258.15, which allows a landfill to be constructed in a geologically unstable area if the permit applicant can demonstrate that engineering measures are incorporated into the design to ensure that the integrity of the landfill’s structural components "will not be disrupted." The parties presented evidence on many disputed issues of fact at the final hearing, but most of the case involved two ultimate questions: whether the proposed landfill site is unstable and, if so, whether Angelo's has proposed measures that would eliminate the unstable conditions and make the site suitable for a landfill. as: An "unstable area" is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 258.15 A location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from a landfill. Unstable areas can include poor foundation conditions, areas susceptible to mass movements, and Karst terrains. There is overwhelming evidence that the proposed landfill site is an unstable area. A considerable amount of evidence presented by Angelo's supports this finding. For example, Angelo's experts agreed there are loose soils, evidence of raveling, and sinkhole activity. These conditions make the site susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from the proposed landfill. The Department's landfill permitting staff requested a sinkhole risk assessment from the Florida Geologic Survey ("FGS"). The State Geologist and Director of the FGS, Dr. Jonathan Arthur, believes the potential for sinkhole formation at the proposed site is moderately high to high. That potential is consistent with the characterization of the area as unstable. Whether the Proposed Engineering Measures Are Adequate Because the site is unstable, Angelo’s must demonstrate that engineering measures have been incorporated into the landfill's design to ensure that the integrity of its structural components will not be disrupted. See 40 C.F.R. § 258.15(a). The engineering measures proposed by Angelo's are discussed below. Because it was found that Angelo's hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations were not sufficient to characterize all potentially unstable features of the subsurface, it was not demonstrated that the proposed engineering measures would overcome the instability and make the site suitable for a landfill. Roller Compaction Angelo's would use roller compaction on the graded floor of the landfill to compact the soils to a depth of about five feet and eliminate any voids within that depth. The Aligned Parties did not contradict Angelo's evidence that its proposed roller compaction will be done in a manner exceeding what the Department usually requires as far as roller force and the number of roller "passes." However, roller compaction will not affect deep voids. Liner System In order to ensure that the landfill’s liner system components will not be disrupted in the event of a sinkhole, Angelo’s proposes to include the reinforcement geotextile discussed above. The Department previously approved the use of geotextile reinforcement, combined with grouting, to demonstrate site stability for the Hernando County Northwest Landfill, which had a comparable risk of sinkhole formation according to the Department. The reinforcement geotextile can span a 15-foot diameter sinkhole without failure. As found above, the average diameter of the seven sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill is 11.9 feet. Angelo's proved that the proposed liner system meets all applicable criteria, except the requirement of rule 62- 701.400(3)(a) that the liner be installed upon a geologically stable base. Grouting Plan Angelo's grouting plan would be implemented to fill voids and stabilize areas of loose or weak material. The grouting plan was first designed to grout all locations where there was a Weight of Hammer, Weight of Rod, Loss of Circulation, or loose sands, as indicated by a low blow count. Angelo's revised the grout plan to include several more areas of concern identified later, for a total of 39 locations. Each grout location would have seven grout points, one in the center and six others equally-spaced on a ten-foot radius from the center. If more than ten cubic yards of grout is needed, additional grout points further outward would be injected until the void or loose soils are filled or stabilized. Although Angelo's proposes to grout every boring of concern, that still ties the integrity of the grouting plan to the thoroughness of the borings. The geologic evidence indicates that there are unstable areas which the grouting plan does not address. The Aligned Parties' MER analysis was persuasive in identifying potential areas of instability that were omitted from Angelo's investigation and from its grouting plan. There are other unstable areas existing on the site that should be grouted or otherwise engineered to provide support for the landfill. The grouting plan does not provide reasonable assurance that the integrity of the structural components of the landfill will not be disturbed. Other Issues Raised by the Aligned Parties The Aligned Parties raise a number of other issues, some of which begin with the assumption that the site is unstable and a large sinkhole would form at the landfill. This sometimes mixes issues inappropriately. It has been found that Angelo's did not provide reasonable assurance that the site will support the proposed landfill, but other project elements must be reviewed on their own merits where possible, assuming the site was engineered for stability. Leachate Collection System There is a single leachate collection trench in the center of the two landfill cells, which makes the landfill operate much like a single cell. The two halves of the cell slope toward the center, so that leachate will drain to the leachate collection trench, and the entire landfill slopes to the west, so that the trench will drain to a sump from which the leachate is pumped to storage tanks. At full capacity, the landfill will generate about 40,000 gallons of leachate per day. Careful cutting and grading of the earth is necessary to create the slopes that are essential to the proper functioning of the project’s leachate collection system. Settlement analyses are necessary to assure that the slopes are maintained. Rule 62-701.410(2)(e) requires a foundation analysis which must include a study of "subgrade settlements, both total and differential." "Total settlement" refers to the overall settlement of a landfill after construction and the loading of solid waste. "Differential settlement" compares settlement at two different points. Angelo's did not meet its burden to provide reasonable assurance on this point. The settlement analysis conducted by Angelo's was amended two or three times during the course of the final hearing to account for computational errors and other issues raised by the Aligned Parties. The analysis never came completely into focus. The final analysis was not signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The settlement analysis is dependent on the geologic analysis, which is inadequate. Without adequate settlement and geologic analyses, it cannot be determined that leachate collection would meet applicable criteria. Storage Tanks The Aligned Parties contend that the leachate storage tanks cannot be supported by the site. Because it was found that Angelo's geologic investigation was not adequate to identify all unstable areas, it is also found that Angelo's failed to provide reasonable assurance that the site would support the leachate storage tanks. In all other respects, the Aligned Parties failed to refute Angelo's demonstration that the storage tanks would meet applicable criteria. Groundwater Monitoring Plan The Aligned Parties contend that there is an insufficient number of monitor wells proposed by Angelo's to detect a leak from the landfill and the wells are too shallow. Because it was found that Angelo's did not adequately characterize the geology and hydrology of the proposed landfill site, the monitoring plan does not provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable criteria. Cell Design The Aligned Parties contend that the "mega-cell" design proposed by Angelo's provides less flexibility to respond to and isolate landfill problems than other landfill designs with smaller cells, and the mega-cell design could generate more leakage. No evidence was presented to show whether Angelo's design was one that had been approved or rejected in the past by the Department. Although it is not the best landfill design, the Aligned Parties did not show that the proposed design violates any permitting criteria. Operation and Closure The evidence presented by the Aligned Parties in support of their issues regarding the operation of the proposed landfill, such as noise, odor, and traffic, was not sufficient to refute Angelo's evidence of compliance with applicable criteria, with one exception: Angelo's has not provided an adequate contingency plan to show how it would respond to a sinkhole or other incident that required the landfill to be shut down and repaired. Assuming the site was engineered to support the landfill, there is nothing about the Closure Plan that the Aligned Parties showed does not meet applicable criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection deny Angelo's Permit Application Nos. 22913-001-SC/01 and 22913- 002-SO/01. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Roth, Qualified Representative 8031 Island Drive Port Richey, Florida 34668-6220 Christopher M. Kise, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. Suite 150 245 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 Janice M. McLean, Esquire City of Tampa 7th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 Joseph A. Poblick, Esquire City of Zephyrhills 5335 8th Street Zephyrhills, Florida 33542-4312 Doug Manson, Esquire William Bilenky, Esquire Brian A. Bolves, Esquire Manson Bolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1547 David Smolker, Esquire Smolker, Bartlett, Schlosser, Loeb and Hinds, P.A. Suite 200 500 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-4936 Stanley Warden, Esquire Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the City of Jacksonville has provided reasonable assurances that a proposed modification of its permit to operate the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill by allowing an additional 35 feet of waste to be disposed of in Phase IIIb of the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill will not cause pollution in violation of any of the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated thereunder? Whether the City of Jacksonville proposed modification of its permit to operate the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill by allowing an additional 35 feet of waste to be disposed of in Phase IIIb of the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill should be denied because of alleged violations of the City of Jacksonville's permit or Florida law?
Findings Of Fact Introduction. The City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill. The City of Jacksonville (hereinafter referred to as the "City") operates two solid waste disposal facilities. One, the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill (hereinafter referred to as the "North Landfill"), is located at the intersection of New Berlin Road and Island Drive in the northern part of the City and Duval County, Florida. The North Landfill is operated pursuant to permit #SC16-12205 (hereinafter referred to as the "Permit"), issued by the Department on June 6, 1988. The Permit was issued "for operation of the City of Jacksonville North Sanitary Landfill, Phases I, II, and 111a; and of a new disposal area at the North Sanitary Landfill, Phase IIIb." The area in which the North Landfill is located is generally commercial property, with some rural and residential property: The North Landfill is bounded on the north by unimproved land owned by the City. This property stretches to Cedar Point Road. A few parcels within the property owned by the City to the north of the North Landfill are owned by others, including Mr. and Mrs. Leigh. The property to the east of the North Landfill is also unimproved property. It is owned by the St. Johns River Power Park. The St. Johns River Power Park is a power plant facility operated as a joint venture by the City, the Jacksonville Electric Authority and Florida Power and Light. The plant is located on the southern boundary of the North Landfill. The west boundary of the North Landfill is New Berlin Road. The property to the west of New Berlin Road is owned by a number of persons, including M & M Dairy. Phase IIIb of the North Landfill is located in the northeast quadrant of the landfill. The North Landfill primarily serves northern, and a part of western, Duval County. Approximately 3,000 tons of solid waste is disposed of each day in Jacksonville. Approximately 55% of the solid waste is disposed of at the North Landfill. The solid waste disposed of at the North Landfill consists primarily of mixed municipal solid waste and commercial solid waste. The North Landfill is open seven days a weeks from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. All phases of the North Landfill are permitted to a height of 75 feet. The land on which the North Landfill is located is approximately 25 to 30 feet above sea level. Therefore, approximately 45 to 50 feet of solid waste can be disposed of at the North Landfill. All phases of the North Landfill have some remaining capacity for the disposal of additional solid waste. The Petitioners. Ms. Holzendorf's residence is approximately ten miles from the North Landfill. Her office is located approximately seven miles from the North Landfill. She does not own any real property located in the immediate vicinity of the North Landfill. Ms. Holzendorf can smell the odor from the North Landfill at her residence when the wind is blowing from the North Landfill toward her residence. Ms. Holzendorf is a Florida State Representative for District 16. District 16 includes the population of approximately one-third of Duval County, The North Landfill is located within District 16. Ms. Holzendorf has received complaints from some of her constituents about the North Landfill. Ms. Holzendorf drives by the North Landfill approximately twice a week. She has visited the site on several occasions. Robin G. and Geraldine Leigh own real property adjacent to Cedar Point Road. The land is unimproved except for a well. The Leigh's land is located north of the unimproved City property located adjacent to the northern boundary of the North Landfill. The Leighs' land is approximately three-fourths of a mile from the North Landfill. The City's Proposal. On August 3, 1988, the City filed an application with the Department for a modification of its Permit. In its application the City requested a "construction permit modification" of its Permit consisting of "extending the height of Phase IIIb of the North Landfill to a constructed elevation including final cover of no greater than 110 feet, NGVD." The City's requested modification of the Permit will provide the City with an additional six months of solid waste disposal capacity. The Department proposed to grant the City's requested modification. The Department issued a proposed Permit modification (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified Permit"). Structural Design of Phase IIIb. Leachate Control System. Waste dumped at the North Landfill is covered daily. Rain falling on the site is disposed of either as "leachate" or stormwater. Leachate is liquid which passes through, and emerges from, solid waste. Leachate on Phase IIIb of the North Landfill is collected and disposed of by a control system which was designed by George Knecht. Mr. Knecht described the leachate control system as follows: The leachate collection system consists of a two-foot drainage layer placed on top of the plastic liner. In this case the city used a plastic liner rather than a clay liner. It's HDPE, which is high-density polyethylene, and that collects the liquid and lets it flow downhill in this drainage layer to the central point, at which point the city has installed a six-inch perforated pipe which is wrapped in a filter media, which is basically a stone, a rock, which in turn is wrapped in a filter media which is porous cloth, and the purpose is that the liquid coming through the landfill gets into this drainage layer, runs downhill in the drainage layer, goes through the filter cloth, and the filter cloth keeps the sand from penetrating into the granular rock, goes through the rock and into the pipe, and then pipes are laid in a sloping downhill direction so that the fluid, once it gets in there, runs downhill. It's collected in manholes at the end of each one of these pipes. Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 49, lines 4-23. The leachate control system of Phase IIIb was properly installed and designed. Although the Petitioners raised questions concerning the manner in which the leachate control system was installed and designed, they did not offer sufficient evidence to contradict the evidence presented by the City that the system was properly installed and designed. The evidence also failed prove that the addition of 35 feet of solid waste to Phase IIIb will adversely affect the operation of the leachate control system. The addition of 35 feet of solid waste to Phase IIIb will probably ultimately have a beneficial effect on the leachate control system of Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. When Phase IIIb reaches its currently authorized height of 75 feet, the leachate depth on the liner of the control system is expected to be an average of approximately three inches. If an additional 35 feet of waste is added to Phase IIIb, the leachate depth on the liner of the control system is expected to decrease to an average of approximately two inches. The depth of leachate on the liner of the leachate control system of Phase IIIb will not exceed one foot. Specific Condition 3 of the Permit required that the City arrange for Department representatives to inspect the facility in the company of the Permittee, Engineer, and onsite operator after completion of construction activities. Cells I and II of the leachate control system of Phase IIIb were not inspected by the Department. The Department was provided with a certification from a registered professional engineer that the installation was inspected and met state requirements. The Department normally relies upon such certificates. Stormwater Disposal System. Rainwater which does not percolate through the waste, thus becoming leachate, runs off in the form of stormwater. Stormwater will consist primarily of rain which strikes the sides of the pyramid formed by the waste deposited on Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. The existing stormwater disposal system of all phases of the North Landfill consists of a series of ditches which collect stormwater and channel the stormwater to other ditches which surround the perimeter of the North Landfill. Stormwater travels through the ditches to collecting ponds located at the northeast corner of the North Landfill. Water reaching the holding ponds is treated by sunlight, oxidation and sedimentation. Ultimately, water reaching the holding ponds runs into Brown's Creek. The existing stormwater collection system of Phase IIIb is in compliance with the Department's permitting requirements. The proposed increase in height of Phase IIIb should not have any appreciable impact on the quality of stormwater eventually emptied into Brown's Creek. Phase IIIb will be capped with an impermeable cap when it is closed. The City has had a stormwater management system designed to take into account the effect of the cap on stormwater disposal. The stormwater collection system which will be installed when Phase IIIb is closed will consist of ditch blocks which will separate the stormwater collection system of Phase IIIb from the other phases of the North Landfill. Stormwater from Phase IIIb will be directed to a new holding pond. Stormwater will eventually be discharged into Brown's Creek. The stormwater collection system which will be installed when Phase IIIb is closed will meet the requirements of Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and the St. Johns River Water Management District. The system will actually have a positive impact on water quality. Foundation. The earth beneath the leachate control system of Phase IIIb, because of the weight of the solid waste to be deposited above it, is expected to settle approximately twelve inches under 75 feet of solid waste. The addition of 35 feet of solid waste to Phase IIIb is expected to cause the earth beneath the leachate control system to settle an additional six inches for a total of one and one-half feet. The additional 35 feet of solid waste will not adversely affect the structural integrity or functional capacity of the leachate control system of Phase IIIb. The proposed 35 foot addition of solid waste should not affect the ability of the earth beneath Phase IIIb to support the loads and stress it will be subjected to. III Alleged Violations. Water Quality There is a marsh located to the northeast of the North Landfill. The marsh forms the headwaters of Brown's Creek. Brown's Creek flows into the St. Johns River, south of the North Landfill. Alfred Mintz, the former owner of Clapboard Creek Fish Camp, a fish camp located approximately four miles from the North Landfill, testified about a "black gooey substance" which was on the surface of Clapboard Creek and Brown's Creek. Clapboard Creek flows to the northeast and east of the North Landfill. It eventually flows into the St. Johns River. The substance came from the direction of the North Landfill. Mr. Mintz did not know what the substance was and was unable to identify the source of the substance. The evidence failed to prove what the substance was or that the North Landfill was the source of the substance. Anita James, a commercial fisher, testified about a "film" which she saw on Brown's Creek near the St. Johns River. The substance was not identified. Nor was the source of the substance identified. Ms. James' belief that the film came from the North Landfill is not sufficient to support a finding of fact that the film whatever it was, came from the North Landfill. Mr. Mintz and Ms. James also testified about dead and diseased fish, and a dead dolphin and a dead manatee which they had seen in Clapboard Creek, Brown's Creek and other waters in the vicinity. No competent substantial evidence was presented to prove that the deaths or the disease was caused by waste disposed of at the North Landfill. No evidence concerning what killed the fish, dolphin or manatee, or what caused the diseased fish, was presented. Specific Condition 13 of the Permit requires the City to monitor water at three points along the stormwater disposal system of the North Landfill. One of the three monitoring points is approximately one-tenth of a mile east of the North Landfill in Brown's Creek. During approximately ten years of monitoring of water conditions only two parameters, iron and coliform, have been found in excess of state standards. The evidence did not prove what the cause of the excess iron and coliform was. It is possible that the excesses were caused by leachate from Phases I, II and 111a, which do not have lined leachate control systems like Phase IIIb, seeping into the stormwater disposal system. Leachate from Phase IIIb does not aggravate the problem because the leachate control system of Phase IIIb is lined. The City and the Department entered into a Consent Agreement on July 14, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Consent Order). Pursuant to the Consent Order the City is required to update its monitoring of stormwater. Quarterly monitoring of 37 parameters will be required. Specific Condition 19 A 2) of the Modified Permit also specifies that 37 parameters are to be analyzed quarterly. Specific Condition 13 A 2 of the Permit only required analyses of 14 parameters. The requested modification of the Permit should not contribute or extend any adverse affect of the North Landfill on water quality. The Consent Order and Specific Condition 20 C of the Modified Permit require that the City analyze 35 parameters quarterly at four wells located inside the North Landfill. The City has contracted for the preparation of a groundwater monitoring plan consistent with the Consent Order and with the requirements of Rule 17-701.050, Florida Administrative Code. Based upon a review of a well inventory conducted by the City and groundwater studies, wells in the vicinity of the North Landfill, including the well on Mr. & Mrs. Leigh's property and the M & M Dairy, are not at risk of contamination. The requested modification of the Permit should not increase the risk of contamination of wells in the vicinity of the North Landfill. Violation of Height Limits. In 1988 the City filled some portions of Phases I, II and IIIa above their 75 foot limit. The City did not, however, intentionally violate the Permit height limits. The City exceeded the height limit of the Permit only because it believed that solid waste placed on the landfill in excess of 75 feet would eventually settle to less than 75 feet and that this was consistent with the Permits limits. The Department disputed the City's actions in exceeding the 75 foot limit for Phases I, II and IIIa in an administrative action separate from this proceeding. On July 14, 1989, the City and Department settled their dispute and entered into the Consent Order. Pursuant to the Consent Order, the City paid a fine of $1,800.00. The City also built a laser tower for use in measuring the height of the North Landfill and agreed to use it to make more frequent surveys of the landfill. The City was not required to immediately remove the excess height. The City has been allowed to wait until closure. Prior to closure the City can request permission from the Department to leave the excess height. In the modification of the Permit at issue in this proceeding, Specific Condition 3 specifically provides for the manner in which waste may be disposed of in Phase IIIb in an effort to avoid the problems with excessive height experienced with Phases I, II and IIIa. B. Litter. Specific Condition 17 of the Permit provides that [l]itter control devices shall be installed as necessary to prevent litter from leaving the disposal area. Litter outside of the perimeter of the North Landfill along the roads leading to the landfill comes primarily from trucks bringing waste to the North Landfill. A small amount of the litter also comes from the site itself. Although the trucks are not City trucks, the City's litter collection efforts have been extended to cover the main portions of the roads leading to the North Landfill. Litter around and on the North Landfill has been a problem. The City has taken a number of steps to control the amount of litter in and around the landfill: Waste deposited at the North Landfill is covered with six inches of soil. Although the City is not required to do so, six months before the formal hearing of these cases the City began covering the area of the landfill where waste is being deposited (hereinafter referred to as the "working surface") with six inches of dirt. The working surface is also located away from wind. Fences have been installed around the perimeter of the North Landfill. Fences are also placed around the working surface on windy days. Prior to 1989 the City patrolled the immediate vicinity around the North Landfill to collect litter which had not been covered. Collection was performed on a variable time schedule. Only three part-time employees participated in the collection patrols. Beginning in early 1989, the City expanded its litter collection patrols. The roads surrounding the North Landfill (New Berlin Road, Faye Road, Alta Road and Island Drive), are now patrolled daily by five full- time employees. The extent of the patrols prior to 1989 and since early 1989 is depicted on City exhibit 8. The inside of the perimeter of the North Landfill is patrolled for litter collection five days a week and on the weekend, as needed. The stormwater ditches are inspected on a daily basis. At the time of the formal hearing of these cases the stormwater ditches and retention ponds were being excavated. This process had been going on for approximately four to six months. The Modified Permit contains Specific Condition 13, which is essentially the same as Specific Condition 17 of the Permit. Additionally, the Modified Permit contains Specific Condition 8, which provides: The Permittee shall maintain litter controls to prevent litter from entering the collection ditches and from leaving the landfill site. In addition to litter control fences, the Permittee shall provide daily manual collection of litter entering collection ditches and leaving the site. Litter can best be controlled by compacting the waste, picking up litter regularly and using fences. The City has employed these methods of litter control. The City's efforts have been reasonable. The proposed increase in height of Phase IIIb will not adversely affect the amount of litter associated with the North Landfill or the City's litter collection efforts. The City is not required to continue to patrol the roads leading to the North Landfill which it is currently patrolling to pick up litter that is attributable to trucks bringing waste to the North Landfill. Odor. There is no dispute that there is undesirable odor associated with the disposal of solid waste. This is true of the North Landfill. There is undesirable odor associated with the North Landfill most of the time. The nature of the odor associated with landfill's generally, and the North Landfill in particular, was described at the formal hearing as follows: Q The odor that you noticed, is it to some degree all the time? A Some days it won't, but that's very rare. Usually it may be more. Some days it may be in the afternoon, it may not smell in the morning, it may be in the afternoon. Some days it may be in the morning and may not be in the afternoon. Q Could you quantify what percentage of the time? A Probably about 75 percent of the time. Q And you indicate that at times it's much stronger than at other times? A Yes. Q You mentioned odor from the landfill. This was back in time now a good way. When did you start noticing an odor from that landfill? A When did I first start noticing it? Q Yes. A The very day they started dumping. Q And that odor has persisted since then? A Not every -- not every single day, but yes. Q Some days you will have it, some days you won't? A Yes. Q How many years are we talking about since they opened approximately? A Well, we have been out there 17 years. . Q So, over that 14 or 15 years, is it fair to say that basically you have an odor, and some days it will be worse than the average odor, and some days `it will be better than the average odor? A Yes. Transcript, page 511, lines 9-15, page 514, lines 9-13, page 516, line 25, and page 517, lines 1-21. Specific Condition 16 of the Permit provides that 1[o]bjectionable odors originating from the site shall be effectively controlled during all phases of operation. The most effective method of dealing with undesirable odor associated with landfills is to cover the waste daily and minimize the contact of waste with water. The City has been covering the waste disposed of at the North Landfill on a daily basis. The City's efforts have resulted in the North Landfill being as odor free as a "well run" landfill can be. A City ordinance provides for citizen participation in controlling odors in Jacksonville. This ordinance is enforced by the City's Bio- Environmental Services Division. As part of enforcing the odor ordinance the City provides a 24-hour telephone service which citizens can call and complain about odors. Since January, 1988, the City has received 5,500 complaints--an average of 280 complaints a month. Complaints received about odor are investigated by nine inspectors employed by the City. If five or more validated complaints are received about an odor producer during a 90-day period, the City issues a citation. Since January, 1988, the City has received only three complaints about the North Landfill from citizens. No citations have been issued against the North Landfill. Specific Condition 16 of the Permit is included in the Modified Permit as Specific Condition 15. The Modified Permit also includes Specific Condition 6, which provides: The Permittee shall apply no less than 6 inches of compacted initial cover to the top and sides of each cell by the end of each working day, except on the working face which may be left uncovered if additional solid waste will be placed on the working face within 18 hours. An intermediate cover of one (1) foot of compacted earth, in addition to the six (6) inch initial cover, shall be applied within seven (7) days of cell completion if final cover or an additional lift is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion. The Permittee shall ensure that an adequate quantity of acceptable cover material is available for use during each day of operation of the landfill. The modification of the Permit will not increase the odor associated with the North Landfill. It will, however, extend the period of time that odors emanate from the North Landfill. Access to the North Landfill and Dust. Specific Condition 20 of the Permit provides that "[d]ust free, all- weather access roads to the site and active disposal area, or alternative wet weather disposal area shall be maintained." This condition has been complied with by the City. This condition is included as Specific Condition 12 in the Modified Permit. The roads used to access the North Landfill are paved, two-lane roads. The lanes are twelve feet wide. The speed limit on the access roads is 45 m.p.h. Appropriate turn lanes are available. During December, 1988, New Berlin Road and the North Landfill were able to effectively handle 600 trucks per day, an average of 80 to 90 trucks an hour during peak hours. Normally, the North Landfill effectively handles approximately 300 garbage trucks and 100 cover-dirt trucks a day with a peak of approximately 60 trucks per hour. The unpaved right-of-way on the side of the roads leading to the North Landfill is worn and the source of dust. Dust associated with the North Landfill comes from the roads leading to the landfill. The evidence failed to prove that dust comes from within the perimeter of the North Landfill. Tire Storage. Whole tires have been stored and processed at the North Landfill. At the time of the formal hearing there were more than 1,000 tires at the landfill. The evidence failed to prove how long any specific quantity of tires had been stored at the North Landfill. The City has not allowed the disposal of any whole tires at the North Landfill since July 1, 1989. The City has been shredding tires at the North Landfill. At the time of the formal hearing the City had contracted for the shredding of all the tires which had been located at the North Landfill at the time the contract was entered into in early July, 1989. The contract in existence at the time of the formal hearing was scheduled to expire in October, 1989. The City, however, expected to enter into a follow-up contract to continue shredding tires. In February or March, 1989, the previous tire- shredder contractor walked off the job. Mosquitoes at the North Landfill are managed by the City's Bio- Environmental Services Mosquito Control Division. Spraying is only done "as needed", however. F. Hazardous Waste, Oil Recycling and Infectious Waste. The City has not established an independent hazardous waste disposal program, a used oil recycling program or a infectious waste disposal program. The City attempts to prevent disposal of hazardous waste, used oil and infectious waste through educating the public with signs posted at the North Landfill entrance and periodic inspections of waste disposed of at the North Landfill. The evidence failed to prove that hazardous waste, used oil or infectious waste is being disposed of at the North Landfill. The evidence also failed to prove that approval of the Modified Permit will cause the disposal of hazardous waste, used oil or infectious waste on Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. Specific Condition 5 of the Modified Permit prohibits the disposal of hazardous waste and infectious waste at Phase IIIb of the North Landfill. This condition also requires that the City provide a minimum of one spotter for each working fact of Phase IIIb to watch for unauthorized waste.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department approving issuance of the Modified Permit, modified by the inclusion of a Specific Condition requiring that the City continue its litter patrols as represented at the formal hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Case Numbers 89-0532, 89-0569 All of the parties except the Petitioners in case number 89-0569, have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ms.'s Holzendorf's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection See 49-52. The Consent Order was entered into on July 14, 1989. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 49. 80. Whether a violation of Chapter 17- 711, Florida Administrative Code, has occurred is a conclusion of law. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that there is not program for the disposal of tires. The last paragraph of this proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. IV See 54-55, 61-63, 73 and 77. IV-Hazardous Waste: 86. See 87-89. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Argument. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. V-Used Oil Recycling Plan: 86. See 87-89. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 86. See 87-89. The last paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant to this proceeding. The Modified Permit only involves a lined portion of the North Landfill. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3. 2 2. 3 15. 4 18-19 and 26. 5 20. 6 22-23. 7 34-36. 8 26-29. 9 32-33. 10 30. 11 41-42. 12 43. 13 37-40. 14 49. 15 61-62 and 64. 16 55. 17 56 and 58. 18 74-78. 19 80 and 82-83. The City's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Contrary to testimony of Ms. Holzendorf. Statement of law. 3-4 Hereby accepted. 5 Statement of law. 6 10. 7-8 13. 9 9. 10 1-2. 11 1-2 and 7. 12 4. 13 5. 14 1. 15 6. 16-19 3. 20 14. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 7. 23 8 and 49. 24 16. 25-26 20. 27-28 Hereby accepted. 29-30 25. 31 Hereby accepted. 32-35 22. 36-43 Hereby accepted 44 35-36. 45 Hereby accepted. 46 35. 47 See 36. 48-49 Hereby accepted. 50 44. 51-52 46. 53-58 Hereby accepted. 59 47. 60 48. 61 46. 62-63 Hereby accepted. 64 27. 65-66 43. 67 31. 68 Hereby accepted. 69 33. 70 Hereby accepted. 71 33. 72 30. 73 32. 74 43. 75 30. 76-77 26. 78 42. 79 Not relevant to this proceeding. 80 45. 81-82 Hereby accepted. 83-84 44. 85-86 49-51. 87 49. 88 52. 89 Hereby accepted. 90 55-56. 91-93 56. 94 50. 95 56. 96 59. 97-100 56. 101 55. 102 Hereby accepted. 103 58. 104-112 These proposed findings of fact correctly quote testimony presented the formal hearing. at 113 61 and 64-65. 115 72. 116 66. 117 Hereby accepted. 118 67. 119 Hereby accepted. 120 69. 121 70. 122-123 70 and hereby accepted. 124 See 65. 125 65. 126-129 See 61-62. 130-131 77. 132 Hereby accepted. 133 75. 134 Not relevant to this proceeding. 135 77. 136 79. 137-139 These proposed findings of fact correctly quote testimony presented at the formal hearing. 140 80. 141 82-84. 142 84. 143 81. 144 85. 145-147 Hereby accepted. 148 Cumulative. 149 37-38. 150-152 38. 153-155 40. 156 39-40. 157-161 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lacy Mahon, Jr., Esquire Mark H. Mahon, Esquire Russell L. Healey, Esquire Lacy Mahon, Jr. & Mark Mahon, P.A. 1120 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robin G. Leigh and Geraldine Leigh 6026 Heckscher Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32226 William H. Congdon Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel D. Richardson, Esquire Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Robin A. Deen, Esquire Department of Environmental Office of General Counsel Regulation Environmental Law Division 2600 Blair Stone Road City of Jacksonville Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Towncentre, Suite 715 421 West Church Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Suncoast Concrete, Inc. (Suncoast), is entitled to Permit No. 194919-003-SO, to construct and operate a construction and demolition debris disposal facility (C & D facility) in Santa Rosa County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Lois and Wallis Mahute live within two miles of the proposed C & D facility. Petitioner Nathaniel Williams, Jr., resides less than one mile from the proposed facility. Suncoast is a Florida corporation and is the applicant for Permit No. 194919-003-SO. The site of the proposed C & D facility is already permitted by the Department as a disposal facility for land clearing debris. It is located on U. S. Highway 90, 1.9 miles east of State Road 87. The disposal area is 7.2 acres on a parcel of land that is 57.8 acres. Suncoast provided all of the information required by the Department for applications for C & D facilities, including geotechnical data, hydrologic data, and financial assurance for closure. The proposed permit includes numerous conditions, including the use of an impermeable liner, groundwater monitoring, stormwater controls, leachate collection and storage, and access control. The requirement for an impermeable liner is uncommon for C & D facilities and adds greater protection for groundwater. Issues Raised by Petitioners Petitioners expressed concern about groundwater contamination. The required liner is designed to prevent rainwater that might become contaminated after contact with the materials in the landfill from entering the groundwater. The proposed facility would be located over some existing land clearing debris. The existing debris is located on part of one side of the proposed landfill. Before the liner is installed, the base would be prepared by covering the area with six inches of compacted soil. After the liner is installed, two feet of clean soil is placed on top of the liner. The liner would be installed in a manner to prevent the liner from being punctured or torn. Groundwater monitoring is required so that any contamination that occurs will be detected and remediated. There are no potable water wells within 500 feet of the proposed facility. The nearest public water supply well is approximately 4,000 feet away. Petitioners presented the testimony of Kyle Holley, who expressed his views on hydrogeologic conditions in the area. Mr. Holley is not a geologist or hydrologist and was not competent to testify regarding the hydrogeologic conditions in the area. Petitioners expressed concern about odors, but presented no competent evidence that foul or unhealthy odors would be generated by the facility. The permit conditions that require a small working face and weekly cover with soil would minimize odors. Petitioners expressed concern about fires, partly because fires have occurred at other C & D facilities. The evidence shows that the requirements of the proposed permit, including the prohibition against burning and requirements to maintain a small working face and to cover with soil on a weekly basis, would minimize the possibility of fires at the facility. The facility must maintain access for fire trucks to the disposal area so that, if a fire occurs, it can be suppressed. Petitioners expressed concerns that the facility would not be safely closed in the event that Suncoast became bankrupt or otherwise ceased operations at the facility. The evidence shows that the financial assurance requirements of the proposed permit provide a means to close the facility in the event that Suncoast was unwilling or unable to close the facility. Petitioners expressed concerns about the “pattern of abuse” by landfill owners. However, Petitioners presented no evidence that Suncoast has shown a pattern of noncompliance, or that the landfills where these alleged abuses have occurred are similar to Suncoast’s proposed C & D landfill with respect to physical conditions and permit requirements. Suncoast provided reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility, with the conditions in the permit, will comply with all applicable rule requirements regarding the protection of groundwater, odor and fire control, and proper closure of the facilities. In summary, Suncoast proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility meets all regulatory criteria for entitlement to Permit No. 194919-003-SO.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order granting Permit No. 194919-003-SO, subject to all the conditions set forth in the Department’s Notice of Intent to Issue, for the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility in Santa Rosa County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 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 Lea Crandell, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William J. Dunaway, Esquire Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry Bond & Stackhouse 125 West Romana, Suite 800 Pensacola, Florida 37502 Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Nathaniel Williams, Jr. 8984 Tara Circle Milton, Florida Wallis Mahute 32583 5500 Cox Road Milton, Florida 32583 Lois Mahute 5504 Cox Road Milton, Florida 32583
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is the owner and operator of a waste tire site located at 17421 East Colonial Drive in Orlando, Florida. On or about March 28, 1989, the petitioner filed a "Waste Tire Notification" with the Department's Central District Office in Orlando, Florida. The notification form identified the site name as "I. G. Fonte, Jr. Import Used Auto Part's." At that time, owners or operators of any waste tire sites were required, by law, to provide the Department with certain information related to the waste tire site's size, location, and the quantity of waste tires located on the site. The Waste Tire Notification form filed by the Petitioner indicated that approximately 1,000,000 waste tires were located on the Petitioner's waste tire site. The exact number of waste tires at the site is unknown. Petitioner estimated 400,000 tires were on the site at the time of the hearing. On July 17, 1989, the Petitioner filed a "Waste Tire Closure Permit Application" with the Department's Central District Office in Orlando, Florida. The Petitioner's application for a Waste Tire Closure Permit was filed on DER Form No. 17-711.900(7), which was the appropriate form for the requested permit. The Petitioner's application for a Waste Tire Closure Permit indicated the mailing address for the permit applicant was as stated in paragraph 1. The permit also indicated the and name and address of Petitioner's attorney. Among the items of information requested by the application, Petitioner was required to submit a description of how the following tasks required for the closure of the waste tire site would be accomplished together with a time schedule for their completion: removal of all waste tires, processed tires and residuals from the site; removal of any solid waste to a permitted solid waste management facility (indicate the facility where disposal will take place); and site rehabilitation. Further, the application required the Petitioner to submit proof of financial responsibility pursuant to Rule 17-711.510(c), F.A.C. On August 8, 1989, the Department requested that the Petitioner provide additional information in order to complete the permit application. Specifically, the Department requested that the Petitioner submit proof of financial responsibility. The foregoing request for additional information was mailed to the Petitioner at the address noted above. On August 29, 1989, the Department received the Petitioner's response to the Department's request for additional information. By correspondence dated August 30, 1989, the Department once again requested that the Petitioner submit the information required by the permit application form. This second request for information, dated August 30, 1989, was again mailed to Petitioner's address noted above. The notice dated August 30, 1989, was not returned to the Department. The Department utilizes a computer system for the purpose of tracking permit applications. The computer system is referred to by the acronym "PATS" which stands for "Permit Application Tracking System". The "PATS" sheet for the Petitioner's permit application reflects that on August 30, 1989, the Department mailed a second letter to the Petitioner requesting that the Petitioner submit additional information. The Petitioner did not respond to the August 30, 1989, request for additional information. By correspondence dated April 9, 1991, the Department notified the Petitioner that: Due to rule changes, the department no longer requires closure permits prior to closure. Rather, current rules require an approved Closure Plan for the Facility, Rule 17-711.700(3), F.A.C., which is to be executed when closure is desired. The Department's correspondence dated April 9, 1991, was mailed to Petitioner at the address noted above. There is no dispute that the Petitioner received the correspondence dated April 9, 1991. On June 12, 1991, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Deny with regard to the Petitioner's permit application. The Petitioner has not filed with the Department an application for a "Waste Tire Processing Facility" permit. At the time the Petitioner filed the permit application, the Petitioner was aware that the permit, if issued, would have required the site to have been closed by July 1, 1990. At the time the Petitioner filed the permit application the Petitioner did not have the financial resources to close the site by July 1, 1990. The Petitioner does not have the financial resources necessary to close the site. The Petitioner's waste tire site is not an integral part of a waste tire processing facility. The Petitioner's waste tire site is not used for the storage of waste tires prior to processing. The Petitioner's waste tire site is not a permitted solid waste management facility nor would it qualify for a permit for same.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition in this cause and denying the application for a "functionally equivalent permit." DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0133 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 28 are accepted. 2. Paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are rejected as irrelevant, hearsay, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or argumentative. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 30 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Carole Joy Barice, Esquire 28 West Central Boulevard Orlando, FL 32801 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 1979, Respondent Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners filed an application with the Northwest Florida District Office of Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a solid waste resource recovery and management facility near Baker, Florida at the intersection of State Road 4 and State Road 4B. The proposed facility would be a sanitary landfill approximately 36 acres in size which would receive solid waste for disposal from the municipalities of Baker, Milligan, Holt, Crestview, and Blackman. Approximately six to eight additional acres at the site were previously used by the County as a dump for household trash and garbage for a period of approximately eight years. Some of the waste was burned and the remainder was buried. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 1) The proposed landfill is located in a rural area primarily used for agriculture which is sparsely populated. The site is surrounded by forested lands but some recent removal of trees has opened a portion of the site to public view from State Road 4. The land at the site slopes gradually in a west- east direction, and the slope is more pronounced on county land adjoining the east border of the site for a distance of about 900 feet. At this location, several springs form the headwaters of Mill Creek which flows cast through two lakes located on about 224 acres of private property owned by Petitioners Donald C. and Mary Ann Long. Mill Creek becomes a defined water course after leaving the Long property and flows into the Yellow River which is approximately two and one-half miles from the Mill Creek headwaters. The Yellow diver flows some 10 to 20 miles into Blackwater Bay near Milton. A shallow well from which potable water 15 obtained is located on the Long property but not within 1,000 feet of the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2) The applicant intends to use the trench method in disposing of solid waste. Trenches will be excavated to a depth of about 15 feet, but in no case will the bottom of a trench be underlain by less than two feet of the "fine sandy loam" which occurs in a layer of varying depth beneath the overlying Lakeland sand soil. Test holes dug in the landfill site indicate that the bottom of the "fine sandy loam" layer in depths of some three to twelve feet is located about eighteen feet below the surface of the ground. The applicant intends to check at 100 foot intervals while digging trenches to insure that at least two feet of that material underlies the trench bottom. If not, sufficient additional amounts of the material will be placed in the trench and compacted to make a two-foot thick layer. There will be a distance of 50 feet between centers of trenches. The trenches will be 30 feet wide at the top and 15 feet wide at the bottom. The bottom of each trench will have a slope of less than 5 percent designed to drain the trenches and lifts of rainwater before they are filled. The upper lift will vary in depth from 5 to 7 feet depending upon the final contour desired. Wastes will be deposited either at the top or bottom of the working face of the trench and will be spread by a crawler tractor in two foot layers and then compacted. Compacted waste will be covered daily with one foot of soil and a final cover of at least two feet of sandy clay material will be obtained from a county borrow pit adjacent to the landfill and placed over trenches to prevent the movement of water into the buried solid waste. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Exhibits 1-2) The applicant plans to construct a barrier to contain the movement of leachate along the eastern border of the landfill which will be a minimum of five feet wide and as deep as necessary to "tie-in" with the existing layer of "fine sandy loam" beneath the site. The barrier is designed to prevent leachate from moving horizontally downslope toward Mill Creek. The barrier material will be compacted, but not the sides of the trenches. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten) The groundwaters under the site are from 55 to 65 feet below the surface of the land. Although the elevation of groundwaters normally will follow the contour of the land surface, borings at the site have not been made to the depth of the watertable. The approximation of the depth of the groundwaters was obtained from data of two monitoring wells located on county land directly east of the proposed landfill site. Twenty-four holes were dug across the site to determine the location of the "fine sandy loam" soil layer which exists below the surface. Eight additional holes were dug to obtain samples of the material for a texture analysis. In its natural state, this material has a permeability rate of about 2.5 to 5 inches per hour. After compaction, the permeability rate will be about .02 to .2 inches per hour. No permeability rate is required by pertinent DER regulations for liner material. Recent soil tests of material taken from the county borrow pit some 200 yards west of the landfill site showed a permeability rate of .004 inches to .0027 inches per hour. A recent sample taken from the bottom of an existing pit at the landfill reflected a permeability rate of .01 inch per hour. Proposed guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contemplate a permeability rate of only .00014 inches per hour for liner materials to restrict the rate of flow of leachate from the bottom of a landfill. The material proposed to be used by the applicant for liner material therefore will permit fairly rapid movement of leachate through the sides and bottoms of trenches, and under the eastern barrier. Further, the coarser sand underlying the "fine sandy loam" liner layer has a much higher permeability rate. As a result, an unknown amount of leachate will eventually reach the groundwater table and flow laterally downslope in an easterly direction. Leachate generation will be impeded by the vegetated, relatively impervious final top layer over the landfill, the wedge of soil located between each trench, and the eastern barrier. These measures will serve also to attenuate suspended solids in the leachate, but not organic materials and most metals. There will also be a certain amount of dilution after any leachate reaches the groundwater table. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Meister, Tomlinson, Exhibits 1-2, 5, 7) Water samples taken from in and around the area of the springs located both on county and private property to the east and from wells in the general area show that the water generally is of high quality. There is no indication that past landfill operations at the site have degraded the water quality in the vicinity of the nearby creeks, ponds and wells. (Testimony of Meister, Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2, 8-9) The applicant plans to control surface runoff and any consequent erosion by means of terraces, berms, and swales. However, other than notations on engineering plans of provision for a highway drainage swale, no design of such items is shown in the application. Prior erosion in the area has been satisfactorily corrected in the past by the county by the use of similar methods to those planned for the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 2) The application was reviewed by DER's Southwest District permitting engineer. He found that the application and supporting documents met the statutory and regulatory criteria for the issuance of a construction permit. However, soil borings did not extend at least ten feet below the proposed excavations. (Testimony of Diltz, Exhibit 2) By letter of March 27, 1979, the Northwest District Manager of DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue a construction permit for the proposed sanitary landfill under standard and special conditions. The special conditions required construction of two approved monitoring wells east of the landfill and analysis of water samples from the wells and from a surface water sampling point in the headwaters of Mill Creek prior to issuance of an operation permit. A further condition required the applicant to submit verification that the bottoms of trenches contained at least two feet of the material specified in the application. At the hearing, DER and Okaloosa County submitted a stipulation wherein they agreed that additional monitoring wells should be placed upgradient from the site, at the downstream boundary of the first trench, at the north end of the clay barrier, and immediately east of boring number 8 prior to issuance of an operation permit. The conditions further required that well logs will be kept on all monitoring wells and reports on soils, geology and groundwater elevation he submitted to DER prior to issuance of an operating permit. Further, any identification of leachate contamination in the wells by a method to be spelled out in any operation permit will require extension of the earthen barrier west to State Road 4. Finally, a special condition required that the bottom lining material of all trenches and the barrier must be compacted prior to the issuance of an operating permit. (Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That the requested permit be issued to the Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners as herein specified. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wright Moulton, Esquire Post Office Box 591 Pensacola, Florida 32593 John R. Dowd, Esquire Okaloosa County Attorney Post Office Box 1964 Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's present solid waste-disposal system consists of the operation of six sanitary landfill sites. These sites are being operated in accordance with temporary permits issued by the Respondent. Four of the sites are not adequate sanitary landfill sites. Two of the sites, which are known as the "Sims Farm" and "Ephesus" sites can be developed into acceptable landfill sites. Petitioner has not developed any comprehensive plan designed to comply with the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act, and the rules of the Respondent respecting solid waste disposal systems. When its present temporary permits expire the Petitioner intends basically to continue operating the Sims Farm and Ephesus landfill sites, and to' locate at least two other acceptable sanitary landfill sites. Petitioner intends to comply with all of the Respondent's regulations, but it contends that it cannot comply with the regulation which requires that the landfills be covered every working day. Petitioner proposes to cover the landfills twice weekly rather than daily. Lafayette County is a large county in terms of area, but is very small in population, having less than 3,500 residents. Residents of the county are engaged primarily in agriculture. The county does not have a broad tax base. Estimated revenues for the 1977 fiscal year are $113,340. Thirty thousand dollars has been designated from the county's budget to operate a solid waste disposal system. The clerk of the County Commission is in charge of the county's present solid waste disposal system. The county does not have a full time employee designated to operate the system. The clerk of the County Commission has many duties other than operating the solid waste disposal system. Residents of the county are satisfied with the present system. Prior to the opening of the present sanitary landfill sites there was considerable dumping on private property, on highway right-of-ways, or in the river slough. The amount of waste deposited in the county's present landfills is very small in relation to counties with a higher or more concentrated population. There is very little industrial or commercial waste, and a smaller percentage of putrescible materials than would be found in more urban counties. Although there is a county ordinance prohibiting it, dead animals are occasionally deposited in the landfill sites and burning of trash does occur. Chemical agricultural waste is also deposited in the landfills. Lafayette County has utilized temporary permits to operate its present landfill sites. The permits require the submission of periodic reports. The county has not submitted these reports as required by the permits. Counties surrounding Lafayette County have had varying experiences in reaching full compliance with the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act, and the rules of the Respondent dealing with solid waste disposal systems. In Taylor County, a county with a population of approximately 14,500, approximately $120,000 was invested in equipment. Daily cover of sanitary landfills, including the dumping of green boxes utilized in Taylor County cost $6,512.42 in January, 1976, and $7,159.85 in January, 1977. Compliance with the statutes and regulations necessitated an increase in the county's tax rate. Compliance is being achieved in Gilchrist County, a small agricultural county at very low cost utilizing a single sanitary landfill site system. Compliance has been achieved in Dixie County, a small agricultural county through use of a green box system. Very little research has been performed by Lafayette County to determine how compliance could be achieved most inexpensively. Daily cover of sanitary landfill sites is desirable. Daily cover is the most effective means of preventing open burning in landfill sites, leachate of solid waste, flies and rodents. Daily cover does not totally alleviate these conditions, but it is the most effective means of combating them. Daily cover is much more necessary in areas where there are large amounts of solid wastes than it is in areas with small amounts. Daily cover is also more necessary in areas where there is a large proportion of putrescible versus non-putrescible materials than it is in areas with a smaller percentage. In order to comply with the Respondent's regulations when its present temporary permits expire, the Petitioner will need to purchase a tractor or bulldozer in order to provide a cover at the landfill sites. If daily cover is required, the county will need to hire a full-time individual to perform the cover. If twice weekly cover is permitted the county will be able to operate its system without the necessity of employing an additional person. Twice weekly cover would reduce the operating costs of the county's system by reducing fuel and maintenance costs of vehicles. In view of the fact that no detailed examination has been made of the cost of full compliance, it is not possible to determine from the facts presented whether it is practicable for the Petitioner to comply with the regulations, or whether the expense or cost of measures which the Petitioner must take in order to comply are so great that they should be spread over a considerable period of time. The most that can be determined is that daily cover would be more expensive than twice weekly cover, and that twice weekly cover would not have any profoundly negative environmental effects in Lafayette County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for variance. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P. O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347 Mr. Jay Landers, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On February 1, 1977, DER issued an operation permit to Respondent Hillsborough County for the operation of a solid waste disposal facility (sanitary landfill) with an area of 42 acres, located at Taylor Road and Sligh Avenue in the northeast portion of Hillsborough County. The permit was effective for a period of two years and contained various conditions which required the permittee to abide by applicable rules of the DER. The conditions also specified that water samples from monitoring wells and from any waters discharged from the site should be taken and analyzed to determine water quality and such analysis submitted to the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC) acting as the agent for DER within Hillsborough County. The conditions further prohibited open burning at the site without prior approval, control of any objectionable odors, provision for sufficient equipment, and controlled access to the site. (Exhibit 22) In December 1978, Hillsborough County applied for renewal of its operation permit until February 1, 1980. The application and accompanying letter showed that the county wished to operate the site as a "high rise land fill" due to the fact that dirt accumulated from trench excavation had raised the ground level approximately ten feet. In July, 1979, after submission of requested additional information to DER during the preceding months, the county director of solid wastes submitted closeout plans for the landfill to DER and advised that they were filing a permit application for a new landfill to the east of the current site, utilizing a borrow pit area which had been transferred to the county by the State Department of Transportation. Thereafter, by letter of October 23, 1979, the Hillsborough County Administrator requested that DER consider the previous application for renewal of its operating permit to be withdrawn and that the application be viewed as one for a temporary operating permit. (Exhibit 1) During the month of August 1979, several inspections of the existing landfill were made by DER, HCEPC, and Regional EPA personnel. A series of memos prepared by the agency personnel reflected that various violations of DER rules governing landfills had been found during the course of the inspections. These included uncontrolled ponding of water in low areas on the site, failure to control the runoff of surface water, lack of adequate control to prevent unauthorized access to the site, failure to provide the requisite six inches of daily cover over the compacted waste, lack of proper ground water monitoring, and destruction of several wells by heavy equipment, and frequent breakdown of equipment used at the site. Residents living nearby or adjacent to the landfill have observed ponding, uncontrolled runoff, and unauthorized personnel on the site. They have experienced a high incidence of rats, birds and flies on their property and have seen septic tank waste trucks at the landfill. They further have noted uncovered garbage and have seen waste flow from the landfill into the area of Interstate Highway 4 which borders the south portion of the site. The State Department of Transportation has also made complaints to the county concerning dirt and debris on the interstate right-of-way. In a letter to DER, dated October 2, 1979, the county director of public utilities and safety responded to the various complaints and alleged violations. He acknowledged the validity of a number of the problems and indicated the corrective action that had or would be taken to prevent recurrence. (Testimony of Brantner, Warner, Smoot, Exhibit 8, supplemented Exhibits 10-15, 20, 23) By letter of October 23, 1979, DER's Southwest District manager issued Notice of Intent to issue a temporary operation permit for the high-rise landfill pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Sections 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, with an expiration date of February 1, 1980. The stated reasons for the proposed issuance of the permit were because the facility did not qualify for an operation permit, but the applicant was making bona fide efforts to provide an acceptable alternate waste disposal system, and that the permit would allow time to establish a five-year monitoring program to ensure that the site had stabilized and was not a significant water pollution source. Conditions attached to the proposed permit were such as to reasonably preclude the recurrence of past violations with regard to daily cover, controlling access to the site, establishment of a gas monitoring program, and installation of additional monitoring wells for periodic sampling as to water quality. A compliance schedule was stated which required the submission of plans to accomplish the requirements of the permit and such schedule called for the cessation of all filling operations by February 1, 1980 and commencement of the closeout operation on March 1, 1980. The petitions for hearing herein were thereafter filed with DER and referred to this Division on November 15, 1979. (Exhibit 3) In December, 19.79, DER received notification from the regional office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency that volatile organic analysis on well supply samples from private residences in the vicinity of the landfill indicated a potential health risk and that the agency had therefore advised the well owners not to drink the water. Inspections of the landfill in mid-January 1980 by DER and HCEPC personnel showed that solid waste was not being adequately covered on a daily basis and that ponding of water in various areas was observed. The county attributed the ponding to heavy rainfall during the period, but claimed that the waste had been covered on a daily basis although the heavy equipment had scattered paper and other debris through the cover soil in view of the sticky nature of the clayey soil. (Exhibits 6, 16-18) After Hillsborough County officials became aware of the EPA well tests, a private consulting firm of ground water hydrologists and geologists was employed by the county to undertake a water quality analysis of the round water in and around the landfill. The program commenced in late December 1979, and a preliminary assessment of ground water quality was submitted in February 1980. Water samples were taken from private wells adjoining the landfill and from a well within the landfill itself. Analysis of the samples led to preliminary conclusions that organic and inorganic constituents of samples from within the landfill correlated well with those wells adjacent to the landfill, thereby suggesting landfill leachate as a source of contaminants. However, the consultants are of the opinion that several wells which exhibited traces of organic but no discernible inorganic contaminants may be affected by sources of contamination not related to landfill leachate, such as petroleum products, septic tank cleaners, and other household products. It was found that inadequate regional and site specific hydrogeologic data was available upon which to base a complete statistical analysis. It was further found that the wells used in the study were "uncontrolled" and therefore did not represent a valid basis for determining the origin of their contamination. Further study is planned which will involve testing of samples from twenty new monitoring wells designed to determine the rate of movement and attenuation of leachate. The results of such study will be available within five or six months. Although it is generally agreed that ground water flows in a southwesterly direction at the site, more information is required to ascertain the precise direction of flow. At the present time surface water falling on the landfill flows toward a county owned borrow pit to the southwest of the landfill. (Testimony of Schreuder, Becker, Bush, Exhibits 7, 19) The closing plans for the landfill site provide for surface water to be channeled away from the area and directed through swales to travel in the natural direction to the west. A final two-foot cover of soil will be place over completed cells and a three and one-half foot cover of compacted soil will be placed on side slopes of the landfill. Such final cover and grading of the area is designed to preclude infiltration of surface water. Trees will be planted around the periphery of the area and trenches will be dug to force any gases upward to a high point where an exhaust will be placed. Soil borings show that there is an extensive layer of clay at the bottom of the landfill but the permeability of this material is unknown. The solid waste cells are at a maximum of 40 feet below the ground surface and the average height of the compacted waste above ground surface is approximately 28 feet. The county permanently ceased accepting solid waste at the landfill on February 11, 1980, and has commenced closing operation to a minimal degree. As a result of the fact that solid waste is no longer being accepted, the intended elevation to be reached in the southern portion of the site will not take place and accordingly the closing plan will have to be revised in that respect. It is estimated that closing will take approximately one year to accomplish. Upon final closing with vegetative cover and proper grading, it is anticipated that pending and vector problems will be resolved. At the present time, inadequate fencing exists around the boundaries of the landfill. (Testimony of Bush, Becker, Exhibits 2- 21) In recognition of the fact that Hillsborough County ceased using the landfill for disposal of solid waste, the county and DER entered into a written stipulation, dated February 25, 1980, confirming this fact and revising special conditions to the proposed temporary operating permit. These conditions included a proviso that the proposed permit would expire three years from the date of issuance to permit a long-term monitoring and surveillance program to be conducted until the site has stabilized and is not a significant water pollution source. The conditions also call for the county to establish an acceptable program for monitoring gases at different points within the landfill, to control access to the site, and to complete the study to determine the extent and source of any infiltration of foreign substances into the ground water from the site. In addition, the conditions would require the county to submit an acceptable plan for long-term monitoring of ground water, including the installation of additional monitoring wells if required. It also provides that the final closeout of the site shall be completed within one year from the date of the final order and that such closeout shall be completed in accordance with applicable law and in accordance with previous closeout plans to the extent made possible by final elevations. (Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That the applicant Hillsborough County be issued a temporary operating permit for the closing of the landfill specified in the application. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jacob Varn Morris W. Milton, Esquire Secretary, Department of Douglas A. Mulligan, Esquire Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 13517 2600 Blair Stone Road St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Vincent L. Nuccio, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Post Office Box 1110 Regulation Tampa, Florida 35601 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gene T. Hall, Esquire Elliot Dunn, Esquire 209 East Robertson Street Post Office Box 1110 Brandon, Florida 33511 Tampa, Florida 33601 Richard S. Smoot Ronald Frink, President Post Office Box 682 Florida Water Well Association Seffner, Florida 33584 Post Office Box 11648 Tampa, Florida 33680
Findings Of Fact The Department (DER) is the regulatory agency of Florida charged with the duty and authority to administer and enforce Chapter 403 and Sections 376.30-376.319, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Hendry is a Florida corporation that has been conducting business in excess of 60 years. The two main aspects of its business are the dredging operation and the shipyard. Hendry's site can be loosely described as an industrial site. The shipyard division performs approximately one-half its work for governmental entities, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard, which operations are largely ship refurbishing. Hendry has a Coast Guard certificate enabling it to receive mixtures containing oil and oily water waste. A significant portion of Hendry's ship refurbishing work involves repairing/replacing steel on ships which has deteriorated due to salt water exposure. That work frequently requires cutting, welding and burning. Prior to commencing the refurbrushing work, the ships must be certified as safe. In certifying a ship as being safe, the bilge area is pumped of used oil or waste oil which collects in standing waste water and oil. Also, before that works commences, the ship is defueled. Currently, Hendry's practice is to subcontract the pumping of waste oil from the ships bilge, which waste oil is pumped directly into the tanker truck of the subcontractor. Hendry no longer pumps or stores waste oil on site. In the past, the waste oil and water from the ship's bilge was pumped from the ship through a pipeline from the dry dock across the property to a 10,000 gallon above-ground storage tank. During December 1987, the U.S. Coast Guard observed a fuel spill on the water at Petitioner's facility. Based on that observation, Respondent conducted site inspections of Petitioner's facility during March and April 1988. The fuel spill was occasioned by Petitioner's refurbishment of a tuna boat at its site. Petitioner subsequently received a warning notice regarding alleged violations in its petroleum storage tanks and contamination. The transfer pipeline is of steel construction. Between 1980 and 1984, the pipeline leaked. In 1984, the pipeline was rerun with PVC line and in 1986, it was refitted with 4 inch steel pipe. The 10,000 gallon above-ground tank is located in Area 1. The removal of waste oil occasionally resulted in accidental spills. After 1985, a smaller, above-ground tank was installed adjacent to the 10,000 gallon tank to provide a storage tank for draining off water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The small tank was used to receive only water drained from the 10,000 gallon tank. Prior to installation of the small tank, a retention pond was used to drain water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The retention pond had a 2 foot berm with a visqueen liner. In October 1988, Hendry submitted an EDI Program Notification Application, a prerequisite for EDI reimbursement eligibility, under the program for costs associated with cleanup of certain petroleum contamination. In May 1989, Hendry submitted a document entitled Preliminary Contamination Assessment III Specific Areas--Task IV Rattlesnake Terminal Facility--Westshore Boulevard, Hillsborough County prepared by Mortensen Engineering, Inc. That document included reports of analysis of oil and groundwater samples taken from the site in January, March and April 1989, demonstrating extensive contamination of soil and groundwater including "free product" in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-4A. By letter dated November 9, 1989, the Department informed Hendry of its determination that the facility had been denied EDI reimbursement based on specific enumerated findings. Hendry entered into a stipulation with the Department on October 16, 1990, "regarding the conduct of this case and the basis for denial. " Attached to the stipulation is a sketch of the facility grounds showing a rough division of the area into four separate areas. Area 1 has two waste tanks. One was a large 10,000 gallon closed tank approximately 20 feet high and 12 feet in diameter; the other contained a volume of approximately 1,500-2,000 gallons and was an open tank. Petitioner's practice was to pump bilge in the dry dock area, located west of "Area 2" and direct the waste through underground pipes to the 10,000 gallon tank. The smaller tank was used to "bleed" water from the larger tank. Bilge waste is approximately two-thirds water. Area 2 was the location of Hendry's diesel tank farm. In the stipulation, the Department agreed to withdraw two of the seven specific grounds for the denial, namely denial of site access and failure to report discharges. Likewise, Hendry agreed to withdraw "Area 4" from its application for EDI eligibility. In the stipulation, Hendry was informed of a then recent amendment to Section 376.3071(9), which offered certain applicants who had been earlier determined ineligible for participation in the EDI program, standards and procedures for obtaining reconsideration of eligibility. The amendment required the facility to come into compliance, certify that compliance and request reconsideration prior to March 31, 1991. Additionally, compliance was to be verified by a Department inspection. Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the stipulation, these standards and procedures were specifically to be applied to Areas 2 and 3 at the facility. Hendry did not make a written request for reconsideration of the denial of eligibility with respect to Areas 2 and 3 on or before March 31, 1991 or at anytime subsequently. Hendry also did not come into compliance with the underground or above-ground storage tanks system regulations on or before March 31, 1991 in that Hendry failed to register a 560-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank which was onsite on that date as required by Rule 17-762.400, Florida Administrative Code. Hendry also failed to notify the Department of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC), as the administrator of a designated local program at least thirty days prior to closure of the storage tank system, pursuant to Subsection 376.3073, Florida Statutes. These determinations were made on April 1, 1991 by Hector Diaz, inspector in the HCEPC tanks program. Hendry submitted a registration form for the 560-gallon tank on November 18, 1991, which was of course subsequent to the March 31, 1991 deadline. Hendry stored petroleum products and waste material including petroleum constituents in the above-ground tanks until approximately March 25, 1991 when it initiated tank removal. Hendry's above-ground storage tanks, which were in use at its facility for approximately three years after extensive soil contamination was documented, were without secondary containment. In November 1991, Hendry submitted a document entitled Supplemental Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, prepared by Keifer-Block Environmental Services, Inc. (Supplemental PCAR). The stated purpose of the study was solely to determine whether hazardous constituents were present in groundwater in Areas 2 and 3. The report included laboratory analysis of groundwater samples taken from the site in August 1991 including monitoring wells located in Area 3. The results of these analysis reflect that Area 3 is contaminated solely with heavy metals, lead and chromium. No petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in Area 3. In the area adjacent to Area 2, seven of eight monitoring wells show chromium or lead contamination. Hendry had, and continues to have, a practice of removing paint from vessels by blasting them with a gritty material known as "black beauty." This practice takes place in the dry dock area near Areas 2 and 3. The waste blast grit/paint chip mixture is vacuumed or shoveled into wheelbarrels or a frontend loader and dumped into an open pile. Occasionally, the waste blast grit/paint mixture is blown about or spilled. Waste "black beauty" has been observed scattered on the ground throughout the facility. Paints sometime contain heavy metals, specifically, lead and chromium. The concentrations and distribution of lead and chromium contamination at the site are consistent with Hendry's long-standing practice of grit-- blasting paint from ships and other vessels and allowing the metal-contaminated paint and waste mixture to fall to the ground. Areas 2 and 3 are contaminated with substances other than petroleum or petroleum products, namely heavy metals. Costs associated with cleanup of lead and chromium are not reimburseable under the EDI program. Paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation allowed Hendry an opportunity to establish eligibility for Area 1 by providing information regarding operating practices at two above-ground storage tanks and a retention pond in that area demonstrating that contamination in that area is predominantly from leaks or unintentional spills of petroleum products from the tanks in that area. Hendry did not provide the required information. On January 27, 1992, Hendry submitted to the Department an affidavit executed by its principal, Aaron Hendry, which Hendry contends fulfills the requirements of paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation. Hendry, the principal who executed the affidavit, is an affiant with a legal and financial interest in the outcome of the EDI eligibility determination. The executed affidavit did not contain specific information with respect to "operating practices at the tanks and retention ponds as required by the stipulation." Specifically, the affidavit is silent as to: What the tanks were made of; When, how and by whom they were installed; What piping, leak detection or overfill protection was associated with them; What repairs or alterations had been made to them; What inventory reconciliation methods were used; Where the materials came from which was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was removed from the tanks; Disposition of material removed from the tanks; When, how, by whom and why the retention pond was dug; How and for what period of time the retention pond was used; How, often and by whom inspections of the tanks were conducted; When and how leaks occurred and were discovered at the tanks; When and how spills occurred and were discovered at the tanks; What records, including reports to state or local agencies, insurance claims, newspaper accounts, and so forth were kept with respect to leaks or spills at the tanks; What cleanup efforts were made at the time of any leaks or spills; Documentation related to registration of the tanks with state or local agencies; and Documentation with respect to any removal of the tanks, including any description of the condition of the tanks when, or if, removed. For years, the facility's retention pit was used as a "waste pit" namely, a rectangular hole in the ground, approximately 30 feet by 120 feet by 3 feet, for direct discharge of bilge waste piped from vessels at the dry dock area to the waste pit, prior to installation of the storage tank systems. After installation of the large tank in Area 1, the retention pit was used to bleed water from the bilge tank. In the past, the Department has denied eligibility to facilities where a retention pond was used for disposal of petroleum related waste and cleanup of contamination resulting from use of a retention pond. Hendry's affidavit nor other documentation submitted to the Department prior to the EDI redetermination or at hearing establishes that the bilge waste taken from the storage tanks was "a liquid fuel commodity" or recycled into such a commodity. By letter dated June 9, 1992, the Department notified Hendry that reconsideration of its EDI eligibility request for Areas 2 and 3 was denied and that the affidavit of Aaron Hendry submitted with respect to Area 1 did not satisfy the requirements of the stipulation. Thereafter, Hendry challenged the Department's denial of reconsideration and EDI eligibility which joins the issue for this proceeding. The hazardous waste allegation discovered during an inspection of Hendry's facility on April 14, 1988, resulted in a consent order which was entered as a final order of the Department on November 21, 1990. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to demonstrate that not all areas at the facility were hazardous waste disposal areas and, thus, not all areas would be subject to closure and cleanup under the permitting requirements of Subsection 403.722, Florida Statutes and the remediation standards set forth in Chapter 17-730, Florida Administrative Code. To establish appropriate remediation standards and procedures which would be applicable to various areas, Hendry was required to prepare a property diagram designating areas at the property exhibiting any of the following types of contamination: Areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products or used oil which is not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by materials which are not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by the past or present disposal of hazardous waste. The consent order allows contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code, for areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 11.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the Department's corrective action and groundwater contamination cases for all areas at the facility contaminated by used oil which is not hazardous waste or by hazardous material. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 12.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to a closure permit with a contingent post-closure plan to close the areas at the facility contaminated by the disposal of hazardous waste. In response to the consent order to delineate areas on the property exhibiting various types of contamination, Hendry submitted the supplemental PCAR. By letter dated March 19, 1992, the Department responded to the supplemental PCAR with a determination that: Area 1 can be assessed and remediated through the standards set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code. Contamination in Areas 2 and 3 includes heavy metals, which are hazardous materials. Thus, Areas 2 and 3 should be assessed and remediated through the corrective action process for groundwater contamination cases. A hazardous waste facility closure permit application should be submitted for assessment and remediation of Area 4, which, because of the presence of Dichloroethylene, a hazardous substance and chlorinated solvent, should be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2. Hendry had a practice of cleaning electrical motors by placing such motors on the ground outside the electrical repair shop near Area 4. The motors were sprayed with Trichloroethylene, a waste solvent, which was allowed to runoff into the soil. At the time of this practice, the intention was to leave the solvent contamination unchecked. The Department, pursuant to directives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), characterizes the disposition of hazardous waste to the environment as a result of intentional, ongoing industrial practices as "disposal of hazardous waste" within the meaning of Subsection 475.703(21), Florida Statutes and 40 CFR 260.10. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to challenge the Department's determination with respect to delineation of the various areas by filing a petition per paragraph 21 of the order for formal administrative hearings. Hendry filed its petition with respect to the March 19, 1992 letter, which petition is the subject of DOAH Case No. 92-2312.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that 1) the contamination areas at issue herein are not eligible for EDI reimbursement under Subsections 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes; 2) that Petitioner cleanup the contamination in Areas 1, 2 and 3 under the guidance document entitled "Corrective Actions for Groundwater Contamination Cases"; and 3) that Area 4 be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2 and closed through a hazardous waste closure/post closure permit application process. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 14, partially adopted in Paragraph 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and speculative. Paragraph 20, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 21, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 24-28, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, partially adopted, Paragraphs 13 and 14, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, partially adopted, Paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 29, partially adopted, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 60, 62 and 73 rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 33, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 38, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 41, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and the two cases cited at hearing where Respondent exercises his discretion are distinguishable from Petitioner's failure to timely apply. Paragraph 43, rejected, unnecessary and/or argument. Paragraph 45, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 50, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 37-39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 54, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 55, rejected, not probative. Paragraphs 56 and 57, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 58 and 59, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 23 and 24, Recommended Order. Paragraph 61, rejected, speculative and unnecessary. Paragraph 63, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 67, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 68, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraph 69, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 70, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 72, rejected, irrelevant and not necessary to the issues posed. Paragraph 74, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and unnecessary. Paragraph 75, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 76, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 77, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 78 and 79, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 80, rejected, not probative. Rulings in Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 2 and 3, adopted in part, Paragraph 9, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted in part, Paragraph 32, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, adopted in part, Paragraphs 38 and 39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 30, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Patka, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT 200 South Orange Ave - Suite 2600 Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Lisa Duchene, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should issue a solid waste construction permit to the David J. Joseph Company (Applicant) to construct lined cells at its existing Class I solid waste landfill in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. It is the position of the applicant and the Department that all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of said permit have been met, while Mr. & Mrs. David Brenner (Petitioners) contend that the application fails to meet the criteria for the issuance of this permit.
Findings Of Fact The applicant filed an application for a solid waste construction permit with the Department on May 2, 1988. This application was given permit number S029-77041. The applicant proposes to expand its existing solid waste Class I sanitary landfill located near Kingsway Road and Interstate 4, east of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, through the construction of a lined addition. This entire site consists of approximately 16 acres, but the lined portion for which this permit is sought comprises about eight acres. This site was purchased by the applicant in 1978, to landfill shredder waste, or "fluff", produced at its Tampa shredder. In fact, the applicant has operated this site as a landfill since 1978, under two previous permits issued by the Department in 1978 and 1983, and approximately nine acres of the site have already been filled. The Department gave notice of its intent to grant this permit on September 23, 1988, subject to specified conditions. The Petitioners, thereafter, timely requested this administrative hearing. The applicant is engaged in the ferrous scrap business at fourteen locations throughout the United States, and provides steel mills with raw material for their use in the production of new steel. It operates a large shredding plant in Tampa, Florida, which consists primarily of an automobile shredder and related equipment. The shredder is a large crushing and grinding piece of equipment which, in approximately 20 seconds, grinds scrap autos into small chunks of scrap the size of a man's fist. A conveyor system separates the scrap produced in the shredding process into three streams. The first stream consists of steel scrap that is sold to a steel mill. Approximately 80% of automobile scrap is steel. The second stream consists of non-ferrous material, primarily aluminum, zinc, copper, brass and other non-steel items found in autos, which are then sold to dealers in that particular type of metal. The third stream is waste material, or "shredder fluff". Approximately 17% of the material in automobile scrap is fluff. Guidelines have been established by the applicant which limit the type of material which will be accepted at the shredder facility as feedstock for the shredder operation. These guidelines prohibit acceptance of lead-acid batteries, gas tanks, tires, catalytic converters, and loose mufflers and tail pipes. Automobiles which are accepted by the applicant at its Tampa plant have already been crushed at separate locations by other companies engaged in the car crushing business prior to their purchase by the applicant. In the crushing process, most automobile fluids are liberated, but oil and other fluids not liberated during the crushing process are then liberated in the shredding process, and are intermingled with all three product streams produced at the shredder mill. Shredder fluff consists largely of automotive components such as upholstery, plastic, glass, rubber, dirt, and other non-magnetic and non-ferrous materials. The applicant's shredder operation in Tampa generates approximately seven to eight tractor trailer loads of fluff per day which are deposited at their current landfill. During 1988, the fluff from approximately 200,000 autos was disposed at this site. The existing landfill is located approximately 550 feet off of the roadway, and is accessible by an entrance road leading to the main gate of the site. The landfill is completely fenced with barbed wire around its perimeter, and there is a locked gate at the access road. There is a full time manager on site. Only shredder fluff produced by the applicant's Tampa shredder is deposited at this site. The applicant delivers its waste to this landfill using its own equipment and personnel. The applicant has taken reasonable steps to insure that only authorized persons enter the landfill site, and that there will be no unauthorized dumping. In order to continue using this landfill site, the applicant proposes to construct a liner system and leachate collection system for the remaining unfilled portion of the landfill, and also to establish a stormwater management system serving the entire site. A geotechnical and foundation investigation has been performed on the site to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of site soils, and the ability of those soils to support the landfill construction. The potential for movement in foundation soils was specifically addressed. It is to be noted that the applicant has been operating a landfill at this site for ten years without any sinkhole or foundation problems. There are no active sinkholes on the site, nor was there competent substantial evidence that any sinkhole had historically existed on this site. While the site geology is complex, the soils and subsurface geology will support the proposed project. Thus, the site is suitable for construction of lined Class I landfill cells. Beneath a surficial sand layer of approximately 30 feet in depth, lies an interbedded layer of sands, clay and heavily weathered limestone lenses approximately 40 feet thick, under which lies the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant will excavate below the level of the existing pit floor to remove any limestone protrusions which could adversely affect liner integrity. A dense clay layer, graded to remove rocks and other protrusions, will be used as a secondary barrier to retard the movement of contaminants into groundwater, and to further minimize the potential impact from limestone pinnacles upon liner integrity. The primary containment system will be a liner system constructed of a thick, high density, 60 millimeter polyethylene membrane, applied to both the bottom and sides of the landfill. Below-grade portions of the landfill will be lined completely. A layer of geotextile material is placed between the synthetic liner and clay layer to act as a cushion against stresses on the liner. The liner will be constructed in 30 foot wide strips with welded seams, every inch of which is vacuum tested. Laboratory testing is also conducted on sample coupons of welded seams to insure that the seams are as strong, or stronger, than the original material, and the areas from which coupons are taken are then extrusion welded and vacuum tested. The liner system is designed to withstand stresses, and any differential settlement, that are reasonably expected to occur at this site. It will minimize the risk of leakage of leachate to the environment, as was recognized by Dr. Richard Strom, an expert in hydrogeology called by Petitioners, who stated this is an improvement in the previous unlined operations at this site, and decreases, although it does not completely eliminate, the possibility of ground water pollution. The applicant's project design includes a leachate collection system which will allow leachate generated in the landfill to flow through a 12 inch thick gravel layer, which will act as a drain in the base of the landfill. Fluids will run to low spots and will then be channeled to sumps, where leachate is collected so that it can be disposed of by pumping away from the liner system and spraying onto the active face of the landfill. Natural evapotransporation will then reduce the volume of the leachate. An approved groundwater monitoring program is currently in place, and is being operated at the applicant's existing landfill. It consists of an upgradient well in the northeast corner of the site, and three down gradient wells, one in the southwest corner, one on the west and one on the south sides of the property. These down gradient wells are adequately placed to intercept groundwater flow from the site since the predominate groundwater flow is from the northeast to southwest. These wells all monitor the Floridan Aquifer. The applicant's groundwater monitoring program is adequate and appropriate to detect any leachate or other contaminates emanating from the landfill which might pollute the groundwater, and provides reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated by the landfill operations. The applicant has proposed a stormwater management system for the entire site which is designed to separate non- contact stormwater from that water which actually falls on, or comes into contact with, the waste material. All rainwater coming in contact with waste will be treated as leachate, and handled through the leachate collection system. The non-contact stormwater will be collected in a series of bermed drainage ditches around the site, and will be drained away to retention ponds for infiltration. During times of normal rainfall, there will be sufficient capacity in retention ponds to store all non- contact stormwater on site until it either evaporates or percolates into the ground. During extreme storm events, excess stormwater can be channeled off site to a nearby sinkhole for discharge. Routine monitoring will be conducted to ensure that water in the system has not been contaminated with leachate. The Department has delegated stormwater plan approval authority to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which reviewed and approved the applicant's stormwater management system through the issuance of a permit in 1988. Noxious odors do not emanate from the existing landfill operations, although there is a slight odor similar to an auto garage service bay close to the disposal materials. This is not a sickening or noxious odor, as acknowledged even by Dr. Strom. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that leachate sprayed on the active face of the landfill, after having been collected through the leachate collection system, will not result in, or cause, noxious odors at the landfill site. The applicant has established that this project to enlarge its existing landfill with a lined addition will not release contaminants into the underlying soils and groundwater.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental regulation enter a Final Order approving the application of the David J. Joseph Company and issuing permit number S029-77041. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-6009) Rulings on the Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected in Findings 1, 9-12. Rejected in Findings 10-14. Rejected in Finding 16. Rejected in Finding 16, but Adopted in part in Finding 13. Rejected in Findings 10-12. Rejected in Finding 15. Rejected in Finding 14. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings 1, 2. 2-3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 7. 11. Adopted in Finding 8. 12-15. Adopted in Findings 9-11. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 13. 19-21. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Findings 9 and 16. Adopted in Finding 17. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Wilcox, Esquire Katherine Harasz, Esquire 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 1650 Tampa, FL 33602 William D. Preston, Esquire Thomas M. DeRose, Esquire 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale Twatchmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent’s license as a residential contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of contractors and the regulation of the construction industry in this state. Respondent, Kenneth Ronald Boaz, was a residential contractor holding license CR C035360. He was the qualifying agent for Revival Remodelers, and was doing business under that name. On or about August 23, 1996, Respondent, doing business as Revival Remodelers, entered into a contract with Vicky L. Smith to construct a 20 by 24-foot room addition to her residence located at 13281 Clay Avenue in Largo, Florida. The contract price for the addition was listed as $25,000, plus permit fees, and Respondent accepted a partial payment of $21,072.60 from Ms. Smith. Respondent was instrumental in helping Ms. Smith get the financing for the project. On September 5, 1996, Respondent obtained permit No. 146699 from the Pinellas County Building Department. Before starting construction on the room, Respondent arranged for several large trees to be removed from the area of Ms. Smith’s back yard near where the rear wall of the addition would be located. When the trees were removed, the holes left by their removal were to be filled with dirt. Though Respondent arranged for the trees to be moved, Ms. Smith paid an additional $680.00 to the sub-contractor who removed them. Respondent was aware that the trees had been removed and the holes filled with dirt. Respondent began work shortly after the removal of the trees and the filling of the holes. Ms. Smith claims she did not see anyone do any compacting of the soil where the trees had been removed, but the footers and slab were poured and finished. Whereas the Pinellas County Building Code does not require a soil compaction test, it provides that foundations shall be built on undisturbed soil of properly compacted fill. At Ms. Smith’s request, construction slowed down but continued while she tried to find additional financing to complete the work. Finally, Respondent and Ms. Smith agreed the work would cease until she could obtain the amount remaining due under the project. At this point, Ms. Smith owed Respondent approximately $4,000. Ms. Smith claims that even before this, however, she noticed cracking in the concrete slab. This worried her because she wanted to lay tile as flooring. But when she mentioned this to the Respondent, he told her not to worry as he would take care of it. He did not do so, however. Because of her concern, in the Spring of 1999, Ms. Smith called the Building Department in Clearwater and the building inspector from the county came out to inspect the work. The inspector issued a red tag for the work, signifying it was unacceptable. Ms. Smith also contacted other contractors to see if tile could be successfully laid on that slab. Each has said it could not. No other contractor with whom she has spoken is willing to take over the job without additional soil compaction. One contractor gave her an estimate of $47,500 to re-build the room. Another contractor quoted a price of $44,800, but both include items not on the contract she had with Respondent. Respondent last worked on this job in December 1996. Since that time, Ms. Smith has talked with him about the quality of his work and has had two mediation sessions with him without any success. The room has not been completed because there is substantial question whether the existing work done by Respondent can be successfully completed. The defects in the construction are manifested by the following: There is a separation of the additional wall from the existing house wall of from between 1/2 to 1 inch. The roof of the addition leaks and the insulation is moldy and falling. There are cracks all over the additional floor and outside patio slab. The corners of the addition are dropping. Cinder blocks in the addition walls are cracking The lintel is broken in three places. Ms. Smith has done no more construction on the addition because she filed her complaint with the Department and is waiting to see what is done. However, she has painted and sealed the exterior walls. The leak is not through the wall cracks but through the roof. After her complaint, Respondent had someone from PSI, an engineering consulting firm, come out and perform a soils compaction test. As a result of that test, several different formulae were offered to fix the problem, but Ms. Smith was not satisfied, considering it no more than a "cover-up." Finally, Respondent offered her a structural solution to the problem that would remove the red tag. Ms. Smith would put the balance owed, plus some additional money into an escrow account, whereupon Respondent would fix the problem. However, because Ms. Smith no longer has any confidence in the Respondent, she does not want him to do any of the work. She contends that Respondent never agreed to fix the problem if she would put what she stilled owed him in escrow - only if she would add to it. Kevin McGinley is a licensed general contractor who in 1997 was asked by Ms. Smith to give her an estimate on making repairs to and completing the addition started by Respondent. His examination of the site showed severe settling on the addition. The work appeared to have been built on an uncompacted pad which caused settling, and McGinley did not want to be responsible for the work. Therefore, he gave Ms. Smith an estimate to tear down what had been done by Respondent and to rebuild from scratch. His work would include an inspection by a soils engineer to see if the existing soil would support the project. While cracks in a slab can be repaired, in the instant case, without knowing what caused the problem, he would not want to try to fix it. Wendell G. Wardell, a building inspector for Pinellas County, first inspected this project on September 16, 1996, when he went out for the slab inspection. There were several problems with the site, none of which related to the instant problem, and all of which were cleared up by November 21, 1996. He was again sent to the site somewhat later based upon a complaint by the owner. On this visit he saw cracking and settlement of the slab and he issued the red tag. Neither Respondent nor the owner called for a re-inspection that would be required before work can resume because work was not resumed. Mr. Wardell noted that a compaction test was not required by the county before the permit was issued in this case, though sometime it is required. Mr. Yaxley, a consulting engineer, visited the site in April 1998. Ms. Smith was present at the time. He observed the cracking in the floors and walls and the mildew in the roof. The most obvious defects were the 1/4-inch cracks in the floors and walls of the addition. After studying the site and the results from the two other laboratories that tested the site, he concluded that the removal of the trees caused the holes several feet deep that were then filled with 20 square yards of dirt. This fill dirt should have been compacted in a reasonable manner, and it was not. Yaxley reasoned that Respondent knew of the holes and the placement of the fill dirt and he should have done tests to ensure the compacting was done properly. The use of a bob-cat, a front-end loader, as used here, did not provide the appropriate compaction. However, removal of the trees was a clue that a closer look at the soil was required. Yaxley examined the laboratory work done on the property and determined there are two voids left under the soil from the removal of the trees. One is about 18 inches down and the other at about three to four feet down. Compaction may or may not cure this. Settling may continue for a long time. While one void could have been an unknown factor, the existence of the three trees was a known factor, and proper caution and judgment would have called for further inquiry to determine the status of the sub-surface. Respondent claims he had no knowledge of any voids in the soil. He compacted with water and soil in layers but this compacting was done under the slab area, not where the holes were filled. He used a concrete contractor to do this work and has always found it to be consistent with acceptable standards before. There are several other defects in Respondent’s performance, according to Yaxley. The core of the slab shows no reinforcing of the concrete either by welded steel or fabric fiber mixed in with the concrete; the roof deck is mildewed; there are cracks in the slab and between the main building and the addition; there are step cracks in both the north and east wall of the addition; and the bracing and attachment of the east gable above the concrete block is not adequate. Mr. Yaxley went back to revisit the property on October 5, 1998, and found that as of that time, no corrective work had been done. The problem with the property can be fixed with injections of grout and the installation of pilings. If that were done properly, Ms. Smith would be able to safely install the tile flooring she wants. However, if nothing is done, the cracks will remain and probably get worse. Respondent contends that the removal of the trees did not create holes that required fill. He asserts that the fill dirt brought in was procured at the request of the Building Department that wanted it to construct another swale on the property. Mr. Boaz admits to not using reinforcing steel in the concrete slab he poured. Instead, he ordered the fiber- reinforced concrete at a thickness of more than six inches, which exceeds the code requirement of four inches. He did not know, until he heard Mr. Yaxley’s testimony, that the concrete poured by his sub-contractor was not fiber-fill.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case finding Respondent guilty of negligence resulting in danger to property, and misconduct in contracting, and imposing an administrative fine of $5,500. It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay restitution to Ms. Vicki Smith in the amount of $21,072.60 or, in the alternative, within 90 days from the date of the final order, undertake such remedial construction activity as is necessary to remove the red tag issued by the Pinellas County Building Department regarding this project. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Warren Knaust, Esquire Knaust & Valente, P.A. 2730 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
