The Issue The issues for determination in this matter are: (1) whether Petitioner, MW Horticulture Recycling Facility, Inc. (MW), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration; (2) whether Petitioner MW is an irresponsible applicant; and (3) whether Petitioner MW Horticulture Recycling of North Fort Myers, Inc. (MW-NFM), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and the Registration Denials Petitioner MW is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 6290 Thomas Road, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "South Yard." Petitioner MW-NFM is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 17560 East Street, North Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "North Yard." The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of part IV of chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-701 and 62-709. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to allow SOPFs to annually register in lieu of obtaining a solid waste management facility permit. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW submitted its application for registration renewal for the South Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The listed reasons for denial focused on non-compliance with orders for corrective action in a Consent Order (Order) between Petitioner MW and the Department entered on February 22, 2019. The Order was entered to resolve outstanding violations in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV), issued on November 20, 2018. The notice of denial stated that, as of August 9, 2019, Petitioner MW had not completed the following corrective actions of the Order by the specified timeframes: (a) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall remove all processed or unprocessed material (yard trash) from the Seminole Gulf Railway Right of Way and the swale along Old US 41 and establish a 20 foot wide all-weather access road, around the entire perimeter of the site; (b) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall reduce the height of the piles to a height that the facility’s equipment can reach without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material; and (c) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall have all the processed and unprocessed material be no more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. The notice of denial also stated that when Department staff conducted compliance visits on April 29, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 7, 2019, and July 18, 2019, the following outstanding violations were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning of yard waste; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) an all-weather access road, at least 20 feet wide, around the perimeter of the Facility has not been maintained and yard trash has been stored or deposited within the all-weather access road; and (d) yard trash is being stored more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW-NFM submitted its application for registration renewal for the North Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The notice of denial stated that compliance and site observation visits were conducted on July 9, 2019, July 30, 2019, August 1 and 2, 2019, and the following non-compliance issues were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) yard trash received has been stored or disposed of within 50 feet of a body of water; and (d) yard trash received is not being size-reduced or removed, and most of the unprocessed yard trash has been onsite for more than six months. The notice of denial also stated that on March 27, 2018, May 10, 2018, and October 3, 2018, Department staff conducted inspections of the North Yard. A Warning Letter was issued on November 2, 2018. The Warning Letter noted the following violations: (1) unauthorized burning of solid waste; (2) the absence of the required 20-foot-wide all-weather perimeter access road along the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile; (3) inadequate access for motorized firefighting equipment around the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile (lake pile); (4) the lake pile not size-reduced or removed within six months; (5) mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material by heavy equipment; and (6) yard trash storage setbacks from wetlands not maintained. Petitioners' SOPFs The North Yard is located in North Fort Myers and is bound by the southbound lanes of Interstate 75 to the east and a lake to the west. The South Yard is slightly larger than the North Yard and abuts Thomas Road to the west and a railroad owned and operated by the Seminole Gulf Railway Company to the east. Petitioners' facilities accept vegetative waste and yard trash (material) from the public in exchange for a disposal fee before processing and size-reducing the material into retail products such as organic compost, topsoil, and mulch. The unprocessed material is staged in various piles generally according to waste type until it can be processed by grinding or screening. As of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meander between the piles themselves. As the material in the piles decomposes, heat is produced from the respiration and metabolization of organic matter. This heat ignites the dry material and can cause substantial fires. Both the North Yard and South Yard are susceptible to fires caused by spontaneous combustion as a result of their normal operations of collecting and stockpiling organic waste. Fires Although spontaneous combustion is an inherent risk with SOPFs, the evidence at the hearing established that the material at Petitioners' facilities catches fire at an abnormally high rate as a result of poor pile management. Piles need to be turned and wetted to keep down incidents of spontaneous combustion. Monitoring temperatures, rotating the piles, and removing the material at a faster rate would help reduce the incidence of fires. Large piles with no extra land space cannot be managed in a way "to aerate and keep the temperatures at a level where you're not going to have spontaneous combustion." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 32. Fire Marshal Steve Lennon of San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue regarded the South Yard as a fire hazard compared to other similar sites in his district. He testified that the pile heights, widths, and lengths at the South Yard are not in compliance with applicable fire-code size requirements. He also testified that if the pile sizes were in compliance, Petitioner MW would not have to put their motorized firefighting equipment on top of the piles "because [they] would be able to reach it from the ground." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 41. As of the date of the hearing, San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue had responded to 43 active fire calls at the South Yard in the last two years, and three times in 2020 alone. In 2018, the active fire calls at the South Yard were multi-day suppression operations. In 2019, the active fire calls were mostly hotspots and flare-ups. Captain Doug Underwood of the Bayshore Fire Rescue and Protection Service District (Bayshore Fire District) testified that his department had responded to approximately 75 fire calls at the North Yard in the last two years. The most common cause of the fires was spontaneous combustion. The piles were not in compliance from a size standpoint. Captain Underwood testified that the majority of the 75 calls were to the lake pile at the North Yard. See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 59. The lake pile was a temporary site on the southern end of the lake that borders the North Yard, and for most of 2018 and 2019, contained debris from Hurricane Irma.1 The lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing. Captain Underwood testified that in 2018, he recommended to Petitioners that they engage the services of an expert fire engineer. Petitioners engaged Jeff Collins who met with Captain Underwood on multiple occasions. They discussed how to address fires and hotspots and that the facilities should have a written fire protection safety and mitigation plan. Such a plan was created and Captain Underwood was satisfied with its provisions. Although the lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing, it was not an entirely voluntary effort on Petitioners' part. Captain Underwood testified that Petitioners' "initial plan of action was to leave it there for . . . eight months or greater, depending on the time frame needed to have the product decompose and cool down to a temperature that they could remove it." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 83. It took Lee County code enforcement efforts "to compel MW to remove this material off-site as quickly as possible." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 82. 1 Throughout this proceeding, the lake pile was referred to by various names in testimony and exhibits, such as, "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile," "lake yard," "trac[t] D," and "temporary site." As recently as February 12, 2020, a large pile of hardwood, green waste, and compost at the North Yard caught fire as a result of spontaneous combustion. The size of the fire was so large and hot that the Bayshore Fire District could not safely extinguish the fire with water or equipment, and allowed it to free-burn openly for 24 hours in order to reduce some of the fuel. The fire produced smoke that drifted across the travel lanes of Interstate 75. The free-burn allowed the pile to reduce in size "down to the abilities of the district and the equipment on-site." See Tr. Vol. I, pgs. 51-52. Captain Underwood testified that "once we started putting water on it, then the MW crews with their heavy equipment covered the rest of the smoldering areas with dirt." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 56. Rule Violations By Petitioners' own admission, the facilities have repeatedly violated applicable Department rules throughout the course of their operations over the last two and one-half years. The most pertinent of these violations center around the Department's standards for fire protection and control to deal with accidental burning of solid waste at SOPFs. Renee Kwiat, the Department's expert, testified that the Department cited the South Yard nine times for failing to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road. The South Yard consistently violated the requirement to maintain processed and unprocessed material within 50 feet of access by motorized firefighting equipment, and the North Yard has violated this requirement twice. The North Yard consistently violated the requirement to size-reduce or remove the lake pile material within six months. Both the North Yard and South Yard were cited multiple times for mechanically compacting processed and unprocessed material. Following a period of noncompliance and nearly 11 months of compliance assistance at the South Yard, Petitioner MW told the Department it would resolve all outstanding violations by July 1, 2018. The July 1, 2018, deadline passed and on October 18, 2018, the Department proposed a consent order to resolve the violations at the South Yard. However, Petitioner MW did not respond. On November 20, 2018, the Department issued the NOV to Petitioner MW regarding the South Yard. The violations included failure to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road around the perimeter of the site, failure to ensure access by motorized firefighting equipment, mechanical compaction, and the unauthorized open burning of solid waste. On February 22, 2019, the Department executed the Order with Petitioner MW to resolve outstanding violations in the NOV. By signing the Order, Petitioner MW agreed to undertake the listed corrective actions within the stated time frames. Compliance visits to the South Yard on April 29, 2019, June 7, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 18, 2019, and August 22, 2019, documented that many violations outlined above were still present at the site. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that none of the time periods in the Order were met. The preponderance of the evidence established the violations listed in paragraphs 5 and 6 above. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that Petitioner MW still had not reduced the height of the piles such that their equipment could reach the tops of the piles without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material. Thus, all the processed and unprocessed material was not more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open-burning of solid waste; and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material. The evidence also established that the South Yard does not encroach on Seminole's real property interest. The Department did not issue an NOV for the North Yard. The preponderance of the evidence established that there were repeated rule violations at the North Yard. These violations formed the basis for denying the North Yard's registration as outlined in paragraph 8 above. The Department deferred to Lee County's enforcement action for violations of County rules as resolution of the violations of Department rules. At the time of the final hearing, however, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open burning of solid waste, and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material at the North Yard. Petitioners' Response and Explanation Approximately two and one-half years before the date of the hearing in this case, Hurricane Irma, a category four hurricane, made landfall in the state of Florida. It was September 10, 2017, and Hurricane Irma significantly impacted the southwest coast of Florida, where Petitioners' facilities are located. Hurricane Irma caused extensive damage, including the destruction of trees, vegetation, and other horticultural waste which required disposal. Massive amounts of such yard waste and horticultural debris were deposited on roadways and streets throughout Lee County, creating a significant issue that needed to be addressed by local governments, and state and federal agencies. Due to the threat posed by Hurricane Irma, the state of Florida declared a state of emergency on September 4, 2017, for every county in Florida. This state of emergency was subsequently extended to approximately March 31, 2019, for certain counties, including Lee County, due to the damage caused by Hurricane Irma. An overwhelming volume of material needed to be processed and disposed of following Hurricane Irma. The Petitioners' facilities were inundated with material brought there by Lee County, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others. After Hurricane Irma, haulers took considerable time just to get the materials off the streets, and processors like the Petitioners, ran out of space because there was limited space permitted at the time. As a result, these materials stacked up and had to be managed over time at facilities, including Petitioners' facilities. To accommodate the material, Petitioner MW-NFM added the temporary site that was labeled the "lake pile" or "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile" in Department inspection and compliance reports of the North Yard. In order to address the volume of material on the site after Hurricane Irma, Petitioner MW-NFM requested approval from the Department to move the material off-site to other locations in order to reduce the size of the piles at the North Yard's lake pile. For reasons that remain unclear, such authorization was not obtained, and Petitioner MW-NFM believes that this would have size-reduced the piles and prevented accumulation of material in violation of Department rules. In order to process the North Yard's lake pile and move it off-site more quickly, Petitioner MW-NFM requested permission from Lee County and the Department to grind unprocessed material on site, which would have size-reduced the lake pile and allowed it to be moved off-site more quickly. Because existing zoning did not authorize this grinding, the request was denied in spite of the fact that a state of emergency had been declared which Petitioner MW-NFM believes would have permitted such an activity. This further hampered Petitioner MW-NFM's ability to size-reduce the lake pile leading to more issues with hot spots and fires. Because the material was of such volume, and was decomposing, a major fire erupted in 2018 at the North Yard's lake pile. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, Jeff Collins, wrote reports to address this issue and recommended to the local fire department that the pile be smothered in dirt until the fire was extinguished. The request was denied by the Bayshore Fire District, which instead directed that Petitioners break into the pile in order to extinguish the fire. When Petitioners did so, the piles immediately erupted into flames as predicted by Petitioners' fire safety engineer. Moving the smoldering material to the South Yard also led to fires at the South Yard. In spite of the large volume of material at the North Yard's lake pile, Petitioners made steady progress in size reducing the material and moving it off-site. However, as of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were still completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meandered between the piles themselves. Mechanical Compaction Each party presented testimony regarding the question of whether Petitioners' facilities violated the prohibition that any processed or unprocessed material shall not be mechanically compacted. The parties disagreed over how the prohibition against mechanical compaction was applied to yard trash transfer facilities. In March of 2018, Petitioners' representative, Denise Houghtaling, wrote an email to the Department requesting clarification of the Department's definition of "mechanical compaction" because it is undefined in the rules. On April 3, 2018, Lauren O' Connor, a government operations consultant for the Department's Division of Solid Waste Management, responded to Petitioners' request. The response stated that the Department interprets "mechanical compaction" as the use of heavy equipment over processed or unprocessed material that increases the density of waste material stored. Mechanical compaction is authorized at permitted disposal sites and waste processing facilities, but is not permissible under a registration for a yard trash transfer facility.2 Mechanical compaction contributes to spontaneous combustion fires, which is the primary reason for its prohibition at yard trash transfer facilities. Petitioners' interpretation of mechanical compaction as running over material in "stages" or "lifts" was not supported by their expert witnesses. Both David Hill and Jeff Collins agreed with the Department's interpretation that operating heavy equipment on piles of material is mechanical compaction. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners mechanically compact material at their facilities. Mechanical compaction was apparent at both sites by either direct observation of equipment on the piles of material, or by observation of paths worn into the material by regular and repeated trips. Department personnel observed evidence of mechanical compaction on eight separate inspections between December 2017 and January 2019. Additional compaction was observed at the South Yard on June 7, 2019, and in aerial surveillance footage from August 28, 2019, September 5, 2019, January 30, 2020, and February 12, 2020. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, who assisted them at the North Yard lake pile, testified that the fire code required access ramps or pathways for equipment onto the piles in order to suppress or prevent fire. However, Captain Underwood and Fire Marshal Lennon testified they do not and have never required Petitioners to maintain such access ramps or paths on the piles. The fire code provision cited by Petitioners' expert does not apply to their piles. See Tr. Vol. II, pgs. 78-80. In addition, Fire Marshal Lennon testified that placing firefighting equipment on top of piles is not an acceptable and safe way to fight fires at the site by his fire department. 2 Rule 62-701.710 prohibits the operation of a waste processing facility without a permit issued by the Department. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.803(4). Rule 62- 701.320(16)(b) contemplates the availability of equipment for excavating, spreading, compacting, and covering waste at a permitted solid waste disposal facility. Despite receiving clarification from the Department in April of 2018, Petitioners choose to ignore the Department's prohibition against mechanically compacting unprocessed or processed material piles. In addition, the persuasive and credible evidence suggests that Petitioners blanket the piles with dirt to both suppress fires and accommodate the "access roads" or "paths" on the piles.3 Ultimate findings The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the North Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the South Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners did not consistently comply with Department rules over the two and one-half years prior to the final hearing. However, Petitioners established through persuasive and credible evidence that because of the impacts of Hurricane Irma, and the subsequent circumstances, they could not have reasonably prevented the violations. The totality of the evidence does not justify labeling the Petitioners as irresponsible applicants under the relevant statute and Department rule. However, Petitioners did not provide reasonable assurances that they would comply with Department standards for annual registration of yard trash transfer facilities. 3 The evidence suggests that Petitioners may prefer to follow the advice of their hired experts with regard to the practice of mechanical compaction and blanketing the piles with dirt. See, e.g., Petitioners' Ex. 16. However, the evidence suggests that the experts' level of experience is with large commercial composting and recycling facilities that may be regulated by solid waste management facility permits and not simple annual registrations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioners' annual registration renewal applications for the North Yard and South Yard. DONE AND ENTERED this this 17th day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Clayton W. Crevasse, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Sarah E. Spector, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Carson Zimmer, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 49 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issues considered at final hearing were those issues set out in Petitioners' Amended Petition For A Formal Hearing. At the conclusion of the final hearing the parties were given an opportunity to file a proposed recommended order and memorandum in support thereof. Such memorandum and proposed recommended order was received by the Hearing Officer from the Department of Environmental Regulation on November 10, 1976, from Leon County on November 12, 1976, and from the Citizens' Committee to Preserve Lake Lafayette on November 15, 1976. Having fully considered the matters presented herein, the Hearing Officer enters the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Leon County, Florida, has applied for a construction permit to construct a sanitary landfill in Sections 4 and 5, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Leon County, Florida. The proposed site consists of 79.9 acres off of U.S. Highway 27 South. The application is in proper form and contains all information required by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The area to be served by the proposed sanitary landfill is Leon County, Florida, with a projected average population of 155,200. The responsible operating authority as set forth in the application is Leon County. The evidence presented did not establish that the proposed sanitary landfill will attract high concentrations of rodents, insects, or birds which would do serious damage to the land and crops surrounding the site or which would adversely affect the health and welfare of the residents near the site. The application proposes a program for the extermination of any rats discovered on site and further proposes that the working faces of the landfill area will be kept as small as possible with all exposed waste materials covered as frequently as practical to minimize the problem of flies and insects during hot, humid periods. Evidence was presented indicating that construction of the proposed sanitary landfill site could adversely affect surrounding property value. However, the evidence was not sufficient to conclusively establish the extent of this affect nor the time at which it would occur or for which it would endure. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill would not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in or within 200 feet of any natural or artificial body of water or on the watershed of any surface water supply. Lake Lafayette is hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is located at least 500 feet from the flood prone area of Lake Lafayette and 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette proper. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in a sink hole or in the immediate area thereof. Solid waste will be disposed of by being placed in a trench and covered over with successive lifts similarly covered. There are no active sink holes on or in the immediate area of, the proposed sanitary landfill site. Three ponds exist in the immediate vicinity of the site, one of which is to be used for surface water runoff. These ponds were probably formed by past sink hole activity but from the site topography and water elevations it appears that the ponds are now stable and are probably not hydraulically connected with the Floridan Aquifer. No limestone or gravel pits exist on site. The entire proposed site is well above the +50' MSL contour line below which are found flood prone areas in the vicinity of the site. The water table of the site is more than 5 feet below normal ground surface. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste in an area immediately adjacent to or within the cone of influence of a public water supply. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste within 200 feet of any habitation or place of business served by a public water supply system or within 1,000 feet of any habitation or place of business served by an individual potable shallow water supply well with the following exceptions. There are three wells located on the property which would be owned by Leon County that may be within 1,000 feet of the disposal site for solid waste. Of these three wells one has been abandoned and will be sealed. A second is located south of the proposed site at an existing house and will be used as a source of non-potable water and for monitoring the potable aquifer. The third well is located on the northwest portion of the county property and will be maintained as a standby source of potable water. There are two other wells located on the property to be owned by Leon County which are more than 1,000 feet from the proposed disposal site for solid waste and could be used to monitor the Floridan Aquifer. There is a well which serves a private residence and farm located plus or minus 1,200 feet west of the proposed site for the disposal of solid waste. No solid waste shall be disposed of in any area open to public view from any major thoroughfare. The proposed site in not on any public highway, road, alley or the right-of-way thereof. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin is approximately six miles long elongated in a west-northwest, east-southeast direction. The width varies between one-quarter to one-half mile. The western end of the basin contains many sink holes which probably have open connections to the underlying bedrock. The eastern end of the basin, near the proposed landfill site, is swampy and contains many cypress trees. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin appears to be an area of recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is not located in the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The engineering firm of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., conducted a subsurface investigation of the hydrologic and soil conditions at the site of the proposed sanitary landfill. As part of their investigation they performed ten soil borings and installed seven deep ground water monitoring wells. The results of the investigation of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., indicates a low probability of sink hole occurrence. In the course of their investigation, Ardaman & Associates, Inc., discovered a depression in the ground water level at Test Hole No. 9. The significance of this ground water low is that it may be a localized area of recharge. However, as shown by the testimony of the engineers who conducted the investigation for Ardaman & Associates, Inc., as well as by the report of their investigation, this depression creates no realistic danger with regard to the introduction of pollutants into the aquifer or ground water supply, so long as no putrescible wastes are placed within a distance of 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The hydro-geologist testifying on behalf of the Petitioners stated that he believed the radius of influence of the depression at Test Hole No. 9 may actually be less than 1,000 feet and that maintaining 1,000 feet distance from Test Hole No. 9 is a conservative distance. As designed, the proposed sanitary landfill will not dispose of any solid waste or other putrescible waste within 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The soils found on the proposed sanitary landfill site are of low permeability and suitable for a sanitary landfill. The low permeability of the soils will limit both the lateral and vertical seepage of leachate. The vertical flow of potential leachate to the Floridan Aquifer has been estimated at a rate of 1.0 to 1.5 feet per year. The lateral flow rate of such leachate through the soils overlying the bedrock in the Lafayette drainage basin has been estimated at the rate of 2 feet per year. As has been noted above, the proposed sanitary landfill site is located approximately 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette, and 500 feet from the +50' MSL contour line which has been used to describe the perimeter of the flood prone area of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. At the estimated flow rate it would therefore take several hundred years for any leachate produced by the sanitary landfill to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The Floridan Aquifer underlies all of Leon County at depths of 100 to 500 feet. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will have test wells constructed throughout the site to provide a means of detecting any lateral migration of contaminants from the landfill operation should such occur. Periodic samples will be taken from these test wells and analyzed. The monitoring wells will be set up in such a manner that regardless of the direction of flow of subsurface water they will pick up and detect any pollutants that may be passing from the landfill. Some of these test wells will be placed in close proximity to the proposed sanitary landfill site to give early warning of the existence of any leachate flow. If there is any problem with the flow of leachate from the proposed site it will be detected easily within the first five years of operation. Since it would take several hundred years to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin at the estimated flow rates this should provide adequate warning and reaction time for the alleviation of any potential pollution problem. A significant flow of leachate is not expected. The existing pond which will receive the surface runoff from the sanitary landfill site is likely of sink hole origin but after a reasonable investigation it appears that the pond is now stable and not hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. It is estimated that the pond can contain at least a 25 year storm rainfall though there might be some flooding from the pond in a 100 year storm rainfall. As designed, no significant amount of leachate, if any, will reach the surface water runoff retention pond. Petitioners' hydro-geologist did not state that the site is unsuitable for a sanitary landfill. Rather he testified that on the information he had reviewed, which information was that available to the Department of Environmental Regulation, it was his opinion that the Department of Environmental Regulation lacks sufficient information to determine if the proposed site is suitable from a water quality standpoint. Based upon all the testimony and evidence it appears as a matter of fact that the information available to the Department of Environmental Regulation is reasonably sufficient to determine the suitability of the proposed site. There has been no showing of a necessity for alining the proposed trenches which will receive the solid waste. The Planning Director for the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, in a letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation stated that the use of the proposed site for landfill purposes is not inconsistent with the land use plan. He further stated his concern for traffic on U.S. Highway 27, the possible adverse aesthetic impact which he felt could be minimized and his concern that Lake Lafayette be protected from landfill leachate through engineering design. In their Amended Petition Petitioners raised the question of the present zoning of the proposed site. No evidence was presented by Petitioners to show that the site is not properly zoned. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented there appears little possibility that the proposed sanitary landfill will pollute or seriously damage Lake Lafayette, the Floridan Aquifer or any other source of public or private water supply. The proposed sanitary landfill as designed is not likely to cause any significant water pollution or to degrade water quality below those standards set by the Department of Environmental Regulation. None of the prohibitions set out in Section 17-7.04, F.A.C, exist so as to require the denial of the application for a construction permit for a sanitary landfill by Respondent, Leon County. The sanitary landfill criteria set out in Section 17-7.05, F.A.C., have been met by Respondent, Leon County.
Findings Of Fact At final hearing, the parties stipulated to the following facts: The Department of Environmental Regulation is an administrative agency of the State of Florida created by Chapter 75-22, Laws of Florida, and vested with the power and duty to implement and enforce the provisions of the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, Part I, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to these Acts, the Department is authorized to regulate the construction and operation of solid waste disposal facilities and stationary installations reasonably expected to be sources of pollution. Respondent, City [of North Miami], owns the property on which is located a solid waste facility known as "Munisport Sanitary Landfill" located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Dade County, Florida; latitude 25 degrees 54' 9" North, longitude 80 degrees 9' 5" West in Sections 21 and 22, Township 52 South, Range 42 East. Respondent, Munisport, operates a solid waste disposal facility under contract with the City. On March 7, 1977, the Department issued to the City of North Miami permit/certification number 13-31-028GM (hereinafter "dredge and fill permit") which modified and superseded permit/classification number 13-31-0286. The permit was issued under the provisions of Sections 253.123, 253.124, and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The permit also provided water quality certification required by Public Law 92-500. The dredge and fill permit was issued for the purpose of constructing a continuous 5,000 foot-long earthen dike with a modified top width of 12 feet aligned waterward of the mean high water line such that the waterward toe of the dike would be on or landward of the property line. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of material would be dredged from the 63-acre tract located behind the dike and waterward of the mean high water line. Portions of the tract would be excavated to minus 35 feet mean low water to form nontidal lakes. Approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill material would be enplaced as follows: Clean fill to be utilized to produce an elevation of a minimum of two feet above the calculated ground water table, after which fresh refuse and a two-foot final cover of clean fill would be placed. Within a zone of 100 feet from the landward crest of the dike, yard trash and construction debris would be the only types of solid waste acceptable as fill, and A ten-foot wide by three-foot deep circulation canal would be dredged on the outside perimeter of the dike. General condition 13 of the dredge and fill permit provides that the permit does not indicate an endorsement or approval of any other Department permit/approval that may be required for other aspects of the total project. A solid waste operation permit would also be required. On June 8, 1979, the City and Munisport received from the Department Operation Permit No. SWO-13-5152 (hereinafter "solid waste operation permit"). The purpose of the solid waste operation permit was to allow and regulate the placement of solid waste (refuse, yard trash and construction debris) in the area behind the dike described above and on adjacent uplands in order to generate an appropriate elevation for a golf course. General condition number two of the solid waste operation permit states that: This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations indicated in the attached drawings or exhibits. Any authorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the Department (emphasis added). Specific condition number six of the solid waste operations permit provides that the subject facility be operated at all times at the maximum level of efficiency so as to minimize the adverse effect on the environment of contaminated storm water runoff or leachates which cause degradation of surface or ground waters. Specific condition number nine of the solid waste operation permit provides that "no solid waste shall be placed within thirty feet of any existing or future lake". Prior to the issuance of the solid waste operation permit, Respondents' permit application was subjected to a de novo review during a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing requested by the Florida Audubon Society and others. The record of these proceedings explained and expanded upon the application and, therefore, became a part thereof. Respondents' consultant testified in these proceedings as follows: We have an agreement with the Department of Environmental Regulation that goes back several years that we would not dig up any old land fill material nor would we place any land fill material in an area that would eventually become a lake. Testimony of Mr. Thomas Joseph Checca on October 18, 1978; Transcript of proceedings in Florida Audubon Society, et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc., DOAH Case No. 78-316. On October 25, 1979, an inspection of the above-described facility was made by Mr. Scott Quaas, an employee of the Department, who observed that two lakes had been constructed in old waste on the site without the required 30-foot setback as required by the aforementioned permit conditions. A letter of notice was issued by the Department regarding that and other violations on November 16, 1979. On December 18, 1979, a follow-up inspection of the subject facility was made by Mr. Quaas, at which time it was observed that two more lakes had been excavated through waste previously deposited at the site, thereby causing such waste to come in direct contact with the water in the lakes adjacent thereto. It was also observed that no 30-foot setback was provided at the new lakes. Notice of these additional violations was provided to Munisport on January 16, 1980. An on-site meeting regarding the above-described violation was held on January 24, 1980, at which time it was agreed that Respondents would reply by February 1, 1980, as to whether corrective actions would be taken regarding the aforementioned violations. As of the date of final hearing in this cause, corrective action had been taken to eliminate these violations. Specific condition number 13 of the solid waste operation permit requires the posting of a performance bond or other security acceptable to the Department which adequately covers the cost of monitoring and final closing procedures required under the permit and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, and procedures listed in the application for permit which may become necessary to correct any pollution detected at the site in violation of Department rules. No such bond or security has been posted with the Department. Extensive discussions between the Department and representatives of the City and Munisport have failed to produce agreement regarding the terms of a performance bond or security. The parties were notified of this violation and were given an opportunity to respond. Leachate (runoff containing pollutants) has been allowed to enter lakes on the site. A leachate plume containing ammonia has been detected beneath the subject sanitary landfill site, which plume has reached ground waters of the State and is being observed to be moving off the site in an east- southeast direction, toward Biscayne Bay. This leachate plume contains total Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) in amounts which are substantially in excess of the water quality standards of .5 milligrams per litre for Dade county, Florida. See, Chapters 24-11(4), Dade County Code. It was not anticipated when Operation Permit Number SWO-13-5152 was issued that leachate would be allowed to enter the lakes or that a leachate plume would form in the manner which is presently being observed. In addition to being a pollutant, Ammonia-Nitrogen is the first substance generally observed when a leachate plume forms. There exists a significant possibility that other pollutants contained in solid waste deposited at the site will also begin to reach ground waters of the State and the waters of Biscayne Bay. General condition number eight of the solid waste operation permit states that: This permit does not relieve the permittee from liability for harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life or property and penalties therefore caused by the construction or operation of this permitted source, nor does it allow the permittee to cause pollution in contravention of Florida Statutes and department rules, except where specifically authorized by an order from the department granting a variance or exception from department rules or state statutes. Specific condition number 15 of the solid waste operation permit states that: These permit conditions do not exempt the applicant from complying with pollution control requirements of other Federal, State, Municipal, County or Regional water pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances or codes, nor does it authorize any violation thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the permits and certification which are the subject of this proceeding in their entirety or such lesser action as may be deemed appropriate by the Department in the exercise of its discretion as the State agency charged with the power and duty to control and prohibit the pollution of air and water under Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, and as the agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act which regulates the appropriate disposal of solid waste and landfill operation in this State. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William P. White, Jr., Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Willard K. Splittstoesser, Esq. 776 N.E. 125th Street North Miami, FL 33161 Marvin P. Sadur, Esq. 2000 L. Street, N.W., Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Orchard View Development, Limited (Orchard View) is an Ontario, Canada corporation. Its president is William T. Lamsom. Orchard View is now, and has been since approximately two to six months prior to the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, the owner of a triangular, three-quarter acre parcel of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Parcel or the Parcel) located on the fringe of a Boca Raton, Florida residential neighborhood. There are children in the neighborhood who pass by the Parcel on their way to and from school. City streets border Orchard View's Parcel on all sides. Across one of these streets is a creek. Orchard View owns an additional 78 acres of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Acreage or the Acreage) to the north of its Parcel. Only a street separates the Acreage from the Parcel. Orchard View first acquired the Acreage in approximately 1975 and sold it about 14 or 15 years later. During this 14 or 15-year period, the Acreage was used by others, without Orchard View's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground. Numerous items, including boats, automobiles, tires, baby carriages, mattresses and landscaping material, were left abandoned on the property. Steps taken by Orchard View (which was well aware of the problem) to deter such dumping, including posting "no trespassing" signs on the property and erecting a 10-foot dirt barrier on one side of the property, were ineffective. Orchard View also complained to the police about the problem, but the making of these complaints did not result in an amelioration of the situation. Orchard View reacquired the Acreage at approximately the same time it acquired the Parcel. Since Orchard View's reacquisition of the Acreage, unauthorized persons have driven their all-terrain vehicles on the property without the approval or authorization of Orchard View, notwithstanding the "no trespassing" signs on the property. Although aware of the dumping problems in the area, Orchard View has not, at any time after its acquisition of the Parcel, posted "no trespassing" signs on the Parcel or erected a fence or other barrier around the Parcel, nor has it taken any other measure designed to discourage or prevent dumping on the Parcel. On June 9, 1997, at 11:10 a.m., the Department was notified by Lieutenant John Johnson of the Boca Raton Fire Department that four drums, which were labelled “poison and toxic,” had been discovered on the Parcel. The drums did not belong to Orchard View. They had been dumped on the Parcel by some person or persons not associated with Orchard View without Orchard View's knowledge, approval or authorization. Catherine Porthouse, an Environmental Specialist II with the Department, promptly responded to the scene (where she met Lieutenant Johnson) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Because the drums were labelled “poison and toxic” and their contents were unknown, Lieutenant Johnson would not allow anyone, including Porthouse, to approach the drums without "Level B" protective clothing and equipment. Porthouse therefore initially viewed the drums from a distance using binoculars. She noted that three of the drums were leaking and that there was stained soil in the area of the drums. She also saw other solid waste materials nearby. Porthouse learned that Orchard View was the owner of the property on which the drums were located. At 12:49 p.m. on June 9, 1997, Porthouse telephoned Lamson and advised him that the drums were on the Parcel and that they needed to be removed by an "emergency response contractor." When informed about the presence of the drums on the Parcel, Lamson was not surprised. He realized (as he testified at hearing) that the area was "a good dumping ground." Lamson told Porthouse that he would ask his son, a general contractor who lived and worked near the Parcel, to remove the drums. Porthouse, however, explained to Lamson that the removal of the drums needed to be done by someone qualified, under state and federal law, to handle and transport hazardous substances. Lamson thereupon asked Porthouse to provide him with a list of "emergency response contractors" qualified to remove the drums. Porthouse gave Lamson her office and cellular phone numbers and asked him to call her back within no more than three hours to update her on his efforts to hire an "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums. Following Porthouse's telephone conversation with Lamson, the Department faxed to Lamson the list of qualified contractors Lamson had requested during the telephone conversation. After speaking with Porthouse, Lamson attempted to telephone his son. Lamson's son was not in, so Lamson left a message on his son's answering machine telling his son about his telephone conversation with Porthouse concerning the abandoned drums on the Parcel. In his message, Lamson asked that his son look into the matter. Neither Lamson, nor his son, made any arrangements for a qualified "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums from the Parcel; nor did either of them contact Porthouse and advise her that such arrangements had been made or would soon be made. Accordingly, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 9, 1997, after having waited over three hours for Lamson to provide her with such information, Porthouse hired Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum), a qualified "emergency response contractor" with whom the Department had a contract, to properly dispose of the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as the stained soil, on the Parcel. Magnum personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene shortly thereafter. By approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. that day (June 9, 1997), Magnum personnel had overpacked, removed from the Parcel and taken to an off-site hazardous waste storage facility the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as a fifth drum which contained the stained soil from the site (which Magnum had excavated). Before it had overpacked the drums and removed them from the Parcel, Magnum had examined and sampled the contents of each drum. The samples that Magnum had collected from the drums were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed the following: drum number 11 contained oil, barium, lead and toluene and had a flashpoint of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 2 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 3 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium and lead, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 4 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of over 200 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 5 contained the soil that had been contaminated by spillage from drum numbers 2, 3 and 4 and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Magnum $6,135.00 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed. In requesting Magnum to perform these services and in paying Magnum $6,135.00 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Magnum was not excessive.2 The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $390.13 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the four drums on the Parcel. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have these abandoned drums properly removed from the Parcel and disposed of was $6,525.13. The Department is requesting that Orchard View reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Orchard View, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $6,525.13 in costs it reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should issue a permit to Broward County authorizing construction of the proposed Cell 14 extension of the Broward County landfill located in the Town of Davie, Florida. Broward County and the Department of Environmental Regulation contend that Broward County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will meet the requirements of the Department's rules and regulations and not cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards. The Town of Davie contends that the proposed facility will not meet the Department's requirements and will result in pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Findings Of Fact Broward County presently operates a landfill known as the Davie Landfill on a tract of land comprising 200 acres within the Town of Davie, Broward County, Florida. The existing sanitary landfill includes 13 cells which cover approximately 20 acres on the northeastern portion of the site. The landfill had an original design elevation of50 feet. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in a separate permitting proceeding, has authorized an increase to the height of the existing landfill to 90 feet. The permit authorizing increasing the height of the existing landfill has been challenged by the Town of Davie and is the subject of a separate proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The site which includes the landfill also has a sludge lagoon and trash landfill located in close proximity to the sanitary landfill. The sludge lagoon was used until sometime in 1981 for disposal of septic tank clean-out, sludges, grease trap waste, and wastewater treatments. The trash landfill was designed primarily for disposal of yard trash. The existing landfill has vertical side slopes of 3.5 to l. In other words, the height of the landfill increases along sides by i foot for every 3.5 feet traveled horizontally. Through this application, Broward County is seeking approval to expand its sanitary landfill by adding a proposed Cell 14. Cell 14 would constitute a Class I landfill since it will receive in excess of 20 tons of solid waste per day. The proposed Cell 14 would be constructed along the existing western face of Cells 1 through 13. It would ultimately be constructed to a height of 90 feet and would be capped with an impervious substance. The western side slope of the proposed cell would also be 3.5 to 1. Cell 14 would cover approximately 11 acres, bringing the total size of the sanitary landfill to just over 30 acres. With Cell 14, the sanitary landfill would continue to operate until approximately 1986. Containing leachate and preventing it from entering surface or ground waters is a most important consideration in determining whether to permit sanitary landfills. Leachate is water that has passed through refuse and been contaminated by the refuse. If significant amounts of leachate from Cell 14 enters into surface and ground waters, violations of the Department's water quality standards would be likely. Several features have been designed into Cell 14 to prevent introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The base of the cell would have a high density polyethylene liner to prevent percolation of Leachate that collects at the bottom of the cell into groundwater. A leachate collection system consisting of pipes and manholes has been devised. As leachate collects at the base of the cell, it will be dumped into tank trucks and carried to nearby wastewater disposal plants where it will be treated. A stormwater collection system has been designed so that initial stormwater runoff will be pumped to the leachate collection system and tested. If significant pollutants are contained in the stormwater runoff, it can continue to be pumped into the leachate collection system and ultimately removed to off-site treatment plants. If there are not significant pollutants in the runoff, runoff will be collected in a swale system and ultimately percolate into groundwater. Water that leaves the site in this manner is not likely to cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards either in surface or ground waters. Numerous technological advances have occurred since Cells 1 through 13 of the Davie Landfill were designed and constructed. These cells have a designed-in leachate collection system. The system presently functions adequately, except that the liners under the earlier cells appear to be breaking down. It is apparent that the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has deteriorated to the extent that all leachate from these cells is not collected in the leachate collection system, but enters the groundwater below the landfill. Leachate from a landfill of this sort and magnitude that enters groundwater is likely to cause pollution in violation of the Department's standards. Leachate is presently entering the groundwater from Cells 1 through 4. The nature of the liner under the remaining original cells is not known. It is thought to be made of asphalt. Many forms of asphalt, obviously including the kind that was used to line Cells 1 through 4, are not capable of containing Leachate for an extended period of time. If the liner breaks down, the leachate collection system under all of the original cells will no longer function, and leachate will enter the groundwater, causing violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. There will not be an impervious liner between the existing cells of the Davie Landfill and the proposed Cell 14. It has been estimated that the cost of such a liner would be prohibitive. There will be limerock placed between the existing cells and the proposed cell; however, limerock is permeable. Some Leachate from Cell 14 will seep into the existing cells. Some of the leachate from the proposed Cell 14 that enters the existing Cells 1 through 4 will find its way into groundwater under the landfill. Leachate that enters the remaining cells will also find its way into groundwater if the liner under these cells breaks down as the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has broken down. If Leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to cause pollution in violation of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. Groundwater in the area of the Davie Landfill flows generally from the northwest to the southeast. Some of the groundwater from the site of the sanitary landfill is likely to find its way into a canal which is located just to the south of the site. this is the C-11 Canal. If leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to ultimately cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards in the C-11 Canal. Except for the fact that the liners under the existing cells of the sanitary landfill are subject to deterioration, the leachate collection system can function appropriately. The leachate collection system for the proposed Cell 14 can also function without allowing introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The leachate collection systems utilize pipes that are presently buried under the existing landfill and will be further buried by the construction of Cell 14. The pipes that are presently being used, and are proposed to be used, are designed to withstand pressure greater than would be imposed on them. Furthermore, they are being placed in such a manner (surrounded by rock and utilizing ball joints) as to reduce the pressure imposed upon them. It is possible that one of the pipes could break and that leachate could thus escape from the Leachate collection system. This possibility is not a likely one, however, given the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation. The fact that the leachate collection system for existing cells of the Davie Landfill would be buried under the proposed Cell 14 does not raise a significant danger that the system will break down. Again, the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation render breakage unlikely. The sludge pit that is located just to the southwest of the sanitary landfill and the trash landfill that is located just to the south of the sanitary landfill offer potentially severe threats to the integrity of ground and surface waters on and off of the site. The sludge pit is a hazardous waste site. The trash landfill is not designed to prevent substances placed on the landfill from percolating into groundwater. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 addition to the sanitary landfill would increase the risk of pollution that the sludge pit and trash landfill present. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 would cause significant additional surface or ground water flows that would increase the risk of material from the sludge pit or the trash landfill from entering surface or ground waters. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that its proposed addition to the Davie Landfill will not result in violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards contained in Chapters 17-3, 17- 4, and 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. While the proposed cell has been designed with appropriate liners and with an appropriate leachate collection system, its location abutting an existing landfill which does not have an adequate liner preventing percolation of leachate into groundwater increases the risk of that occurring. It appears that the only means of preventing or reducing that risk is either to close off the existing cells, or to place a liner between the existing cells and any addition in order to prevent flows of Leachate from new landfill activities into the existing cells.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (agency or DEP) should issue renewal permit No. SO36-26769E to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida (WMI) for the operation of an existing Class I landfill, the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill (GCSL) in Lee County, Florida. In the prehearing stipulation, Petitioners specifically dispute whether WMI has provided reasonable assurances: (1) regarding control of off-site odors emanating from the landfill, (2) that it has an approved closure plan, and (3) that leachate from the landfill will not pollute the air and water.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The applicant, WMI, provides waste management services in the state of Florida. These activities include the hauling, transfer, and recycling of solid waste, as well as the construction and operation of landfills. WMI operates GCSL, the facility that is the subject of the permit application, in Lee County, Florida. WCI is a Delaware limited partnership engaged in the business of developing multiple use communities in Southwest Florida. It owns or holds options to purchase lands adjacent to or near GCSL. WCI is also the developer of a planned unit development known as Gateway, which includes residential and commercial properties in close proximity to the landfill. George Sanders owns, personally or as trustee, lands adjacent to or near GCSL. Lee County is a political subdivision of the state with statutory responsibility to plan for and provide efficient, environmentally acceptable solid waste management. Lee County has contracted with WMI to provide solid waste disposal services to citizens of Lee County at GCSL. DEP is the agency of the state with statutory responsibility to regulate and permit landfills such as GCSL. As stipulated, the Petitioners and Intervenor have standing in this proceeding. The Landfill Facility The GCSL is a Class I landfill located at 11990 State Road 82, East, in Lee County, Florida, east of Interstate I-75. The landfill is in a remote, undeveloped area and has been in operation for over 20 years. The Gateway development is south of the landfill. The GCSL includes three parcels of land that have been used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, each about 40 acres, are unlined Class I landfills that have been closed and no longer receive any solid waste. Neither liners nor leachate collection were required when these parcels were constructed and operated. Parcel 3 is a lined Class I landfill that is approximately 80 acres in size. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 are closed and have received final cover. Approximately 30 acres still are used for the disposal of solid waste. Parcel 3 was constructed in phases. In 1984, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "east hill" and "west hill"--i.e., two separate disposal areas in Parcel 3 where solid waste was placed above grade. In 1989, the Department issued a permit authorizing the construction of the "valley fill"--i.e., a disposal area where solid waste was used to fill in the valley between the east hill and the west hill. Parcel 3 now consists of a single mound of solid waste. As each phase of Parcel 3 was developed, liners and leachate collection systems were installed in Parcel 3 before the commencement of solid waste disposal operations. The liners and leachate collection systems met or exceeded all of the applicable regulatory requirements that were in effect at the time when the waste disposal areas were permitted. Parcel 3 is a well-designed, well-constructed, and well-operated landfill. William Krumbholz is in charge of landfill compliance and enforcement at DEP's district in Ft. Myers. He reports that the GCSL has an "exceptional operation record," and the GCSL is the "best operated Class I landfill" in the district. The GCSL currently is subject to a DEP operation permit (DEP file number S036-180572), as modified. On March 21, 1995, WMI filed an application for a renewal of its operation permit. On or about September 25, 1996, DEP issued its notice of intent to issue the permit to WMI. If issued, the permit would allow WMI to operate the GCSL for an additional five years. See Rule 62-701.330(2), Florida Administrative Code. The landfill is not yet at design capacity and is not expected to reach that capacity during the next five years. WMI desires to renew the operation permit for the GCSL because WMI wishes to continue to provide solid waste management services to Lee County, consistent with WMI's contractual agreement to do so. WMI also wishes to continue operating the GCSL in order to construct Parcel 3 to its final design grades for closure. The design grades will maximize the site's ability to shed stormwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Continuing to build Parcel 3 to its design grades is environmentally preferable to closing Parcel 3 at this time in its present configuration. Prior to 1994, the GCSL received approximately 1000 tons of municipal solid waste each day. Approximately 90 per cent of the solid waste was household garbage and about 10 per cent was construction and demolition (C&D) debris. The GCSL did not receive industrial waste. The composition of the waste stream changed in August 1994, when Lee County began to operate a waste-to-energy facility. All of the household garbage generated in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Lee County is taken to the Lee County waste-to-energy facility, where it is burned, and the ash residue is taken to the GCSL. Currently, the GCSL receives only about 450 tons per day of solid waste, which consists of 65-70 per cent ash residue from the waste-to-energy facility, 30-35 per cent C&D debris, and approximately 2-5 per cent municipal solid waste. DEP would allow WMI to accept more solid waste at the GCSL. However, Lee County has the contractual right with WMI to dictate the types of materials deposited in the GCSL, and it is the county's intent to use the waste-to-energy facility, not the GCSL, for the disposal of putrescible wastes. Lee County is contractually obligated to send all of the county's municipal solid waste to the county's waste-to-energy facility, and the county has a financial incentive to do so. Lee County will send municipal solid waste to the GCSL only if an emergency occurs, but even then the county will try to limit the duration and extent of the County's use of the GCSL. Objectionable Odors Objectionable odors at a landfill typically are related to the facility's operating practices (e.g., the size of the working face) and the presence of putrescible, organic materials that degrade and produce gases when they come in contact with water. In this case, the GCSL's operating practices minimize odors. The majority of the waste now received at the GCSL is ash residue, which contains little or no organic material and thus produces little or no odor. In addition, because the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill," any putrescible waste is not likely to degrade and cause odors. There have been no violations of the DEP odor rules at the GCSL since 1991 and only two instances, in 1987 and 1991, when off-site odors were verified by DEP's inspector. WCI filed odor complaints in 1995, but the complaints were investigated by DEP and the county and found to be invalid. Petitioners presented no evidence of present or anticipated future odor problems at the GCSL. To the contrary, the DEP inspectors and other witnesses established that there are no objectionable odors at the property boundary of the GCSL. WMI's Approved Closure Plan WMI has a closure plan for the GCSL that was approved by DEP when DEP issued the existing operation permit. In the current application WMI asked DEP for authorization to close the remaining portions of Parcel 3 in the same manner that WMI used when closing the other areas at the GCSL. If WMI's request is not granted, WMI may be required to close Parcel 3 with a geomembrane cover or "cap," in accordance with DEP's new requirements for final closure plans. Although DEP's landfill engineer recommends approval of WMI's request for authorization to use an alternate cover material, no proposed agency action has been taken on that request, and DEP will provide notice and a new point of entry for affected persons when the agency decides whether to grant WMI's request. It is, therefore, inappropriate to address the merits of WMI's "alternate procedure" request in this hearing. As provided in Rule 62-701.310(3), Florida Administrative Code, the agency's decision is action subject to a separate Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, proceeding. WMI's closure plan for the GCSL has little significance in this proceeding. The closure plan is used to calculate the cost of closure, which in turn is used to determine whether WMI has the financial resources to pay the cost of closing the landfill. As part of its approved closure plan, WMI previously demonstrated that it has the financial ability to pay the cost of closing the landfill. WMI could be required to spend an additional $1,000,000 to close the GCSL if WMI's request for approval of the alternate procedure is denied by DEP, but it is undisputed that WMI has the ability to pay this additional cost for closure. WMI must submit a revised closure plan at the time when WMI is prepared to close Parcel 3. DEP then will determine again whether the closure plan for Parcel 3 is adequate and in compliance with the DEP standards in effect at the time. (See paragraphs 38-42, "Specific Conditions," appended to the Intent to Issue, WMI Exhibit 4) Leachate Generation Rate at the GCSL While evaluating WMI's request for approval of an alternate closure plan, DEP noted that the amount of leachate collected in Parcel 3 (i.e., approximately 900,000 gallons per year) is relatively low when compared to the amount of leachate generated at other landfills. DEP was concerned that the low leachate collection rate may indicate a problem in the leachate collection system, so DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate at the GCSL in more detail. WMI subsequently presented additional information to DEP. Leachate is defined by DEP as the liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste. Rule 62-701.200(50), Florida Administrative Code. Leachate is generated when rainwater falls on the landfill, sinks in, and percolates through the garbage. One of the primary factors reducing leachate at the GCSL is the use of ash as cover material. The ash, which contains lime, undergoes a reaction and "sets up like mortar." It is extremely hard, cannot be penetrated easily, and has a very low permeability. The permeability of the ash is in the same range as the permeability of the barrier layer that is used in a final cover material. The ash "sets up so well" that the surface water runoff is much greater than with a normal cover material. There is an additional, significant reason why Parcel 3 of the GCSL has a low leachate generation rate. Approximately 50 acres of Parcel 3 already have been closed with a final cover which is designed to shed rainwater and thus minimize the production of leachate. Since most or all of the remaining 30 acres of Parcel 3 have been covered with ash, virtually all of Parcel 3 is covered with low permeability materials that minimize leachate generation. Leachate in Parcel 3 also is minimized because WMI employs good operational practices to limit its generation. WMI uses a small working face and stormwater berms to reduce the size of the area where rainwater may infiltrate. WMI maintains aggressively graded slopes that quickly direct stormwater away from the working face and off of the landfill. WMI's "close-as- you-go" strategy means that the waste at the GCSL is covered before it becomes saturated with rainwater. Specific conditions in the Intent to Issue require that these practices continue. After DEP requested WMI to evaluate the leachate generation rate in Parcel 3, WMI hired a firm to clean the inside of all of the pipes in the leachate collection system in Parcel A television video camera was used to visually inspect the inside of all of the pipes. This work confirmed that "at least 99.9 per cent" of the leachate collection pipes are clean and functional. WMI promptly repaired the leachate collection pipes in two small areas where there was blockage due to a crushed riser and a valve that was left closed. It is highly unlikely that leachate is mounding up inside the landfill or overtopping the perimeter berm that surrounds Parcel 3. The leachate levels inside Parcel 3 generally are and historically have been less than two feet. The leachate levels at the GCSL do not threaten the liner's integrity. The pipes are working, and no seepage has been observed through the side slopes. WMI verified that the liner and leachate collection systems in Parcel 3 were constructed properly and in accordance with the DEP-approved design. Construction Quality Assurance reports were prepared by professional engineers when the liner systems were installed in Parcel 3. In these reports, the engineers certified that each section of the liner was installed, inspected, and tested appropriately to ensure that there are no holes in the liner. Where necessary due to failed tests, the reports reflect that repairs were made before any waste was deposited. The HELP Model In response to DEP's questions about the leachate generation rate at the GCSL, WMI's staff attempted to calculate the rate by using a computer program referred to as the HELP model. WMI initially ran the model with default input values which produced a predicted rate of 7.5 million gallons per year (MGY). WMI questioned the validity of the model results, but submitted the results to DEP because it was the best data then available. Given the discrepancy between the model results and the actual field data, WMI hired a nationally recognized consulting firm, Post, Buckley, Shuh, and Jernigan (Post Buckley), to perform a more refined analysis using the HELP model. The HELP model is used to calculate water balances at landfills. The model calculates the amount of water that will move across, into, and through landfills under different conditions. The model is a useful tool for comparing the performance of two alternate landfill designs, but it has limited value when used to predict the actual performance of an operating landfill. The model can be run with default values or with site- specific information. However, the model is designed to be conservative and overpredict the actual leachate generated. In its application of the model, Post Buckley adjusted several input parameters to reflect the actual conditions at the GCSL. Most significantly, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameters for the moisture content of the waste in the GCSL and for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Curve Number. These adjustments were "reasonable and well-considered." The HELP model assumes that the solid waste in the landfill is at field capacity--i.e., saturated with rainwater. However, it is well established that the solid waste in landfills is not saturated. At the GCSL, the ash cover material and WMI's "close-as-you-go" practices would reduce the likelihood that the waste would be saturated. Indeed, Post Buckley's on-site inspections revealed that the GCSL is a "particularly dry landfill." The users' manual for the HELP model indicates that the Curve Number should be adjusted in certain cases to account for increased stormwater runoff that will occur during short duration, high intensity storms. The default value is used in areas where the rainfall occurs over a 24-hour period. In this case, Post Buckley concluded that the SCS Curve Number should be adjusted because the GCSL receives about 54 inches of rainfall annually during approximately 90 short duration, high intensity storms. Accordingly, Post Buckley adjusted the model's input parameters to increase runoff by 23 per cent of precipitation. Post Buckley's adjustment to the Curve Number and runoff value is consistent with the findings contained in a report by Benson and Pliska, which in the opinion of WMI's expert is the best study performed to-date on the calibration of the HELP model and which is similar or equivalent to the Peyton and Shroeder calibration relied on by Petitioner's expert. Post Buckley ran the HELP model with three different sets of conditions. In one run, Post Buckley adjusted the input parameter for the moisture content of the waste and calculated an leachate generation rate of 100,000 gallons per year. In the second run, Post Buckley adjusted the Curve Number and calculated a rate of 1.3 MGY. In the third run, Post Buckley adjusted both the Curve Number and the moisture content and calculated a rate of zero gallons per year. Given Post Buckley's landfill experience and its knowledge about the operational practices at the GCSL, the ash used as cover material, the climatological conditions in southwest Florida, and the limitations of the HELP model, Post Buckley concluded that 1.3 MGY is a reasonable estimate or approximation of the actual leachate generation rule for Parcel 3 of the GCSL. The leachate generation rate for the GCSL also has been evaluated by other witnesses. Mr. Joe Fluet calculated that approximately 960,000 gallons to 1,030,000 gallons of leachate are generated annually in Parcel 3. Mr. Fluet is a nationally recognized landfill expert who was selected by DEP to serve as the chairman of a technical advisory group that helped DEP develop the current DEP landfill rules. Mr. Fluet's conclusion is consistent with the leachate collection data for the GCSL, the Post Buckley analysis, the measurements of leachate in the sumps at the landfill, and his own personal observations of the landfill and WMI's operational practices. It is unlikely that leachate generation in Parcel 3 is as high as 2.0 MGY. This rate would produce about three feet of leachate on the liner. WMI's field data show that the "head" (depth) of leachate over the liner in Parcel 3 generally is less than two feet. By comparison, Post Buckley's estimated rate of 1.3 MGY would produce about 1.8 to 2.5 feet of leachate over the liner, which is more consistent with WMI's field data. Petitioners also attempted to calculate leachate generation for Parcel 3 by running the HELP model. Using default values, Petitioners calculated a rate of approximately 7 MGY. Petitioners also ran the model after adjusting several input parameters. Among other things, Petitioners decreased the slope from 20 per cent to 4 per cent, and Petitioners increased runoff by 30 per cent, as compared to the default value. With these adjustments, Petitioners calculated a rate of 4.2 MGY. The various experts' calculations with the HELP model produced leachate generation rates of 0 to 7.5 MGY. The magnitude of the range reflects the limitations of the model and underscores the need for sound professional judgment when adjusting the input parameters. In this case, the most persuasive and credible testimony was presented by Mr. Bonaparte, a recognized landfill expert who is assisting EPA with its efforts to calibrate the HELP model, and Mr. Fluet. Consistent with their testimony, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the leachate generation rate for Parcel 3 of the GCSL is most likely to range between 960,000 gallons and 1.3 MGY. The Petitioners' calculated range of 4.2 to 7.0 MGY is not credible. Even the low end of Petitioners' range is more than twice as much (2.0 MGY) estimated by any other witness. In addition, Petitioners' entire range of calculated leachate generation rates is inconsistent with the other evidence of record, as described below. Petitioners' leachate generation calculations were prepared by Marcus Pugh, who has not visited the GCSL nor performed any site specific field work concerning the GCSL. Mr. Pugh had never used the HELP model before to predict the generation rate of an operating landfill, but rather has used it as others commonly do, to size and design facilities. Although Mr. Pugh initially criticized Post Buckley's calculation of the slopes at the GCSL, he subsequently conceded that the HELP model results obtained by Post Buckley are independent of slopes. Missing Leachate? Based on their HELP model calculations that Parcel 3 actually is generating 4.2 to 7.0 MGY of leachate and since WMI is collecting 900,000 gallons per year, Petitioners speculate that there is "unaccounted for" or "missing" leachate (i.e., 3.3 to 6.1 MGY), which must be leaking through the GCSL's liner or seeping out of the sides of the GCSL, or both. Petitioners' allegations, however, are not supported by the evidence of record, which favors a finding that the facility is simply not generating the vast amounts of leachate predicted by Petitioners. The liner and leachate collection systems under Parcel 3 were "state-of-the-art" and in full compliance with all of the applicable DEP rules at the time of their installation. These systems were installed properly, in accordance with standard quality assurance procedures, as certified by a professional engineer. Mr. Bill Krumbholz, the DEP inspector, personally witnessed the installation of portions of the liner. Mr. Fluet also was personally involved with the certification for the landfill. Even the Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he had no concerns about or disagreements with the certifications for Parcel 3. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the liner or leachate collection systems were damaged at the time when they were installed. Petitioners theorize that the liner in the GCSL may have been damaged after it was installed, but Mr. Pugh readily admits that this contention is based on "pure speculation" based on the notion that a minimum wage laborer on heavy equipment might damage the liner. Petitioners presented no direct or credible evidence to support their contention. After the completion of construction and the commencement of operations large scale breaches of a landfill liner are not a common or even occasional occurrence. As part of its standard management practices, WMI places a four-to six-foot thick "fluff" layer of select household garbage over any new landfill liner system. The fluff layer is used to protect the liner and ensure that the liner is not accidentally damaged. This WMI policy was followed when the liners were installed in Parcel 3 of the GCSL. As a result, there is no reason to believe that the liner in Parcel 3 was damaged after installation. There is no circumstantial evidence to support Petitioners' claims. Since 1976, WMI has monitored the water quality at the GCSL in accordance with a DEP-approved ground water monitoring plan, which is designed to detect any significant leakage from the landfill. No groundwater quality violations have been recorded at the GCSL. However, if one were to assume that Petitioners' theory is correct, then one also would have to assume that over the last five years approximately 16.5 to 30.5 million gallons of leachate have leaked through the liner in Parcel 3 and entered the adjacent groundwater, but somehow have evaded detection in the monitoring wells. Respondents' witness Mr. Fluet calculated that a maximum of 56,000 gallons per year of leachate might possibly leak through the liner system in Parcel 3. His calculation conservatively assumed that there may be as many as ten 0.1 cm2 holes in each acre of the liner in Parcel 3. Petitioners have offered no credible theory that would produce a leakage rate of several million gallons per year. To create a leakage rate of even one million gallons per year, there would have to be at least ten and perhaps dozens of large holes in the liner. Each of the holes would need to be 10-feet long and several inches wide. However, large holes or breaches in a liner system normally are identified and repaired during the installation and quality assurance process. There is no evidence of poor quality assurance or poor operational practices at the GCSL to support Petitioners' speculation. WMI witness, Rudolph Bonaparte, has never encountered a situation where there was evidence of the kinds of "major flaws" that would be necessary to generate the leakage rates hypothesized by Petitioners. Mr. Fluet also was unable to identify any plausible scenario that would support Petitioners' theory. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Pugh, conceded that he has never worked on a lined landfill where 4-to 7-MGY of leachate leaked through the liner. Petitioners questioned whether settlement would affect the liner or leachate collection systems in Parcel 3. Since ash is denser than MSW, the disposal of ash in the GCSL may affect the settlement of the subsurface soils to some extent, but there will be no shearing or failure of the liner due to any differential settlement. The amount of differential settlement that may occur would be extremely small. Settlement could create a 1000 gallon "puddle" of leachate in the valley fill portion of Parcel 3, or the slope in some portions of the leachate collection system may flatten, but these are relatively minor impacts. Conversely, increased settlement in the base of Parcel 3 would help improve the overall drainage of the east hill and the west hill areas. Petitioners contend that the "unaccounted for" leachate may be escaping from the GCSL through side slope seepage, but this theory is not supported by any direct or credible evidence. It was undisputed that any significant amount of side slope seepage from a landfill is readily apparent. Leachate seeps typically "look ugly and smell bad." When seeps occur, the soil is discolored, the vegetation is killed, and there is sheering, gullying, rilling, and other signs of erosion. There has been no side slope seepage from Parcel 3, as established by numerous site visits and personal observations of the DEP staff, county representatives, and other witnesses. Petitioners' witnesses have not observed any side slope seepage at the GCSL. Although Petitioners noted that there are discolored areas on Parcel 3, those are the areas where WMI recently excavated into the sides of the GCSL to complete the repairs to the leachate collection system. The leachate would have to mound up inside the landfill before there would be the amount of seepage predicted by Petitioners. This mounding would create tremendous head pressure in the cleanout pipes. However, no such pressure has been found in the cleanout pipes at the GCSL. Petitioners suggest that leachate may be seeping from the toe of Parcel 3 into the drainage ditch that leads to the stormwater retention pond. Again, the evidence does not support this hypothesis. The liner in Parcel 3 goes over the top of a berm which is built completely around the perimeter of Parcel 3. The berm and the liner rise 3 feet above the base of the leachate collection system. Leachate could not seep from the toe of Parcel 3 unless the leachate level rose above the functioning leachate collection pipes, avoided being drained away by the leachate collection system, and then flowed uphill over the berm. Even if the leachate went up and over the berm, the leachate would enter the ditch from the top of the berm, where it would be readily visible to site inspectors as side slope seepage. No such seepage has been observed at the GCSL, even when people were looking for it. Ground Water Monitoring at GCSL There are three aquifers underlying the GCSL: (a) the surficial water table aquifer; (b) a sandstone aquifer; and (c) the Hawthorne formation. Each of the aquifers is separated by a low-permeability, confining layer of varying thickness. The confining layer below the surficial water table aquifer is between 40 and 80 feet in thickness. Based on field data and reports of other scientists, including Petitioner's expert, Thomas Missimer, hydrogeologist Martin Sara derived a vertical flow rate of approximately 0.1 feet per year. At this rate, ground water would take approximately 40 to 50 years to move vertically downward through the confining layer. Petitioners contend that the GCSL is affecting the surficial water table aquifer. The surficial water table aquifer contains fresh water and is used extensively as a source of potable water in Lee County, but not in the area of the GCSL. Ground water samples collected from the surficial water table aquifer on Petitioners' property had average total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of approximately 500 mg/l. Similar TDS values have been reported for the surficial water table aquifer in the area surrounding the GCSL. In general, the regional groundwater flow in the vicinity of the GCSL is to the northwest. There is a northwesterly flow from WCI's property onto the GCSL that is consistent year after year and during all seasons. Extensive historical monitoring data for the site confirm that the ground- water flow under the GCSL also primarily is to the northwest, but with some likely localized flow to the west, at least during special events such as landfill dewatering in 1982. The only significant exception to this trend occurs in the area of the stormwater retention pond, where the groundwater usually flows radially outward in all directions. Groundwater monitoring began at the GCSL in 1976, when the facility opened. The groundwater monitoring system at the GCSL has complied with or exceeded the DEP requirements at all times since 1976. Currently there are seven groundwater monitoring wells, each approximately 30-feet deep, in the surficial water table aquifer at the GCSL. These wells surround the perimeter of the GCSL. At the final hearing, Lee County attempted to address concerns about the groundwater monitoring program for the GCSL by agreeing to pay for the redevelopment and installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells. Lee County and WMI stipulated that two existing groundwater monitoring wells (wells 14-S and 18-S) will be redeveloped and a new ground water monitoring well will be installed in the surficial aquifer between existing wells 20-S and 21-S. The two redeveloped wells and the new well will be sampled on a semiannual basis for chloride and the field parameters of pH, specific conductivity, field turbidity, and temperature for the life of the permit. The monitoring may be discontinued if the GCSL closes. The monitoring well network at the GCSL is adequate to monitor the type of area-wide plume that might originate from the GCSL. The evidence demonstrates that any holes in the liner in Parcel 3 are likely to be small and spread widely across the entire site. Although the plume from a single hole may be narrow and elongated, the plume from the entire landfill would be approximately 2400-feet wide. Under most if not all plausible scenarios, leachate leaking out of the liner beneath Parcel 3 will move with the regional groundwater flow toward the monitoring wells located along the western and northern perimeters of Parcel 3. Potential leakage from Parcel 3 will be pushed toward these monitoring wells by the regional groundwater flow and the radial flow from the retention pond. DEP has concluded and the evidence confirms that WMI's groundwater monitoring plan, as modified by Lee County's stipulation, is protective of the environment and satisfies all applicable DEP requirements. Under the facts of this case, it is not necessary to add any additional monitoring wells or otherwise modify the groundwater monitoring plan, except as stipulated by Lee County. It was undisputed that the leachate generated at the GCSL is and always has been "very weak" in comparison to the leachate from other landfills. The leachate contains relatively few contaminants and has low contaminant concentrations. The GCSL's leachate has few volatile or hazardous constituents. It also was undisputed that there have been no violations of DEP groundwater standards detected in any of the groundwater monitoring wells at the GCSL. There have been one- time exceedances or anomalies, but such events do not constitute a violation of the DEP standards. Chloride In the Ground Water Chloride is present in the GCSL's leachate. Over the last ten years, the average chloride concentration in the leachate has been 1021 parts per million (ppm), and the highest concentration has been 2070 ppm. The Department has no primary (i.e., health-based) groundwater quality standard for chloride. The only groundwater quality standard for chloride is a secondary standard of 250 ppm. Secondary standards are intended to address concerns about odor, taste, and aesthetics. If chloride concentrations become too high in drinking water, people simply stop drinking the water before there are any health implications, because the water is too salty. WMI evaluated Petitioners' claim that chloride leaking from Parcel 3 may affect the water quality on Petitioners' property. First, WMI performed a mass balance calculation and concluded that the maximum rate of leakage from Parcel 3 would increase the chloride concentrations beneath the landfill by only 7 to 14 ppm. WMI then used a dispersion model and determined that the maximum leakage rate would increase the chloride concentrations in the groundwater only 3.5 ppm at a distance of 100 feet from the landfill. This increase in chloride could not be distinguished from the existing background concentrations in the groundwater. WMI also analyzed the groundwater data to determine whether the GCSL is causing an increase in the chloride concentration measured in monitoring well 21-S. WMI plotted the data on trilinear diagrams, consistent with techniques that have been commonly used by hydrogeologists for many years. The trilinear diagrams clearly show that the increased levels of chloride in monitoring well 21-S are not caused by the leachate from the GCSL. The trilinear diagrams do not identify the source of the chloride found in monitoring well 21-S. However, it appears that the chloride originated from a source of "brackish" water. There are several potential sources of the chloride in well 21-S. In the past, there was an irrigation well on WCI's property that pumped water with high chloride concentrations and created a large plume of chloride-enriched groundwater on WCI's property. Historic groundwater monitoring data indicate that the chloride plume was approximately 6000-feet wide and flowing towards the GCSL. This large plume may have reached the GCSL and affected the water quality in well 21-S. There also were irrigation wells located on the site of the GCSL that may have contributed to the chloride concentrations in well 21-S. Historic water quality data indicate that these irrigation wells produced elevated chloride concentrations in the groundwater at the GCSL. Petitioners' Stormwater Data On May 12, 1997, Petitioners collected samples of the water in the stormwater retention pond at the GCSL. Petitioners also collected a sample of the water in a concrete culvert that carries stormwater runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. The samples were collected during a severe rainstorm when it was "raining cats and dogs." Based on these samples, Petitioners speculate that the "unaccounted for" leachate is entering the stormwater retention pond via a perimeter drainage ditch and the concrete culvert. This speculation is not supported by the evidence. Leachate generated in the GCSL has an ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the range of 700 to 800 ppm. The stormwater collected from the culvert pipe had an ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 1.7 ppm. The disparity between these two values belies the possibility that the stormwater in the ditch contains leachate from the GCSL. Although Petitioners contend that ammonia-nitrogen in the leachate could be oxidized while flowing in the ditch, it would be virtually impossible for the oxidation of stormwater in the ditch to reduce ammonia-nitrogen levels from 700 or 800 to 1.7 ppm. WMI's extensive experience with leachate has demonstrated that it is "very difficult" to treat and reduce the ammonia-nitrogen levels in the leachate through volatization and aeration. The water collected by Petitioners in the culvert had a chloride concentration of 2900 ppm, which significantly exceeds the highest chloride level ever found in the GCSL's leachate (2070 ppm). The pH in Petitioners' sample (8.87) also was notably higher than the pH found in the landfill's leachate (e.g., 7.20 in WCI Exhibit 14). The disparity between the values found in Petitioners' sample and the values found in the landfill's leachate suggests that the Petitioners' sample is not representative of leachate from Parcel 3. Stormwater flowing over the ash residue on the top of Parcel 3 is the most probable source of the elevated chloride and high pH found in Petitioners' sample. The ash at the GCSL has elevated chloride concentrations. It also has high pH, due to the addition of lime at the waste-to-energy facility. Both WMI's witness, Mr. DeBattista, and Petitioner's witness, Dr. Missimer, saw stormwater washing over the ash and entering the stormwater conveyance system that led to the culvert where Petitioners' sample was collected while Petitioners were at the GCSL collecting samples. Petitioners noted that the water in the stormwater ditch was discolored. However, Petitioners' photograph of the site (WCI Ex. 10) reveals that the water in the ditch is the same color as the mulch (compost) that is stockpiled on Parcel 3 and used for intermediate cover. During Petitioners' site visit, stormwater was flowing over the mulch on Parcel 3 before entering the stormwater ditch. Dr. Missimer conceded that the color of the water in the ditch could be caused in part by the mulch and stormwater runoff. Dr. Missimer raised a number of other issues about the GCSL. He claimed that the sediments in the stormwater retention pond have elevated metals concentrations, but he does not contend that the metals concentrations in the sediments violate any applicable DEP standard. He also does not contend that the metals are leaving the site. Dr. Missimer noted that there was "foam" in a stormwater ditch. However, Petitioners presented no competent evidence about the source of the foam or its chemical composition. Finally, Dr. Missimer heard gas escaping from a cleanout pipe at a different location on the landfill, but there were no odors associated with it. There is no evidence to demonstrate that gas in the riser pipes is a cause for concern. In response to Petitioners' chloride data, WMI is taking steps to manage its stormwater better. WMI has placed intermediate cover over 10 acres of exposed ash, thus reducing the potential for the rainwater to come in contact with the ash and convey chloride into the stormwater management system. WMI also is determining whether it should remove a culvert that served as a conduit for the runoff from Parcel 3 to the retention pond. It was undisputed that the GCSL is an "existing installation," as that term is defined by DEP. Parcels 1 and 2 of the GCSL were unlined and were reasonably expected to release contaminants into the ground water on or before July 1, 1982. The GCSL has operated consistently with the applicable DEP statutes and rules relating to groundwater discharges in effect during the time of its operation. Since the GCSL is an existing installation, WMI is entitled to a zone of discharge that extends to WMI's property boundary. The groundwater within the zone of discharge is not required to meet the DEP water quality standards. Modifications to Conditions of Draft Permit and Summary of Findings In addition to the modification to the ground water monitoring plan described in paragraph 59 above, WMI has requested and DEP has agreed to make minor changes to the language in Specific Conditions 10, 19, 32, 38, and 45(e) of the draft permit. These changes relate respectively to gas monitoring, daily cover, acceptance of C & D debris, data to support the alternate procedure request for final cover, and the zone of discharge. These modifications are reasonable, supported by the evidence, and consistent with DEP rules. Moreover, WMI has provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all applicable DEP rules for continued operation of the GCSL. As amply demonstrated in this proceeding, highly competent professionals can disagree. Petitioners' witness Dr. Missimer, has had years of experience in studying the hydrogeology of Lee County and the area of the landfill and Gateway. His data collected during the development of Regional Impact Studies for Gateway have been relied on by DEP and others. His conclusions, however, regarding enormous amounts of leachate escaping the landfill are simply not supported by the results of years of monitoring the landfill's operations. With continued monitoring, the applicant should be permitted to continue to operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order approving Waste Management, Inc., of Florida's application for a permit renewal to continue to operate the Gulf Coast Sanitary Landfill, subject to the parties' stipulation regarding additional groundwater monitoring wells and subject to the revisions to the draft permit that are described herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire Michael P. Petrovich, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese Garner Haverfield Dalton Harrison & Jensen Post Office Box 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1507 David S. Dee, Esquire John T. LaVia, III, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David M. Owen, Esquire Lee County Assistant Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondents, Enos Kerr and Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., are guilty of the violations alleged in, should take the corrective actions described in, and should pay the penalties assessed in the Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment, DEP OGC File No. 06-2382-37-HW (the NOV).
Findings Of Fact Enos Kerr is the President and manager and an owner of Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., a dry-cleaning business located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Respondents have been in business for approximately twenty-five years. For approximately ten years, Custom Care has used Vista LPA-142 as a dry-cleaning solvent. Custom Care uses a spotting agent known as "Picrin" for removal of difficult stains. Vista LPA-142 is also known as paraffinic, napthenic solvent, and aliphatic solvent. It contains 100 percent paraffinic or napthenic solvent. It looks like water but is a white oily liquid that has the odor of hydrocarbon and is a kind of "mineral spirits." "Picrin" contains more than 98 percent chlorinated hydrocarbon. It is listed at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 372.65 and exceeds the de minimis concentration defined in 40 CFR § 372.38. On August 18, 2006, John Johnson, a DEP Environmental Specialist, inspected the premises of Custom Care. He found two partially full 55-gallon steel drums of Vista LPA-142 outside of secondary containment, which contained a 110-gallon storage tank and Custom Care's Midwest dry-cleaning machine (which has a base tank that stores used Vista LPA-142 which has passed through a Filter King purification system for reuse in the dry-cleaning machine). He testified that, not only did Mr. Kerr tell him the drums were full or partially full, they were heavy enough from being full or partially full that Mr. Johnson could not move them easily. On August 18, 2006, Mr. Johnson also observed, hanging on the outside of the wall of the secondary containment area, above the 55-gallon drums, some of the clear plastic tubing, a pump, and a PVC pipe extending from the end of the tubing, which were used to transfer Vista LPA-142 from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon storage tanks. The floor beneath the transfer equipment and the 55-gallon drums was not sealed or otherwise treated to render it impervious. In another part of the premises on that date, also outside secondary containment, was a Forenta spotting board used for removal of difficult stains from fabric before placement in the dry-cleaning machine. Various chemicals, including a plastic bottle containing "Picrin," were in a box or tray attached to the spotting board. Beneath the spotting board was an open plastic waste basket used to collect and contain spotting agent suctioned from the item of clothing being cleaned and funneled to the basket. The floor under the spotting board was not sealed. Custom Care's Filter King purification system uses cloth filters. Periodically, Custom Care replaces the filters containing lint from the dry-cleaning process. The old filters are allowed to air-dry in the secondary containment area before disposal in the municipal solid waste dumpster outside the premises. At the end of Custom Care's dry-cleaning process, the dry-cleaned clothes are wrung out during a mechanical spinning cycle and then manually transferred while still damp or somewhat wet to a Huebsch dryer, which is outside secondary containment and on a floor that was not sealed on August 18, 2006. Air- drying is the last step in the process. DEP did not have the filters and lint analyzed to prove that they were contaminated with Picrin or any other hazardous substance. Instead, DEP assumed that there was some contamination, however small, and relied on the federal "mixture" rule that even the smallest amount of hazardous waste contamination turns previously unregulated solid waste into regulated hazardous waste. Count I - Secondary Containment Respondents' factual defenses to Count I, for not having the Vista LPA-142 in secondary containment on August 18, 2006, are: (1) secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent"; and (2) if secondary containment was required, all of the Vista LPA-142 was in secondary containment because the 55-gallon drums and transfer equipment were empty. In support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent because an analysis of a sample from the base tank that collects used Vista LPA-142 after use and filtration for reuse in the dry- cleaning machine indicates the presence of 0.34 percent water. However, the presence of that small amount of water in the sample did not prove that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent. Custom Care also contends that Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent" because Custom Care buys it from Phenix Supply Company, which not only sells product to dry-cleaners but also sells to other businesses for other uses, making Phenix Supply something other than a "wholesale supply facility." This contention is rejected. See Conclusion 33, infra. Also in support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents pointed to information received from the producer of Vista LPA-142 that it was biodegradable to carbon dioxide and water. However, biodegradation would occur only in the presence of water and naturally-occurring microorganisms and aerobic conditions. Such biodegradation does not mean that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum- based, dry-cleaning solvent. Respondents also believed Vista LPA-142 was not a petroleum-based dry-cleaning solvent because it has a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit. But there was no evidence to prove that having a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit means that the Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum-based, dry-cleaning solvent. In support of their second defense to Count I, Mr. Kerr denies telling Mr. Johnson the 55-gallon drums were full or partially full and maintains that the presence of a bung wrench on one of the drums was a fail-safe sign that both were empty (and, essentially, proved that Mr. Johnson was lying). Supposedly, according to Respondents, the Vista LPA-142 always is transferred immediately upon delivery from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon tank and, sometimes, also into the base tank, and that the bung wrench is placed on one of the empty drums as a signal to the supplier that the drums are empty and ready to be removed when the supplier returns in two weeks to check on the drums to see if they are empty and ready to be picked up. This explanation is not logical. To the contrary, the use of the bung-wrench signal tends to prove the opposite--i.e., that the drums were not empty. If the Vista LPA-142 always is immediately transferred in its entirety, there would be need for a bung- wrench signal. Indeed, the Vista LPA-142 could be immediately transferred by the supplier (or by the Respondents while the supplier was still on the premises). In addition, Mr. Kerr conceded that there have been many other occasions when the 55- gallon drums were not completely transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank immediately upon delivery. There also have been occasions when three 55-gallon drums have been delivered by the supplier, all of which would not fit into the 110-gallon reserve tank and the base tank. In addition, during an enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, to discuss a draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report, while noting other issues with findings in the report, Mr. Kerr did not take issue with findings concerning the 55- gallon drums. Also in support of their second defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that the transfer equipment is emptied of all Vista LPA-142 before it is re-hung on the wall. This can indeed be accomplished by quickly extracting the PVC extension from the drum, reversing its orientation by 180 degrees so that it point toward the ceiling, and continuing to run the pump until the tubing is empty. In any event, while stains on the concrete floor under where the PVC pipe is hung on the wall may be from Vista LPA-142, which would suggest that the procedure is not always followed to perfection, the NOV did not cite Respondents having the transfer equipment outside of secondary containment. Count II - Unsealed Flooring Respondents' factual defense to Count II, for not having the flooring sealed between the secondary containment area where the dry-cleaning machine was and where the Huebsch dryer was, or where the 55-gallon drums were, is that secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry- cleaning solvent." Factually, that defense already has been addressed in Findings 11-14, supra. Count III - Disposal of Solid Waste Respondents' factual defenses to Count III, for unpermitted and unauthorized disposal of solid waste (i.e., the filters and lint) on August 18, 2006, are: (1) that disposal of the filters and lint in the municipal solid waste dumpster is permitted and authorized because they are not hazardous waste; and (2) that, if they were hazardous waste, they were hazardous due to contamination with Picrin, not with tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc," as alleged in the NOV. In support of their first defense to Count III, Respondents contend that all Picrin used in spot removal would be suctioned out of the item of clothing and collected in the container below the spotting board, or would be evaporated by the steam used in the spot removal process. Indeed, Picrin's boiling point is 165 degrees Fahrenheit, which is lower than the temperature of steam. Respondents contend, as proof of their first defense, that if any trace of Picrin remained on clothing after spot removal, it would be diluted in the Vista LPA-142 used in the dry-cleaning process and then returned to the base tank for reuse after the clothes are wrung out, but that a laboratory analysis of a sample of from the base tank did not indicate the presence of anything but water. However, actually the analysis was only performed to detect the presence of water; the sample was not analyzed for the presence of Picrin, or any of its breakdown products, or anything other than water. There may be traces of Picrin in the contents of the dry-cleaning machine's reservoir. Besides, even if there is no Picrin in the dry-cleaning machine's base tank, that evidence would not preclude the possibility that Picrin is filtered out by the Filter King purification process and is present in the filters and lint. Regardless, while the first defense to Count III was not proven, DEP presented no evidence on the question whether it is likely the filters and lint would be contaminated with Picrin. Rather, DEP's evidence assumed contamination without any further proof. As to Respondents' second defense to Count III, the NOV does in fact reference tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc." However, it also calls the chemical "Picrin ® which contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." The confusion arose because, during his inspection, Mr. Johnson obtained from Custom Care's files a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Picrin. When he consulted with the manufacturer, he was told that the MSDS was out-of-date, and the manufacturer provided him with the current MSDS for Picrin. Then, the draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report discussed during the enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, referred to "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Trichloroethylene ('Perc')." Mr. Kerr pointed out that "perc" was tetrachloroethylene, not trichloroethylene. From this, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Byer understood Mr. Kerr to be admitting to the use of "perc," which he was not. In an attempt to correct the report in accordance with Mr. Kerr's comment, DEP modified the report so that the final draft referred to: "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." Even if the NOV is not defective in referring to "Perc" instead of clearly stating that Picrin was the alleged hazardous waste involved, DEP failed to prove that Picrin was mixed with the filters and lint. For that reason, DEP did not prove the allegations in Count III. Count IV - Investigative Costs The Department's proof of investigative expenses incurred consisted of the salary compensation paid to its investigators. Mr. Johnson’s salary is $17.53 per hour. He spent approximately 55 hours conducting inspections and investigating this case, which totals $964.15. Mr. Byer’s salary is $22.87 per hour. He spent approximately 96 hours investigating this case, which totals $2,195.52. Corrective Actions Upon re-inspection of the premises on November 8, 2006, Respondents were in compliance with all requirements. Deliveries of Vista LPA-142 were being transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank and base tank by the supplier upon delivery, and Respondents had sealed the flooring appropriately. It is not clear from the evidence what was being done with the filters and lint, but apparently they were being appropriately disposed of as hazardous waste at the time of the follow-up inspection. Other Mitigating Circumstances The evidence reflects a misunderstanding on the part of Respondents that, because Custom Care uses Vista LPA-142 and is considered a "mineral spirits" dry-cleaner, as opposed to a "perc" dry-cleaner that uses "perc" or some other form of chlorinated hydrocarbon that is a hazardous material in its dry- cleaning machine, it is not governed by dry-cleaning statutes and regulations.
The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated October 30, 1991.
Findings Of Fact BEI's composting facility is a potential source of water and air pollution and to operate the facility, BEI requires a permit issued by DER. The original permit issued to DER for this facility expired on June 1, 1991 and has not been renewed. Although its permit had expired, BEI was allowed to continue to operate while informal proceedings were ongoing between BEI and DER. When these informal proceedings were terminated by DER on May 20, 1992, further operation of this composting facility was in violation of Chapter 403.707(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-709.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. On at least two occasions while this composting facility was in operation, the air around the facility was polluted by foul odors. During the period following the expiration of BEI's license, BEI failed to submit monthly operating reports and did not conduct quarterly samplings and testing of the compost and submit the testing to DER as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the DER enter a Final Order finding that BEI has violated Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, on each of five counts; and that BEI should immediately cease operation of its solid waste facility, volume reduction plant, until and unless it obtains an appropriate and valid permit from DER and in that regard, BEI shall: Immediately cease acceptance of all materials on the property. In the event that Respondent does not receive a permit from the Department to resume operations at the facility, within 90 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall remove all solid waste from the property to an approved solid waste management facility and provide the Department written documentation of its disposal within 30 days of removal. In the event that Respondent does receive a permit from the Department to resume operation at the facility, Respondent shall remain in strict compliance with all terms and conditions of such permit. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall, if it has not already done so, provide the following to the Department: All records of testing and monitoring conducted on the compost material since January 1, 1990, including daily reports on the temperature and moisture content of compost material, and any testing of compost material conducted prior to distribution. All records documenting application rates of stillage, manure, and leachate to the compost withdrows since January 1, 1990. All records, documenting distribution of composted or mulch material, including amount of compost or mulch material delivered, date of delivery, specific destination of compost or mulch, and intended use of compost or mulch material delivered, since January 1, 1990. All records documenting amount of yard trash received at the facility since January 1, 1990. Within 30 days of execution of the Final Order, Respondent shall make payment to the Department for costs and expenses in the amount of $500.00. Payment shall be made by, cashier's check or money order to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation". Payment, specifying Office of General Counsel Case No. 91-2006, shall be sent by certified mail to Administrator, Division of Waste Management, Department of Environmental Regulation, 3804 Coconut Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 16th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Howard C. Batt, Esquire 611 Druid Road East Suite 712 Clearwater, Florida 34616 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ken Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the wasteload allocations set forth in respondent's interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constitute a rule subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner, a municipal corporation, applied to the respondent for renewal of its permit to operate a sewage treatment plant. The respondent gave notice of its intent to deny said application on the ground that petitioner had not met the wasteload allocations established for the upper part of the Peace River Basin. A petition for a hearing on this denial was filed by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), and a hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, 1978. At the commencement of this hearing, it became apparent that petitioner was also alleging that the wasteload allocations set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constituted a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore must be adopted pursuant to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent not being prepared to meet this allegation and the petitioner not having filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56, the scheduled hearing was continued and petitioner was granted leave to file a petition pursuant to Section 120.56 challenging the validity of the wasteload allocations as an invalid rule. Petitioner properly filed its petition for an administrative determination of the validity of a rule and the two petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes. The "rule" being challenged herein contains revised wasteload allocations for four municipalities in Polk and Hardee Counties. These four include Bartow, Ft. Meade, Bowling Green and Wauchula, each of which discharges effluent into the Upper Peace River Basin. As noted above, these allocations are set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, and were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Wasteload allocations are derived from mathematical calculations fed into a scientific model. They are based upon information pertaining to the treatment plant, the type of effluent, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving waters and the number and nature of other discharges to the receiving waters. In developing said allocations, the respondent relies upon information received from the applicant, as well as existing water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological data, local programs and university studies. The purpose of developing wasteload allocations is to determine the chemical effect of the discharge upon the receiving body of water and to determine whether a certain volume of effluent treated to a specified degree will depress water quality below the standard established for a particular class of water. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each individual discharger to determine whether a reduction in water quality will occur. When an application for a discharge permit is made to respondent, allocations for several dischargers in close proximity affecting the same portion of a body of water may be calculated at the same time, as was done in the September 8th memorandum. However, the other individual allocations become effective and applicable only when those dischargers seek a permit from the respondent. At that time, the allocation is revisited and recalculated based upon the most recent, available information and data. The wasteload allocations have applicability only when a facility seeks a permit to discharge effluents into surfaced waters. In the State of Florida, there are approximately 1,300 domestic and municipal sewage treatment plants and 230 industrial dischargers. A uniform wasteload allocation for 1,530 dischargers would be impossible and meaningless because each has its own unique characteristics based upon the type and method of discharge and the nature of the receiving body of water. Accordingly, the wasteload allocations are established by respondent on a case by case basis in the permitting process. Approximately 1.6 million dollars in capital expenditures will be necessitated in order for petitioner to comply with the wasteload allocations established by the respondent. There would also be increases in operating and management costs for new capital improvements. Alternative methods of sewage treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In 1984, the citizens of Pasco County approved a "straw ballot" proposal providing for the establishment of a resource recovery facility financed with non-ad valorem revenue bonds for the purpose of disposing of the County's solid waste in lieu of utilizing sanitary landfills as a primary disposal method. The Board of County Commissioners of Pasco County thereafter commissioned the consulting engineering firm of Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) to perform a resource recovery feasibility study and to identify a site for the facility. CDM concluded that a resource recovery facility was an economically feasible approach to solid waste management for Pasco County. After evaluating seven sites for such a facility, CDM recommended a 751-acre site on Hays Road in western Pasco County. The County purchased the site at a cost of approximately three million dollars. In 1987, the Legislature adopted a Special Act, Chapter 87-441, Laws of Florida, establishing a solid waste disposal and resource recovery system within Pasco County and giving the County exclusive control over the collection and disposal of solid waste generated or brought within the area affected by the Act. The solid waste disposal and resource recovery system proposed by the County will convert solid waste into electrical power through a process of combustion, utilizing a mass-burn technology, followed by landfilling of the ash residue. Initially, the "waste-to-energy" facility will have three combustion/steam generation units, which will dispose of 900 tons of refuse each day and produce approximately 22 megawatts of electricity. A fourth combustion unit may be added in the future, thus allowing the facility to dispose of 1,200 tons of refuse each day and produce 29 megawatts of electricity. The resource recovery facility and landfill/ashfill is designed with the purpose of complying will all applicable environmental regulations. Best available control technology will be utilized to minimize the emissions of air pollutants. The facility will use a baghouse with fabric filters to control particulate emissions and a dry scrubber to control acid gas emissions. The landfill will have two synthetic liner systems and two leachate collection systems to maximize the protection of groundwater resources. Stormwater on the site will be treated in retention/detention basins, and there will be no discharges of wastewater on the site. Ferrous metals in the solid waste will be recovered and recycled. The undeveloped 751 acre parcel of land owned by the County is located in an unincorporated area of northwest Pasco County. It is approximately two and a half miles north of Highway 52 and about four to five miles west of Route The site is accessible by Hays Road, which forms its southern and western boundaries. Shady Hills Road runs to the east of the site and Blue Bird Lane runs along the northern perimeter. The parcel is bisected by Florida Power Corporation power lines, which run in a north/south direction. All development on the site relating to the proposed resource recovery facility will be east of the power lines. The site primarily consists of grasslands and wooded areas. Most of the areas near the site boundaries are wooded. An access road from Hays Road would be constructed to lead to the resource recovery facility, and the site would also contain a landfill/ashfill and several stormwater retention ponds. The resource recovery facility will be located on the southeastern portion of the site, approximately 4,600 feet from the site's northern boundary. The facility will be approximately 2,400 feet from the nearest residence, which is located on Hays Road. There will be at least 250 feet of buffer area between the resource recovery facility and the property boundaries. There will be at least 700 feet of buffer area between the landfill and the northern boundary of the site. The ashfill portion of the project would be developed over a 25 to 35 year period. The areas surrounding the site consist of agricultural and very low density residential developments. The areas to the east, southeast, and southwest are very sparsely populated. There is scattered low density residential development to the north, northeast and northwest, and some scattered residences south and southwest of the site. The subject parcel of land lies within the Pasco County Zoning Code's A-C Agricultural District. According to the Pasco County Zoning Code, Ordinance No. 75-21, the purpose of the A-C Agricultural District is to preserve the rural and open character of various lands within Pasco County. The principal permitted uses within this District include agriculture, general farming and horticulture; single family dwellings; duplexes; home occupations; public and private parks and playgrounds; mineral extraction activities; and residential treatment and care facilities. Accessory uses include private garages and parking areas, private swimming pools and cabanas, and signs. Special exemption uses within the A-C Agricultural District include country club and golf course, aircraft landing fields, cemeteries, animal hospitals, sanitary landfills and public buildings and public utility facilities which do not cause an undue nuisance or adversely affect existing structures, uses and residents. Ordinance Number 82-04, Section 2, amended the Pasco County Zoning Code to exempt from its provisions "development and other activities conducted by Pasco County." (Exhibit No. 3) It was the opinion of Pasco County's Zoning Administrator that the proposed resource recovery facility and landfill/ashfill were exempt from the County's Zoning Code. The County's present Planning Director concurred with this opinion. It was further the opinion of the Zoning Administrator that even if the project were subject to the requirements of the Zoning Code, it could be built as a special exemption use in the A-C Agricultural District. Pasco County has an ordinance, known as the New Development Fair Share Contribution for Road Improvements Ordinance, which requires developers to pay impact fees for transportation purposes. According to the County Planning Director, this ordinance expressly excludes County projects from its provisions. It was the opinion of the County's land use planning and zoning experts that the use of the site for a resource recovery facility would be compatible with surrounding land uses. The project will be designed so as to be barely visible from surrounding areas and to give as pleasing an aesthetic appearance as possible to the site. When a detailed site plan for the facility is prepared, the project will be evaluated by the Pasco County Development Review Committee, composed of County employees from various departments, to ensure that the project is consistent with existing regulations and compatible with surrounding land uses. The Pasco County comprehensive land use plan was adopted in 1982 and is currently being revised. It is a policy document containing various planning elements, with goals, objectives, policies and recommendations. It does not currently include a land use map that specifically identifies the permissible land uses for the site of the proposed resource recovery facility. In the process of updating its comprehensive plan, the County will adopt a future land use map. The Chief Planner for the Pasco County Planning Department testified that the land use map to be submitted for future adoption will designate the proposed site as a resource recovery site. The County's comprehensive plan contains a solid waste and resource recovery element. The plan recognizes waste disposal as a crucial concern, and the goal of this element is to dispose of the County's domestic and industrial waste in the safest and least expensive manner. From an engineering perspective, the project will be designed to comply with applicable state and federal requirements pertaining to air and water pollution. The economic feasibility of a resource recovery facility has been studied, with positive results. Other elements of the Pasco County comprehensive plan relevant to the proposed resource recovery facility include the traffic circulation element, the water element, the conservation/coastal zone protection element, the drainage element and the utilities element. A traffic analysis demonstrated that current levels of service on State Road 52 and on Hays Road will not be diminished as a result of project operations. The use of reclaimed water will promote the objective of water conservation. The proposed site has not been designated for preservation or conservation and the project will have minimal impact on wetland areas. The stormwater management system will be designed so that runoff will not be channelized into any natural surface water body. The retention basins will be of sufficient size to allow adequate settling of suspended solids collected with the stormwater. By producing electrical power as a by-product of solid waste disposal, the project will further the objective of the comprehensive plan's utility element of encouraging the conservation of limited resources in the operations of utility systems. On December 31, 1987, notice of the land use hearing was published in the Pasco Times newspaper, a daily newspaper of general circulation which has been continuously published at Port Richey in Pasco County, Florida, each day for a period in excess of one year preceding the publication of notice in this case. In addition, notice of the land use hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, Number 53, on December 31, 1987. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a news release concerning the land use hearing on December 24, 1987. By letters dated December 28, 1987, notice was given by certified mail to the Executive Director of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the Pasco County Planning Department and the Pasco County Zoning Administrator. Notice of the land use hearing was also posted at the project site. Eight persons, all of whom resided or owned property near the proposed site, testified at the land use hearing as members of the general public. All opposed the construction and operation of a resource recovery facility and landfill/ashfill at that site. Though none of the witnesses claimed to have expertise concerning the subject matter of their testimony, their concerns included the impacts of the proposed project upon the environment; the value and use of their land, homes and businesses; the recreational value of surrounding properties and the general agricultural character and nature of the surrounding land. Concerns were also expressed over the safety features and costs involved in the operation of the facility. These citizens of Pasco County did not believe it was proper for the County to exempt itself from the County's zoning laws and impact fees.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order finding that the use of the site chosen by Pasco County for the location of its proposed solid waste and resource recovery facility is consistent with and in compliance with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX "A" TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5337 Pasco County's proposed findings of fact have been fully considered and are accepted and incorporated in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: 16, second sentence: Rejected as speculative. See Finding of Fact Number 10. 22, last sentence: Rejected as improper factual finding, but addressed in the Conclusions of Law. 23, last sentence: Rejected as argumentative and improper factual finding, but addressed in Conclusions of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: David S. Dee Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard T. Donelan, Jr. Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 C. Lawrence Keesey Rhyne Building 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Edward B. Helvenston 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Mike Twomey Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bob Martinez Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Bob Butterworth Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
