The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) may issue to Respondent Republic Services of Florida, L.P. (Republic), permits to construct and operate a Class III landfill, pursuant to Permit Numbers 266830-003-SC/01 and 266830-004-SO/01, as modified as set forth below.
Findings Of Fact Background On June 30, 2009, Republic filed with DEP an application for a permit to construct and operate a Class I landfill (Application). In response to DEP's request for additional information dated July 30, 2009 (RAI), Republic filed a response dated September 14, 2009 (RRAI), upon receipt of which, DEP deemed the Application to be complete. References to the Application typically include the Application, RRAI, and other materials, such as reports, plans, and drawings, that are part of the Application, as well as three subsequent modifications, which are detailed below. Republic revised several reports, plans, and drawings in the RRAI; references to these items, such as the Engineering Report and Operation Plan, are to the versions contained in the RRAI. On November 13, 2009, DEP filed its intent to issue construction permit #266830- 003-SC/01 (Construction Permit) and intent to issue operation permit #266830-004-SO/01 (Operation Permit; collectively, the Permit). Republic Services, Inc. and its affiliates constitute the second largest waste-management operator group in the United States. Their market capitalization is just over $11 billion. The capitalization of the affiliate formed to operate the subject landfill is doubtlessly less than $11 billion, as the record does not suggest that any significant part of the overall capitalization of Republic Services, Inc., and its affiliates would be at risk in the operation of the proposed landfill. Republic presently owns and operates a Class III landfill in the City of Bartow, Polk County, known as the Cedar Trail Landfill. The oldest part of this landfill is an unlined Class III landfill of 52.5 acres in the center of the property owned by Republic. Immediately west of this unlined landfill is a 30.7-acre lined Class III landfill, which comprises cells 1-4. The Cedar Trail Landfill is located at 2500 West State Road 60, about three miles west northwest of the intersection of State Road 60 and State Road 98, which marks the center of Bartow. The landfill is immediately west of E.F. Griffin Road. Petitioners Frost live on E.F. Griffin Road, about one mile north of the Cedar Trail Landfill. Petitioner Highland Lakes Estates Homeowner's Association serves a residential subdivision known as Highland Lakes Estates. Highland Lakes Estates occupies a notch at the southeast corner of Republic's property. Aerial photographs reveal the changing land use of the land on which Cedar Trail Landfill is situated. Fifty years ago, the land was vacant with indications of agricultural uses. At the site of the proposed landfill were mostly citrus groves on the west side and some rangeland or vacant land on the east side. Ten years later, a large area immediately northeast of the subject land reveals the effects of strip mining for phosphate. Three years later, in 1971, the mined area had greatly expanded to encompass all or nearly all of the subject site and much of the surrounding area, including the western half of what would become Highland Lakes Estates. By 1980, the pits had been refilled and active mining had ceased, and the streets had been constructed for what is now known as Highland Lakes Estates. By 1993, about three dozen homes had been built in this residential, large-lot subdivision. 9. The Cedar Trail Landfill was constructed in the early 1990s as an unlined construction and demolition debris landfill. Now designated an approved landfill for Class III waste, this facility accepts such waste as is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(14) (2010), which includes construction and demolition debris, yard trash, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, paper, glass, furniture (but not white goods), plastic, and other materials not expected to produce leachate that presents a risk to the public health or environment. A zoning/land use map reveals that the land for which the proposed landfill is proposed is designated "sewage/borrow pits/spray fields." Highland Lakes Estates occupies land that is designated single-family residential with a density of one dwelling unit on up to 2.49 acres. The Cedar Trail Landfill has been the subject of three recent environmental resource permits (ERPs). Appendix R to the Application is an individual ERP issued in April 2009, and Appendix R to the RRAI is a conceptual ERP issued in March 2005. The April 2009 ERP mentions that the entire stormwater project was conceptually approved by an ERP issued on September 10, 2008, but this ERP is not part of the record. In any event, these ERPs approve the construction of a comprehensive stormwater or surface water management system for the entire Republic property. In particular, the April 2009 ERP permits the construction of a borrow pit at the southeast corner of the Republic property and a modification of the perimeter ditch/wet retention system. The April 2009 ERP states that the permitted stormwater management system will provide total onsite retention for runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The April 2009 ERP requires 2.8 acres of compensation for 2.8 acres of encroachment in the 100-year floodplain. Specific Condition 14 prohibits excavation of the borrow pits to a clay confining layer or limestone bedrock layer. Specific Condition 20 prohibits the mixing of leachate with stormwater and provides that, if leachate enters stormwater, the stormwater becomes leachate. Presumably reflecting this permitting activity, Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, is the site plan, including the unlined Class III landfill, the four-cell lined Class III landfill immediately to the west of the unlined landfill, and the eight cells proposed to accept Class I waste. These eight cells are immediately south of the four cells of the lined Class III landfill. The two northernmost of these eight cells abut, on their east boundary, the unlined Class III landfill. The remaining six cells abut, on their east boundary, an 800-foot wide borrow pit, which lies between these cells and Highland Lakes Estates. Immediately north of Highland Lake Estates is a second borrow pit, and west of this borrow pit is the unlined Class III landfill. The other major feature on the site plan is a third borrow pit running, from west to east, along the north border of the lined Class III cells, the unlined Class III landfill, and the second borrow pit. Bearing no signs of ambitious reclamation activity, the backfilled mining cuts host large water storage areas and, as described in the application for the March 2005 ERP, wetlands of "very poor quality." The backfilled soils are best described as complex surficial soils, consisting mostly of fine sands with varying amounts of organics, silts, and clays. Geotechnical investigations of the Cedar Trail Landfill suggest that mining depths, although variable, probably averaged 40 feet. Petitioners and Intervenor are substantially affected by the Permit and the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, which will stand nearly 200 feet above grade and will be the focus of substantial activity six days per week during its years of operation. Like Petitioners, Intervenor owns land in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Trail Landfill, which is in the jurisdiction of Intervenor, and Intervenor's various municipal operations are much affected by whether the proposed Class I landfill is permitted. Among other things, Intervenor has agreed to accept untreated leachate from the proposed landfill. Petitioners Frost built their home in 1980 or 1981. During the hours of operation of the existing landfill, Petitioners Frost constantly hear the beeping noise of heavy- duty equipment, presumably a safety device when the equipment is moved. Over a dozen lots in Highland Lakes Estates abut the property line of the Cedar Trail Landfill, and the closest residence is about 1000 feet from the nearest proposed Class I cell. At present, the existing landfill subjects the Highland Lakes Estates to constant noise during operating hours and a coating of dust inside their homes. Several residents of Highland Lakes Estates testified. Hard-working people, some of whom are now retired, these residents decided to purchase homes in Highland Lakes Estates because it was a sunny, healthy place to live. Over time, most of these residents, by varying degrees, have come to accept the fact of the Class III operations at Cedar Trail Landfill, but they object to the substantial intensification of land use that will result from a regional Class I landfill. One resident testified that she finds in her pool dirt that has escaped from the existing landfill, and she has become concerned about her grandchildren coming over to swim. Another resident testified that he only began closing his windows five or six years ago when the noise levels at the existing landfill increased; he eventually had to install a window air- conditioner. The same resident testified that the green herons and snowy egrets that he used to see around his house have not returned for five years, and his wife, who has health problems, including respiratory distress, would suffer from the expanded landfill operations. Application, RRAI, and Permit, Including Modifications The Permit incorporates the Application, including the RRAI, Engineering Report, Operation Plan, and drawings. Thus, all of the documents are part of the Permit. In the Application, Republic proposes to convert cells 5-8, which are not yet constructed, from a Class III to a Class I landfill and add four new cells adjacent to the unused cells. The unfilled portion of Cells 1-4 would continue to receive only Class III waste. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(13) (2010), Class I waste is all solid waste, other than hazardous waste, that is not otherwise prohibited by rule. The Application states that the proposed landfill will serve communities within 100 miles. The service area of this regional landfill will thus extend in central Florida from Marion to Osceola counties, along the Gulf Coast from Pasco to Lee counties, and along the Atlantic Coast from Volusia to Martin counties. As stated in the Application, this service area is populated by 9.7 million persons, who would daily account for 3000 tons of waste at the Cedar Trail Landfill. Initially, according to the Engineering Report, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste, but, once the existing Class III cells are filled, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste plus the 1400 tons per day of the Class III waste that is currently going into the existing landfill. As revised by the RRAI, the life expectancy of the proposed landfill is seven years. The Application states that Republic will employ an attendant, a trained operator, and 3-5 spotters at the landfill. The Application reports that the landfill would operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the working face would be covered daily. The Application reports that Republic would install seven new detection wells and use 17 existing wells for monitoring groundwater and would use two existing staff gauges for monitoring surface water, evidently at a single location, as discussed in the next paragraph. 23. Application Appendix V is the Water Monitoring Plan. Appendix V states that surface water will be monitored every time that the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area discharges offsite, but not more frequently than weekly. Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, shows that the sole surface water monitoring location is close to the leachate storage tanks, which are described below. 23. Appendix V also requires leachate monitoring, "at least annually," for five field parameters--specific conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, colors, and sheens; eight laboratory parameters--including chloride, mercury, and total dissolved solids; and the parameters listed in 40 CFS Part 258, Appendix II, which includes a comprehensive list of volatile organic compounds; persistent organic pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (a major dioxin) and Dibenzofuran; and metals, including lead and chromium. Fourteen days prior to all sampling events, Republic is required to notify DEP, so that it may obtain split samples for its own analysis. Republic is required to report the results of the groundwater monitoring quarterly and to analyze the groundwater data in a technical report filed with DEP every two years. Appendix V also requires monitoring for odors and combustible gases, mostly methane. Republic will monitor combustible gas quarterly at various ambient locations, such as the office buildings and to monitor combustible gas quarterly in the soil down to the seasonal high water table. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine combustible gas concentrations and, if they exceed 25%, take "all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health." Some confusion in the Application arises as to the issue of whether the Cedar Trails Landfill will be subject to, or voluntarily implement, the more elaborate provisions applicable to a landfill covered under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Regulated emissions for a new source might include particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and specified hazardous air pollutants. Appendix V states that the landfill will become a Title V landfill once permitted to receive Class I waste, and, at that time, it will be subject to a "more comprehensive system of landfill gas collection and monitoring." Appendix V assures that these items "will be addressed in separate documentation from this monitoring plan"--and, apparently, separate from the present record. By contrast, the Operation Plan concedes only that, based on the nature of Class I waste and the design capacity of the proposed landfill, Cedar Trail Landfill "may" become a Title V facility. The Operation Plan states: "If the regulatory thresholds at [Cedar Trail Landfill] are met [under Title V] requiring an active gas collection and control system (GCCS), [Cedar Trail Landfill] will submit as required the GCCS design plans for approval and install an active gas extraction system within the regulatory timeframes specified by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart WWW." More specific provisions in the Operation Plan identify best management practices to prevent objectionable odors. Four practices are identified, including an "active gas collection and extraction system." On the DEP form application, which is a cover sheet to the more elaborate application materials, Republic checked boxes indicating that the landfill would use active gas controls with gas flaring and gas recovery, which is probably what is meant by an "active gas collection and extraction system." The Application provides that the landfill liner would be double composite; the leachate collections system would consist of collection pipes, geonets, and a sand layer; the leachate would be stored in tanks; some of the leachate would be recirculated as spray on the working face; and the remainder of the leachate would be stored onsite and periodically transferred to a wastewater treatment center for treatment. The Engineering Report states that the waste disposal footprint will not be located where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the waste. The Engineering Report identifies appendices addressing the slope-stability analysis and foundation analysis and relies on a March 12, 1997, report by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. (Ardaman Report), January 23, 2004, report by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder Report), and June 26, 2009, report by Hanecki Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Hanecki Report). These items are discussed in greater detail below in connection with the sinkhole issue. The Engineering Report assures that the waste disposal footprint will not be within 500 feet of an existing or approved potable water well, nor will it be within 1000 feet of an existing or approved potable water well serving a community water supply. The Engineering Report adds that the minimum horizontal distance between waste deposits and the property line is 100 feet. The Engineering Report assures that the landfill footprint will not be in a dewatered pit, as the installation elevations are at least 2-3 feet higher than the seasonal high water table. The Engineering Report acknowledges that a small part of the eastern end of the four southernmost cells lies within the 100-year floodplain, as depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Map effective December 29, 2000, and as shown in Application Appendix A, Drawing 1. Claiming that the relevant map was not revised in 2000, the Engineering Report asserts that the last update to the FIRM map was in 1975, and the depicted floodplain was filled during the mine reclamation process. The Engineering Report notes that the floodplain concerns were addressed in the April 2009 ERP. 34. The Engineering Report discloses two enforcement actions against Republic at the Cedar Trail Landfill. In a letter dated October 19, 2001, DEP warned Republic about noncompliant items at the site, and, in a notice of noncompliance dated January 30, 2006, DEP warned Republic not to use a new cell prior to construction certification of the cell's stormwater system. Both matters were reportedly resolved, and Republic has not been the subject of other enforcement actions for the Cedar Trails Landfill. At DEP's urging, the RRAI elaborates on enforcement actions against Republic or, evidently, Republic affiliates at a variety of Florida facilities, not just landfills. The additional information reveals that DEP imposed a fine of $61,300 for the October 2001 violations, which included disposing of unacceptable waste, storing an excessive number of tires and exceeding groundwater standards without notifying DEP, and a fine of $1000 for the January 2006 notice of noncompliance. The other enforcement actions against Republic or affiliates concerning landfills involved consent orders about the Nine Mile Road Landfill (Seaboard Waste): in February 2003, DEP imposed a fine of $13,000 in settlement of charges that employees were not removing all unacceptable waste from the site and, in November 2005, DEP imposed a $285 fine for a failure to submit required stormwater monitoring reports. There were many other enforcement actions, generally resulting in modest fines, but they involved hauling facilities, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities, not landfills. The Engineering Report states that the proposed landfill is within six miles of, but greater than 10,000 feet from, the Bartow Municipal Airport. Airport safety is addressed in more detail below. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system, which uses materials whose physical, chemical, and mechanical properties prevent failure due to contact with Class I waste and leachate, climactic conditions, installation stress, and other applied stresses and hydraulic pressures. The Engineering Report performs no contingency sinkhole analysis. The report does not suggest that the liner system could withstand the stresses and pressures resulting from any size sinkhole, so the necessary inference is that the liner will fail if any sinkhole forms directly beneath it. The Engineering Report states that waste placement will remain within the lined containment berm. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system for use at the proposed landfill. The primary liner system and secondary liner system each comprises three layers with the top layer consisting of a composite drainage net, the middle layer consisting of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane with a minimum average thickness of 60 ml, and the bottom layer consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-9 cm/second. The Engineering Report describes in detail the leachate collection and removal system, which, sitting atop the primary liner, includes a 24-inch thick sand drainage layer with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/second, a composite drainage net, and a single perforated 8-inch diameter lateral pipe in each cell. The collection lateral pipes will gravity drain to the east to a header pipe that gravity drains to the primary leachate collection pump stations--one station for the four converted cells and one station for the four new cells. A smaller leachate collection and removal system will handle the leachate that penetrates to the leak detection layer by routing it to a secondary leachate collection pump station. Based on calculations derived from the HELP groundwater model, the leachate collection and removal system is designed to prevent leachate head from exceeding the thickness of the composite drainage net (about 1 cm) over the secondary geomembrane and from exceeding one foot over the primary geomembrane. According to the Engineering Report, flow meters will be installed at each of the pump stations to allow daily readings of the amount of leachate being pumped. At one foot of head over the primary liner, the Engineering Report expects just over three gallons per day collected at each secondary leachate collection pump station--significantly less than the leakage rate typical of a double liner system without a geosynthetic clay liner beneath the primary liner. However, the Engineering Report provides a standard action leakage rate of 100 gallons/acre/day, meaning that Republic is required to report to DEP liner leakage only when this leakage rate is attained. The pump stations will transmit the leachate to one of two above-ground, 150,000-gallon storage tanks. From these tanks, most of the leachate will be transported to an offsite location for treatment. However, up to 12,000 gallons per day of the untreated leachate will be recirculated to be sprayed on the working faces of the landfill. This is to control dust and possibly to assist with the degradation of the waste. The Engineering Report states that the Cedar Trail Landfill implements a facility-wide water quality monitoring plan. Upon completion of the pump stations for the eight cells that are the subject of the Application, Republic will expand its leachate sampling program to include annual sampling of the leachate collected in the primary and secondary leachate collection pump stations. The groundwater monitoring wells would be installed as closely as possible to the outer edge of the roadway that, with a stormwater ditch, will run the perimeter of the proposed Class I landfill. In the revised Engineering Report contained in the RRAI, Republic proposes a surface water discharge point in the stormwater pond located near the leachate storage tanks. The Engineering Report adds that Republic will continue to comply with the following prohibitions: No waste will be knowingly burned on site; Hazardous waste will not knowingly be accepted; PCB contaminated waste will not knowingly be accepted; Untreated biomedical waste will not knowingly be accepted. Please note that treated biomedical waste may be accepted at [Cedar Trail Landfill]'s Class I Landfill provided that the waste containers are marked "Treated Biomedical Waste.;" No waste disposal at the proposed Class I Landfill will occur within 3,000 feet of a Class I surface water body; [Cedar Trails Landfill] will not knowingly accept liquid waste within containers, excluding leachate and gas condensate derived from solid waste disposal operations. [Cedar Trails Landfill] will comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.300(10), FAC regarding the handling of liquid wastes; Neither oily waste nor commingled oily waste will knowingly be accepted; and Lead-acid batteries, used oil, white goods, and whole-waste tires will not knowingly be disposed of in the Class I waste disposal system. The Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, identified above, adds four items to this list of operational prohibitions: i. Garbage will not be knowingly accepted; Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste, will not be knowingly accepted; Animal carcasses will not be knowingly accepted; and Aluminum dross will not be knowingly accepted. Capitalized terms are generally defined in the Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(39) defines "Garbage" as " all kitchen and table food waste, and animal or vegetative waste that is attendant with or results from the storage, preparation, cooking, or handling of food materials." Application Appendix H is the Operation Plan, which also identifies the types of wastes to be permitted at the proposed landfill. Section 3(b) of the Operation Plan authorizes the proposed landfill to accept: Commercial waste Ash residue Incinerator by-pass waste Construction and demolition debris, including from a residence Treated biomedical waste Agricultural waste Industrial waste Yard trash, including from a residence Sewage sludge Industrial sludge Water/air treatment sludges Waste tires De minimis amounts of non-hazardous waste from incidental residential sources Section 5 of the Operation Plan provides, in relevant part: [Cedar Trail Landfill] will accept waste included in any of the waste categories identified under Section 3(b) of this Operation Plan[, but] will . . . NOT knowingly accept any hazardous waste, untreated biomedical waste, liquid waste (including paint), explosive waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste for disposal at the [Cedar Trail Landfill.] Unacceptable types of refuse are listed below and will not be knowingly accepted for disposal. --Hazardous waste --Explosive waste --Radioactive waste --Drums that have not been opened and Emptied --Refrigerators, freezers, air Conditioners (white goods) --Any toxic or hazardous materials, i.e. batteries, solvents, oil, etc. --Automobiles or parts that contain fuel, lubricants, or coolants --Untreated Biomedical waste The original Application prohibited the acceptance of septic tank pumpage, but the application form accompanying the original Application indicated that the proposed landfill would accept industrial sludge and domestic sludge. After modification by the RRAI, the prohibition against accepting septic tank pumpage was deleted, and the Operating Plan added, among acceptable wastes, sewage sludge, industrial sludge, and water- and air-treatment sludge. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(101) (2001) defines "sludge" to include solid waste pollution control residual from an industrial or domestic wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, air pollution control facility, septic tank, grease trap, portable toilet, or other source generating a waste with similar characteristics. Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200(64) (2001) defines "liquid waste" as any waste with free liquids, according to the "Paint Filler Liquids Test." As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Section 5 of the Operation Plan was amended to add the following items to unacceptable types of refuse that will not be knowingly accepted for disposal: --Garbage --Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste --Animal carcasses --Aluminum dross At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan that unacceptable waste would include Garbage contained in commercial, industrial or agricultural waste. According to the Operation Plan, the initial waste screening occurs at the gate house where the attendant interviews the driver and inspects the incoming waste load. If the attendant sees more than a negligible amount of unauthorized wastes, he will reject the load and will contact the hauler to identify the source of the waste. Additionally, Republic will notify DEP if anyone tries to dispose of hazardous waste at the proposed landfill. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, the Operation Plan was amended to provide a new paragraph between the paragraph addressing the initial waste screening at the gate house and, as discussed below, the second screening at the working face. The new paragraph provides: Any malodorous waste will be covered with mulch and/or additional soil or other approved cover materials to control odors promptly, within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. Cedar Trail Landfill will promptly cover any sludge deposited on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of the unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan, which would prohibit Republic from accepting malodorous waste or sludge that, due to exigent circumstances, it would not be able to cover within one hour from the time of unloading. If the load passes the initial waste screening, it will proceed to the working face of the landfill, according to the Operation Plan. At least one spotter will be stationed at the working face at all times that the landfill receives waste. Her job will be to detect unauthorized wastes. Republic is to assure that it has a sufficient number of spotters to find and remove unauthorized waste prior to compaction. The Operation Plan allows the spotter to work from ground level or the cab of a compactor. If the operator of a piece of heavy equipment is trained as a spotter, she may also serve as a spotter. During periods of higher waste traffic, the equipment operator will, according to the Operation Plan, "likely" need the assistance of another operator or spotter to screen the higher waste volumes. When finding unauthorized wastes in manageable volumes, the spotter or operator will remove these wastes by hand and place them into nearby containers for removal to an appropriate facility. The third waste screen occurs as the equipment operator spreads the waste, pursuant to the Operation Plan. The equipment operator is required to place any unacceptable observed wastes into containers, which will be located "within the lined area." These wastes will also be removed to an appropriate facility. In the RAI, DEP questioned the proximity of the containers to the working face, as the lined area consists of 72 acres, but, in the RRAI, Republic ignored the comment, restating only that the containers would not be located outside the lined area. The Operation Plan specifies a filling sequence. Republic will assure that the first layer of waste placed above the liner in each cell will be a minimum of four feet in compacted thickness and will be free of rigid objects that could damage the liner or leachate collection and removal system. Republic will maintain the working face to minimize the amount of exposed waste and initial cover necessary at the end of each day. The filling sequence will proceed until the permitted final grade elevations have been reached, less three feet for the final cover. The Operation Plan states that the initial cover at the Class I landfill will consist of a six-inch layer of soil that is transferred from onsite borrow pits or offsite sources. This soil will be compacted and placed on top of the waste by the end of each work day. At Republic's option, subject to DEP's approval, it may use a spray-on or tarpaulin cover, instead of a soil cover. The Operation Plan requires Republic to apply at least one foot of intermediate cover within seven days of cell completion, if additional waste will not be deposited within 180 days of cell completion. Republic may remove all or part of this intermediate cover before placing additional waste or the final cover. Through the placement of initial, daily, and intermediate cover, Republic will minimize the occurrence of moisture infiltration, fires, odors, blowing litter, and animals and other disease vectors. 59. The Operation Plan requires Republic to control litter primarily by daily waste compaction and cover. However, at least daily, if needed, employees will collect litter along the entrance and access roads and around the working face. Complaints about litter must be logged. In addition to the inspections detailed above, the Operation Plan establishes a random load-checking program to detect unauthorized wastes. Each week, Republic employees will examine at least three random loads of solid waste by requiring drivers to discharge their loads at a designated location within the landfill where the employees may undertake a detailed inspection. All random inspections will be logged. Notwithstanding the daily limit of 12,000 gallons per day, the Operation Plan prohibits Republic from spraying leachate during rain events. To apply the recirculated leachate, the lead operator will drive the leachate tanker truck on the working face, so that it can spray leachate over waste as it is being compacted, but after it has been screened by spotters. The spraying will be done to avoid causing leachate to pond atop the waste and will not be done within 50 feet of an outside slope. No restrictions apply to wind conditions. The Operation Plan states that, if the annual sampling of leachate water quality at the two pump stations reveals a contaminant in excess of the permissible limits listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24, Republic will start monthly sampling and notify DEP in writing. Also, the Cedar Trail Landfill will maintain a recording rain gauge. The Operation Plan requires Republic employees to conduct daily surveys for objectionable odors and take immediate corrective action, if odors are found at the property line. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, this portion of the Operation Plan was amended to add two odor- remediation actions and another form of odor inspection. The two additional actions to prevent odors are to 1) provide additional cover using mulch, additional soil, or other approved cover material and 2) use odor masking or neutralizing agents. The new inspection provision states: Internal inspection will be performed on a weekly basis by a properly trained odor ranger or equivalently trained person. Such individual will tour the facility, property boundary, and the subdivision of Highland Lakes Estates . . . to identify any odors leaving the Landfill's property boundaries. The results of each weekly inspection will be document, and any odors identified will be mitigated. Another new provision from the Joint Stipulation for Permit Modification applies to the handling of sludge. As amended, the Operation Plan states: When accepting sludge from a new source or distributor, [Republic] will obtain information regarding the characteristics and constituents of the sludge, including a description of the industrial process or circumstances that resulted in the generation of the sludge. Upon delivery of the sludge, [Republic] will mix lime, sodium hydroxide, or any other suitable agents to eliminate objectionable odors as required during disposal of the sludge before the material is covered. Furthermore, [Republic] will obtain advance notice from contributors prior to delivery of any sludge and shall promptly cover any sludge unloaded on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as severe weather. [Republic] shall use its best efforts to avoid accepting or disposing of sludge on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. Additionally, with respect to sludge received from wastewater treatment facilities only, such sludge shall not exceed the lesser of (1) twenty percent (20%) of the total volume of waste disposed in the landfill on an average monthly basis, determined annually on the prior calendar year, or (2) two-hundred (200) tons per day, averaged over the prior 12-month calendar year. Republic is required to monitor combustible gases quarterly and transmit the results to DEP, according to the Operation Plan. If Republic detects methane above the limits specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.530 (2010), Republic must submit a gas remediation plan to DEP within seven days. The Operating Plan indicates that the separation of the waste from the groundwater prevents the saturation of the waste and, thus, the generation of odor. Sloping and compacting will promote stormwater runoff, again to discourage the generation of odor. The Construction Permit authorizes construction of the proposed landfill in accordance with the "rules[,] . . . reports, plans and other information" submitted by Republic "(unless otherwise specified)." This parenthetical reference provides that the provisions of the Construction Permit control over any contrary provisions in the other documents that are part of the Permit due to incorporation by reference. In addition to the original Application, RRAI, and drawings, the Construction Permit also incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001). The Construction Permit states that Republic may not violate the prohibitions set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Construction Permit Specific Condition A.9.a requires notification to DEP of the discovery of limestone during excavation or discovery. Specific Condition A.9.b requires notification to DEP of any surface depressions or other indications of sinkhole activity onsite or within 500 feet of the site. Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Construction Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate, during construction or operation, to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner and leachate management system. Specific Condition C.4 prohibits the acceptance of hazardous waste and does not condition this prohibition on Republic's knowledge that the waste is a hazardous waste. Specific Condition C.5 requires Republic to "control . . . odors and fugitive particulates (dust)" and "minimize the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property." "Nuisance conditions" include "complaints confirmed by [DEP] personnel upon site inspection." Specific Condition C.5 orders Republic to "take immediate corrective action to abate the nuisance" and to "control disease vectors so as to protect the public health and welfare." Construction Permit Specific Condition C.6.b requires immediate notice to DEP of any sinkholes or other subsurface instability. Specific Condition C.8 requires Republic to manage leachate in accordance with the Operating Permit and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-700.500(8). The Operating Permit incorporates the same materials that are incorporated into the Construction Permit, again "(unless otherwise specified)." Like the Construction Permit, the Operating Permit incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001) and requires immediate notice to DEP in the event of a sinkhole or subsurface instability. The Operating Permit specifies that the action leakage rate is 100 gallons per acre per day and the leachate recirculation rate is 12,000 gallons per day. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition A.1.b states: This Facility is not authorized to accept Garbage; untreated Biomedical Waste; animal carcasses; liquids and non-liquid PCB containing materials or wastes with a PCB concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million; Liquid Waste; and aluminum dross. Additionally, this facility is not authorized to accept Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste. Class III waste means yard trash, construction and demolition debris, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, or other materials approved by [DEP] that are not expected to produce leachate which are a threat to public health or the environment as defined in Rule 62-701.200(14), F.A.C. Based on this authorization to allow certain wastes as described above from residential sources, and since the landfill design, including liner and leachate collection systems, meets the requirements of Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., for Class I landfills, the facility will be entitled to [the] household hazardous waste exemption pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(1). Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner. Specific Condition C.1.c prohibits the discharge of "residual contaminants," such as gasoline, oil, paint, antifreeze, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), onto the ground or into surface water or groundwater. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides that authorized waste types are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations Plan, and unacceptable wastes shall be removed from the site as described in Sections 3(a) and 7. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides: "Waste types authorized for management at this site are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations [sic] Plan. Unacceptable wastes are those listed in Section 5 [of the Operation Plan] " Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(2) requires the use of a sufficient number of spotters to remove unacceptable wastes, but allows Republic to direct its equipment operators to serve as spotters from the equipment. This condition allows DEP to require that spotters work from the ground, if DEP determines that spotting from equipment is not effective. Specific Condition C.1.k(3) requires Republic to remove unacceptable wastes immediately and not to unload additional wastes in the immediate vicinity until placing unacceptable wastes in the designated waste containers" "near the working face" and within the lined landfill area. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.l(2) requires Republic to inspect on each operating day the property boundary for objectionable odors and, if any are detected, abate them in accordance with Specific Condition C.5. Specific Condition C.5.a requires Republic to control odors, disease vectors (insects and rodents), and fugitive particles (dust and smoke) to protect the public health and welfare. Control is defined as "minimiz[ing]" the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property. Odors confirmed by DEP personnel are a nuisance condition, and Republic must take immediate corrective action to "abate" the nuisance. Specific Condition C.5.b provides that, if odor control measures do not "sufficiently abate" objectionable odors within 30 days, Republic will submit an odor remediation plan to DEP for approval. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.8.e requires monthly reports to DEP of leachate quantities. Specific Condition C.8.h(1) prohibits recirculation of leachate at rates that result in seepage that may discharge outside the lined area. Leachate may not be sprayed when the application area is saturated or during a rainfall event. There is no prohibition against spraying during windy conditions. Operating Permit Specific Condition E details the extensive water quality monitoring requirements. However, Specific Condition E.9.b requires only annual testing of the five field parameters, eight laboratory parameters, and the comprehensive list of Appendix II parameters set forth in 40 CFR Part 258, all of which are identified below. Specific Condition E.9.c provides that, if a contaminant listed in 40 CFR 261.24 exceeds the level listed therein, Republic will notify DEP and take monthly leachate samples until no exceedances are detected for three consecutive months. Operating Permit Specific Condition F.1.a states: "This solid waste permit will meet the statutory requirement to obtain an air construction permit before . . . constructing a source of air pollution, except for those landfills that are subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of Chapter 62-212, F.A.C." Such facilities are required to obtain an air construction permit from the Bureau of Air Regulations prior to construction. Specific Condition F.1.b requires Republic to comply with Title V of 40 CFR 60, Subparts WWW and CC. This section notes that Title V permit applications must be submitted to the District Air Program Administrator or County Air Program Administrator responsible for the landfill. Aviation Safety Landfills attract birds in search of food. Flying birds may interfere with aviation safety. Thus, landfills are typically not located in close proximity to airfields to minimize the risk that flying birds will interfere with airborne aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. The nearest airport to the Cedar Trail Landfill is the Bartow Municipal Airport, which is operated by the Bartow Aviation Development Authority. This airport is over five miles from the footprint of the active landfill and 4.6 miles from the boundary of the proposed site. Republic provided notice of the Application to all airports within six miles of the proposed landfill, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation. None of these entities objected to the proposed landfill. When Republic gave the Bartow Aviation Development Authority notice of an earlier application, which sought a permit for a landfill that would accept garbage, the authority objected to the proposal due to concerns posed by birds to aviation safety. When asked about the Application, the authority's executive director testified that she still has concerns about the proposed landfill, but she did not specify the nature of her concerns or her analysis. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, these are the only facts required for a determination of whether Republic has provided reasonable assurance of aviation safety. The record provides no basis for finding that Republic has failed to provide reasonable assurance of aviation safety. Neither the FAA nor the Bartow Aviation Development Authority has objected to the proposed landfill. The executive director's unspecified concerns do not override the absence of a formal objection from these agencies. Petitioners assign too much weight to the earlier objection submitted by the authority. The composition of the authority may have changed or some authority members may have decided they were wrong in their earlier analysis. This earlier objection does not outweigh the absence of objection to the present proposal from any of the aviation agencies and the absence of any evidence of the expected nature or extent of bird usage of the proposed landfill and the extent to which these birds would interfere with existing and expected flight paths of aircraft using the Bartow Municipal Airport. Public Health Petitioners' expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. David Carpenter, is a medical doctor with a long, prestigious history of public service, including with the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the United States Public Health Service, and the New York Department of Health, where he served as director from 1980-85. At that time, Dr. Carpenter started the School of Public Health at the University of Albany. Republic's expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. Christopher Teaf, is an expert in the evaluation of environmental contamination, waste management, and toxicology, but not a medical doctor. Dr. Teaf is a professor at Florida State University and owns a small consulting firm. The major part of Dr. Carpenter's career has been devoted to research. For the past ten years, he has focused more on human health, especially human disease from exposure to environmental contaminants. Dr. Carpenter has considerable experience with the adverse effects of landfills on human health, but his experience has been mostly with older landfills, where containment measures were few and offsite releases were many. Clearly, Dr. Carpenter's experience does not extend to the role of landfill design, construction, and operation in the transmission of human disease. Thus, Dr. Carpenter is qualified to opine on the effects of pollutants that may escape landfills, but not on the relationship of landfill design, construction, and operation on the probability that a landfill will transmit pollutants. For the most part, Dr. Carpenter did not attempt to address matters outside of his expertise. However, Dr. Carpenter testified that the risk of disease or injury increased in relationship to the proximity of the person to the landfill. This testimony can only be credited if one assumes that the landfills are identical in terms of design, construction, and operation and in terms of the environmental conditions of the landfill site. In other words, in real-world applications, it is impossible to credit this element of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, especially to the extent of his implicit suggestion that public health is unreasonably endangered by the construction of a landfill, in compliance with all rules, that satisfies all of the separation criteria and design criteria set forth in the rules, as discussed below. By contrast, Dr. Teaf focused on the details of the proposed landfill. Applying his knowledge of toxicology, Dr. Teaf determined that the proposed landfill adequately protects public health. In making this determination, Dr. Teaf analyzed the effects of various design and operational characteristics of the proposed landfill, including the double liner system, the leachate collection and management system, the selection of appropriate waste types, the procedures for the evaluation and covering of sludges, the prohibition against municipal garbage, the restrictions on household items, the monitoring of groundwater and surface water, the stormwater management system, and the plans to control dust and odors. Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the literature that he sponsored suggested important links between older landfills and a wide range of human disease. But the recurring problem with Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the research articles that he sponsored was the inability to link this information to the proposed landfill. All of the landfills studied in his research articles were older, and most of them appeared to have been designed, constructed, and operated under far more relaxed regulatory regimes than exist today. Nothing in Dr. Carpenter's testimony or sponsored literature attempted to delineate the design or operational characteristics of these landfills, such as whether they were double- or even single-lined, served by leachate circulation and recovery systems, limited as to materials that they could accept, or required to install stormwater management and water monitoring systems. 93. Analysis of the risk to public health posed by the proposed landfill requires consideration of the various means of transmission of the pollutants received by the landfill: water, land, and air. Of these, water requires little analysis, on this record. Even Dr. Carpenter conceded that the proposed landfill does not appear to pose a threat to groundwater. The double liner, leachate collection and recovery system, and groundwater monitoring plan support the finding that groundwater transmission of pollutants from the proposed landfill is unlikely. Transmission by surface water is also unlikely. Compared to groundwater monitoring, surface water monitoring is limited. For instance, there is only a single monitoring site. Also, as noted above, the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area is expected to discharge stormwater offsite during excessive storm events, at which time surface water samples will be taken. However, a comprehensive surface water management system is in place at the landfill and will prevent offsite discharges in all but a few excessive rain events. Transmission by land is also unlikely. The Application contains engineering analysis of the proposed stability of the side slopes and a determination that they will be stable. The discussion of sinkholes, below, does not affect this finding. Treating dust as transmission by air, the only other means by which pollutants may transmit by land is by animals, such as insects, rodents, and birds. An important factor limiting the activity of animals in spreading pollutants offsite is the fact that the proposed landfill will not receive garbage. Although putrescible waste may be received within other categories of waste, the prohibition against receiving garbage will greatly reduce the amount of potential food sources for animals and thus the utilization rate of the proposed landfill by these animals. A further reduction in animal utilization will be achieved through the daily and intermediate cover requirements. Thus, transmission of pollutants by animals is also unlikely. Transmission by air takes several forms. Pollutants may be transmitted as or on dust, with water in the form of aerosol, or as gas. In terms of how transmission by air is addressed by the Permit, this means of transmission potentially represents a greater threat than transmission by water or land for four reasons. First, the explicit focus of the Permit, as to gas, is to avoid explosive concentrations of methane and objectionable odors, but not the transmission of other pollutants by air. Second, the effect of the Permit is to prohibit the release of pollutants into the groundwater or offsite surface water and to prohibit the release of pollutant-bearing land offsite, but no such flat prohibition applies to the offsite release of pollutants by air. Third, the leachate recirculation system provides a good opportunity for the release of certain pollutants into the air by aerosol or evaporation, but similar releases to offsite land, surface water, or groundwater are prohibited. Fourth, scientific understanding of the effects of exposure, especially by inhalation, to pollutants, especially in the form of organic compounds, is continuing to develop: with the use of chemicals increasing three fold in the 50 years preceding 1995 and approximately 80,000 chemicals in use in 2002, only a few hundreds of these chemicals have been subjected to long- or short-term study, resulting in the discovery that about 10% of the chemicals in use in 2002 were carcinogens. Transmission by dust appears to be limited by the frequent covering and spraying of the working faces. Although nearby residents complain of dust in their homes, the practices of the less-regulated Class III landfill cannot be extrapolated to the proposed Class I landfill. Thus, the prospect of dust transmission of chemicals contained in the fill received by the proposed landfill appears also to be slight. The use of untreated leachate as the spray medium to control the dust itself raises two risks, however. First, spraying leachate will release chemicals in aerosol. The potential range of aerosol is great, especially as the landfill ascends toward its design height of 190 feet. However, the risk of transmission by aerosol is reduced to insubstantial levels by adding a Permit condition that prohibits spraying during windy conditions. Second, depositing leachate on the landfill face will release chemicals through evaporation. The point of spraying the landfill face is to control dust between the addition of the waste materials to the pile and the application of the cover. Between these two events, dry conditions will sometimes intervene and may cause the evaporation of certain, but not all, pollutants. The leachate acquires pollutants as it percolates down the waste column and into the leachate collection system. As Dr. Teaf noted, the leachate becomes more concentrated as it recirculates, but, otherwise, this record is largely silent as to the likely composition of the recirculated leachate. However, for landfills accepting sludge, higher levels of mercury may be present in the leachate. As reported by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, in a report issued March 2007, and titled, "Design and Operational Issues Related to Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids and Class I Landfills--Phase III," one study found that the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that receive sludge is almost three times greater than the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that do not accept sludge. The same study reported that total dissolved solids and chlorides were present at greater concentrations at the landfills that did not accept sludge and that other parameters--unidentified in the cited article--were not significantly different between the two types of landfills. Republic proposes to recirculate substantial volumes of leachate--sufficient, for instance, to raise the moisture content of the fill from 25 percent to 28.9 percent. The Permit allows the proposed landfill to operate six days per week, for a total of 312 days annually. The Operation Plan prohibits the application of leachate during rain, but the number of days annually during which rain extends for the entire day is few, probably no more than a dozen. These numbers suggest that Republic may apply as much as 3.6 million gallons annually of untreated leachate to the landfill face. The 12,000 gallon-per-day limit and restrictions on head in the leachate collection and removal system effectively limit the quantities of leachate that may be recirculated, but the sole provision addressing leachate water quality is the annual monitoring event described above. Given the time required to analyze the many parameters included in the EPA regulation, for most of the year between tests, Republic will be applying over three million gallons of leachate whose pollutant concentrations will be completely unknown. Some assurances emerge, though, when considering air transmission of pollutants by class. In general, on this record, as to transmission by gas, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a compound's volatility, which is a measure of its ability to enter the air, and a compound's persistence. VOCs are one of the most dangerous classes of pollutants to public health and include such carcinogens as benzene, tolulene, xylene and, the most dangerous of all VOCs, vinyl chloride, which is released upon the degradation of such common substances as plastics, carpets, and upholstery. Biogas, which is generated by the anerobic decomposition of organic compounds in a landfill, contains mostly methane and carbon dioxide, but also significant levels of VOCs. When inhaled, the primary results of exposure to VOC are respiratory irritation and allergenic effects. Volatility is measured by vapor pressure, which is a measure of a chemical's ability to get into the air. As their name suggests, VOCs enter the air easily. They are also capable of traveling great distances due to their light molecule. However, VOCs are easily destroyed by sunlight and diluted by wind. Other organic compounds common to landfills are only semi-VOCs, such as PCBs. Although less volatile, these chemicals, too, are hazardous to public health--in the case of PCBs, in any amount. Due to this fact and their persistence in the environment, the United States has prohibited the manufacture of PCBs for over 30 years. However, not only are PCBs considerably less likely to enter the air than VOCs, they also travel shorter distances than VOCs due to a heavier molecule. Dr. Carpenter opined that there is little evidence that PCBs are an issue in the proposed landfill. Another class of organic compound, 1000 times less volatile than even PCBs, is phthalates, which are used in the production of plastics. Phthalates pose significant threats to public health, especially reproductive health. However, the exceptionally low volatility of this compound renders transmission by evaporation highly unlikely. Much of the regulatory framework imposed on landfill design, construction, and operation arises out of concerns for the control of human pathogens, which are infection-causing organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. One of the great advances in human longevity in the United States occurred in the early 1900s--not with the development of antibiotics or improved medical care--but with the implementation of basic sanitation control and the removal of pathogens from the drinking water. For the proposed landfill, sludge will be the primary source of pathogens. Sludge is nutrient-rich organic matter, which will be received at the proposed landfill without any treatment except possibly dewatering. Even with the acceptance of sludge, the proposed landfill presents little risk for the transmission of pathogens. Pathogens communicate disease only when a person is exposed to an effective dose and are better transmitted by direct contact or animal than air. Bacterial pathogens are themselves killed by wind, as well as sunlight, temperature, and humidity differentials, so the preferred means of air transmission would be aerosol versus gas. The record permits no findings as to the persistence of pathogenic viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. However, as noted above in connection with the land transmission of pathogens, the immediate application of lime and cover to the sludge will tend to prevent the release of effective doses of pathogens by air, as well. The last major class of pollutant that could be transmitted by air is heavy metals, such as mercury or lead. Although these metals produce a wide range of neurological diseases and generally interfere with cognition and behavior, Dr. Carpenter admitted that heavy metals were not as much of a concern as VOCs, presumably due to their resistance to vaporization. Even though transmission by air is not as tightly controlled as transmission by water or land, for the four reasons noted above, there is little risk of transmission by air--i.e., dust, aerosol, or gas--when the specific properties of likely pollutants are considered. In all but five respects, then, Republic has provided reasonable assurance that public health will not be endangered by pollutants released from the landfill by water, land, or air. First, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs a condition that prohibits spraying leachate during windy conditions, which DEP may define as it reasonably sees fit. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this is a requirement in the rules and, due to its importance, should be restated explicitly in the Permit, which restates numerous other rule requirements. Second, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs more frequent monitoring of leachate water quality, at least at the frequency, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, set forth in the rules. Large volumes of untreated leachate will be recirculated through the landfill. Even if aerosol transmission is controlled, transmission by evaporation of some pollutants, although not the heavy metals, is possible. Also, pollutants are concentrated in recirculated leachate and thus the consequences of transmission into groundwater or surface water, however unlikely, become greater. At the same time, the action leakage rate is generous--to Republic, not the groundwater. At 100 gallons per acre per day, Republic is not required to report to DEP possible liner leakage until about 7300 gallons per day are lost to the surficial aquifer. Suitable for the detection of catastrophic failures associated with most sinkholes, this action leakage rate is too high to trigger action for small liner leaks. If Republic is to be allowed this much leakage into the groundwater, it must identify the leachate's constituents and their concentrations at least semi-annually. Third, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Application must extend the right of split testing to all of the parties in these cases, if DEP fails to exercise its right to take a split sample. The spraying of untreated leachate and generous limit applied to liner leakage before reporting and remedial action are required underscore the importance to public health of independent leachate testing. There is no reason to allow budgetary constraints or administrative oversight to preclude Petitioners and Intervenor, who are uniquely situated to suffer from the escape of excessive pollutants in the leachate, from providing, at their expense, this independent leachate testing. Fourth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to restate accurately the language of the rules concerning the extent of knowledge required of Republic, if it is to be liable for the acceptance of certain prohibited wastes. Fifth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to be modified to ensure that at least one spotter, whose sole responsibility is spotting, will be assigned to each working face while the landfill is receiving waste. Sinkholes The sinkhole issue arises in the geotechnical analysis of the sufficiency of the foundation to support the considerable loads of a landfill and also in the stability of the side slopes of the landfill. This analysis starts with consideration of the geology of the area, of which Republic's property is a part, and, among other things, the potential for sinkhole formation in the area. The Cedar Trail Landfill lies within the Bartow Embayment and along the eastern slope of the Lakeland Ridge of the Central Lake District Physiographic Province. This embayment is a large erosional basin partially backfilled with phosphatic sand and clayey sand of the Bone Valley Member. At this location, the top of the Floridan Aquifer is formed by Suwannee Limestone, which consists of white to tan, soft to hard, granular, porous, very fossiliferous limestone with interbedded dolomite. This rock unit is 110-140 feet thick. Atop the Suwannee Limestone sits the Hawthorne Group, which comprises the Arcadia Formation, at the base of which is the Nocatee Member, which is a relatively impermeable sand and clay unit. Atop the Nocatee Member is the Tampa Member, which consists of hard, dense, sandy, locally phosphatic, fossiliferous limestone. The top of this member, which is the top of the Arcadia Formation, is locally referred to as the "bedrock complex," which marks the lower limit of phosphate mining. Atop the Arcadia Formation, still within the Hawthorne Group, sits the Peace River Formation, which consists of phosphatic clayey sand and clayey sand. The lower portion of the Peace River Formation is a relatively impermeable, undifferentiated clayey unit locally known as "bedclay." The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is mined for phosphate and is locally known as "matrix." Atop of the Peace River Formation are undifferentiated surficial soils, typically consisting of silty sand, clayey sand, and some hardpan and organic soils. These materials are locally known as "overburden." Phosphate mining is prevalent in the area, including, as noted above, much or all of the Cedar Trail Landfill site. Strip mining for phosphate normally removes the entire surficial aquifer, just into the bedclay. Mined areas are then backfilled with overburden spoil soils, clay, waste clay, and sand tailings. After backfilling, the soil strata bear little resemblance to premining strata. Sinkholes are prevalent in the general area surrounding the Cedar Trail Landfill. A sinkhole is a surface depression varying in depth from a few feet up to several hundreds of feet and in area from several square feet to several acres. Sinkholes are typically funnel-shaped and open broadly upward. Sinkholes form when weakly acidic groundwater creates cavities in the calcium carbonate within limestone. Soils above these cavities erode into the cavities. In the area that includes the Cedar Trail Landfill, cover-collapse and cover- subsidence sinkholes predominate among sinkhole types. A cover-collapse sinkhole, which is typically steep- sided and rocky, forms when cohesive soils over a limestone cavity can no longer bridge the cavity under the weight of overlying soil and rock. At this point, the cohesive soils suddenly collapse into the cavity. These are more common in the part of the state in which the Cedar Trail Landfill is located. A cover-subsidence sinkhole occurs due to the gradual lowering of the rock surface as solutioning occurs in the subsurface rocks. This type of sinkhole develops as subsurface soluble rock is dissolved and overlying soils subside into the resulting shallow surface depressions. Regardless of the type of sinkhole, borings into sinkholes will reveal zones of very loose soil sediments that have washed downward into the cavernous voids within the bedrock. This very loose soil zone is called a raveling zone, which starts at the limestone layer, as the overlying soils begin to collapse into the solution features within the limestone. As the loosening works its way upward toward the surface, it eventually results in the subsidence of the ground surface and formation of a sinkhole. Considerable sinkhole activity has taken place in the immediate vicinity of Republic's property. Most visibly, a sinkhole formed in 2006 in 285-acre Scott Lake, 4.5 miles northwest of the landfill. This sinkhole drained the entire lake and destroyed several structures. The Florida Geological Service sinkhole database, which consists of anecdotal reports of sinkhole activity, some of which are unverified, includes 49 sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. Two documented sinkholes have occurred within .17 mile of the landfill--one of which is reported to be 125 feet in diameter and 80 feet deep. Based upon the information contained in the preceding paragraph, Clint Kromhout, a professional geologist with the Florida Geological Survey, opined on August 23, 2009, that the potential for sinkhole formation "within the proposed site and surrounding area" is "low to moderate." Mr. Kromhout does not provide a definition of "low," but part of his opinion is shared by the Golder Report, which agrees that the sinkhole potential on the proposed site is "low." The potential for sinkhole formation in the general area surrounding the proposed landfill, as distinguished from the site itself, is at least moderate. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Republic and Intervenor necessarily concede: "All parties acknowledge that the proposed landfill site is in a general region that has a relatively high frequency of sinkholes as compared with the rest of the state of Florida." It is misleading to characterize the area surrounding the proposed landfill as of low potential for the formation of sinkholes, unless there is another category, like "nonexistent." But characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate is not determinative of the likelihood of sinkholes at the landfill's footprint, nor is a site-specific geotechnical investigation mooted by such a characterization. Rather, characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate dictates the intensity and scope of the ensuing geotechnical investigation, if the investigation is to provide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the proposed landfill. Acknowledging moderate potential for sinkhole formation in the surrounding area, Republic has appropriately relied on three geotechnical reports, including three sets of boring data. The final of these reports, the Hanecki Report, is based on the collection and analysis of boring data, as well as a review of the data and analysis contained in the two earlier geotechnical reports, the Ardaman Report and Golder Report. The boring data reveal that the proposed landfill site features four units. Nearest the surface is Unit 1, which is brown to dark brown, medium- to fine-grained sand with minor amounts of clayey silt. Unit 1 is 0-10 feet thick. Next down is Unit 2, which is tan to gray, medium- to fine-grained sand with increasing silty clay or clayey silt. Unit 2 is 5-10 feet thick and generally marks the upper limit of fine-grained, granular soils (i.e., clayed sands and silty sands). Unit 3 is orange brown to yellow brown, gray and tan silty clay to clayey silt or fine sand and silty clay. Unit 3 is 5-15 feet thick. Unit 4 is gray and tan clayey silt or silty clay with minor amounts of fine sand. This material is very stiff or very dense, and most borings terminated in this unit. The few borings that penetrated this unit suggest that it may consist of dolomitic sandy clays and silts and dolomitic limestone to depths greater than 100 feet below grade. Units 3 and 4 generally mark the upper limits of low permeability/low compressibility soils. The Hanecki investigation comprised two main steps. First, Hanecki retained a subconsultant to perform electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) along 100-foot-wide transects run across the site. Any anomalies revealed by the ERIs were to be followed by standard penetration test (SPT) borings, which permit soil testing at predetermined intervals, as well as a measure of the compressibility of the soils. Compressibility is measured during the soil-testing intervals, during which the drill bit is replaced by a soil sampler. The driller records the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to produce 12 inches of penetration. The value is expressed in N-values, where N represents the number of such blows. Looser soils produce lower N values. Another important piece of information obtained during SPT boring is the partial or total loss of circulation fluid during drilling. While the drill is penetrating soil, a slurry circulates through the borehole to prevent the collapse of the sides of the hole. This slurry is recycled during drilling, but, if the drill encounters a void, all or part of the circulation fluid is lost. The ERI survey revealed no real anomalies because of a narrow range of resistance values. However, taking relatively small differences in resistivity as an anomalies, Hanecki identified 14 features of interest. At each of these locations, Hanecki performed an SPT boring. Because the ERI transects were unable to span the two onsite ponds, Hanecki added two locations for SPT borings adjacent to each side of each pond, for a total of four additional SPT borings. At the request of DEP, Hanecki added a nineteenth SPT boring at Golder site G-11, which had revealed low N-values during Golder's borings. Hanecki extended the borings into "refusal" quality soil, which was defined as soils requiring more than 50 blows of the 140-pound hammer to achieve six inches or less of penetration. All of Hanecki's SPT borings encountered very hard limestone. Among the most significant findings of Hanecki's borings, only one boring, G-11, experienced any circulation fluid loss, and this was estimated at 50 percent. However, it is more likely that this partial circulation fluid loss is due to loosely deposited sands than a void that might be indicative of conditions suitable for sinkhole formation. Not all circulation losses indicate voids that that will result in sinkhole formation. Also significant among Hanecki's findings is a clayey soil, or bedclay, at every SPT boring, which severely limits hydraulic recharge to the limestone. By impeding vertical migration of surface and shallow subsurface water to the limestone layer, this bedclay "greatly inhibits limestone erosion." This bedclay also supports the looser soils above the bedclay and thus prevents raveling, without which sinkholes cannot form. Two borings--G-11 and F3-1--lacked a layer of Unit 3 or 4 soil above the limestone, but Hanecki concluded that the Unit 2 layers above the limestone at these locations contained sufficient clay or clayey sand to serve the same functions of impeding the downward movement of groundwater and preventing the downward movement of loose soils. This conclusion appears reasonable because Unit 2 is the uppermost reach of the finer- grained materials, of which clays and silts are examples when compared to sands. There is obviously some variability in the distribution of finer- and coarser-grained materials within each occurrence of Unit 2 soils. Hanecki's findings indicated intervals of loose soils, sometimes at depth, which typically would suggest raveling zones. At the proposed location, though, these findings do not support raveling due to the underlying bedclay layer and the history of mining, which probably introduced looser soils typically found closer to the surface through the entire 40-foot depth of the mine cut. Based on these findings, the Hanecki Report concludes that, regardless of at least moderate potential for sinkhole potential in the area, the footprint of the proposed landfill has an acceptably low risk of sinkhole development to permit development of the proposed landfill. This is a reasonable conclusion because it is supported by the data collected by Hanecki and his reasoned analysis of these data. Hanecki's conclusion is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Golder Report and Ardaman Report, which are based on an additional 84 SPT borings, post- reclamation. Only about 12 percent of these SPT borings reached the limestone, and they cover all of Republic's property, not merely the footprint of the proposed landfill. Even so, these borings confirm two important findings of the Hanecki Report. First, they produced data indicative of an extensive bedclay layer intact on Republic's property. Second, the Ardaman and Golder borings reveal only two or three instances of partial circulation loss that, like the sole occurrence of partial circulation loss in the Hanecki borings, are located on Republic's property, but outside the footprint of the proposed landfill. Republic has provided reasonable assurance that the site will provide an adequate foundation for the proposed landfill and sinkholes are unlikely to undermine the structural integrity of the proposed landfill.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Construction Permit and Operation Permit, but only if the Operation Permit is modified by the addition of the five items identified in paragraphs 172, 174, 175, 181, and 187. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi A. Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ronald L. Clark, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801-5271 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Jennings Kemp Brinson, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801 Sean R. Parker, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 North Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-4620 Ralph A. DeMeo, Esquire Hopping, Green, & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paula L. Cobb, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 John W. Frost, Esquire Frost Sessums Van den Boom & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 2188 Bartow, Florida 33831 John Stanley Fus Highland Lakes Estates HOA 2190 Boardman Road Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issues for determination in this matter are: (1) whether Petitioner, MW Horticulture Recycling Facility, Inc. (MW), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration; (2) whether Petitioner MW is an irresponsible applicant; and (3) whether Petitioner MW Horticulture Recycling of North Fort Myers, Inc. (MW-NFM), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and the Registration Denials Petitioner MW is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 6290 Thomas Road, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "South Yard." Petitioner MW-NFM is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 17560 East Street, North Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "North Yard." The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of part IV of chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-701 and 62-709. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to allow SOPFs to annually register in lieu of obtaining a solid waste management facility permit. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW submitted its application for registration renewal for the South Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The listed reasons for denial focused on non-compliance with orders for corrective action in a Consent Order (Order) between Petitioner MW and the Department entered on February 22, 2019. The Order was entered to resolve outstanding violations in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV), issued on November 20, 2018. The notice of denial stated that, as of August 9, 2019, Petitioner MW had not completed the following corrective actions of the Order by the specified timeframes: (a) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall remove all processed or unprocessed material (yard trash) from the Seminole Gulf Railway Right of Way and the swale along Old US 41 and establish a 20 foot wide all-weather access road, around the entire perimeter of the site; (b) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall reduce the height of the piles to a height that the facility’s equipment can reach without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material; and (c) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall have all the processed and unprocessed material be no more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. The notice of denial also stated that when Department staff conducted compliance visits on April 29, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 7, 2019, and July 18, 2019, the following outstanding violations were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning of yard waste; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) an all-weather access road, at least 20 feet wide, around the perimeter of the Facility has not been maintained and yard trash has been stored or deposited within the all-weather access road; and (d) yard trash is being stored more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW-NFM submitted its application for registration renewal for the North Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The notice of denial stated that compliance and site observation visits were conducted on July 9, 2019, July 30, 2019, August 1 and 2, 2019, and the following non-compliance issues were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) yard trash received has been stored or disposed of within 50 feet of a body of water; and (d) yard trash received is not being size-reduced or removed, and most of the unprocessed yard trash has been onsite for more than six months. The notice of denial also stated that on March 27, 2018, May 10, 2018, and October 3, 2018, Department staff conducted inspections of the North Yard. A Warning Letter was issued on November 2, 2018. The Warning Letter noted the following violations: (1) unauthorized burning of solid waste; (2) the absence of the required 20-foot-wide all-weather perimeter access road along the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile; (3) inadequate access for motorized firefighting equipment around the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile (lake pile); (4) the lake pile not size-reduced or removed within six months; (5) mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material by heavy equipment; and (6) yard trash storage setbacks from wetlands not maintained. Petitioners' SOPFs The North Yard is located in North Fort Myers and is bound by the southbound lanes of Interstate 75 to the east and a lake to the west. The South Yard is slightly larger than the North Yard and abuts Thomas Road to the west and a railroad owned and operated by the Seminole Gulf Railway Company to the east. Petitioners' facilities accept vegetative waste and yard trash (material) from the public in exchange for a disposal fee before processing and size-reducing the material into retail products such as organic compost, topsoil, and mulch. The unprocessed material is staged in various piles generally according to waste type until it can be processed by grinding or screening. As of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meander between the piles themselves. As the material in the piles decomposes, heat is produced from the respiration and metabolization of organic matter. This heat ignites the dry material and can cause substantial fires. Both the North Yard and South Yard are susceptible to fires caused by spontaneous combustion as a result of their normal operations of collecting and stockpiling organic waste. Fires Although spontaneous combustion is an inherent risk with SOPFs, the evidence at the hearing established that the material at Petitioners' facilities catches fire at an abnormally high rate as a result of poor pile management. Piles need to be turned and wetted to keep down incidents of spontaneous combustion. Monitoring temperatures, rotating the piles, and removing the material at a faster rate would help reduce the incidence of fires. Large piles with no extra land space cannot be managed in a way "to aerate and keep the temperatures at a level where you're not going to have spontaneous combustion." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 32. Fire Marshal Steve Lennon of San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue regarded the South Yard as a fire hazard compared to other similar sites in his district. He testified that the pile heights, widths, and lengths at the South Yard are not in compliance with applicable fire-code size requirements. He also testified that if the pile sizes were in compliance, Petitioner MW would not have to put their motorized firefighting equipment on top of the piles "because [they] would be able to reach it from the ground." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 41. As of the date of the hearing, San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue had responded to 43 active fire calls at the South Yard in the last two years, and three times in 2020 alone. In 2018, the active fire calls at the South Yard were multi-day suppression operations. In 2019, the active fire calls were mostly hotspots and flare-ups. Captain Doug Underwood of the Bayshore Fire Rescue and Protection Service District (Bayshore Fire District) testified that his department had responded to approximately 75 fire calls at the North Yard in the last two years. The most common cause of the fires was spontaneous combustion. The piles were not in compliance from a size standpoint. Captain Underwood testified that the majority of the 75 calls were to the lake pile at the North Yard. See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 59. The lake pile was a temporary site on the southern end of the lake that borders the North Yard, and for most of 2018 and 2019, contained debris from Hurricane Irma.1 The lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing. Captain Underwood testified that in 2018, he recommended to Petitioners that they engage the services of an expert fire engineer. Petitioners engaged Jeff Collins who met with Captain Underwood on multiple occasions. They discussed how to address fires and hotspots and that the facilities should have a written fire protection safety and mitigation plan. Such a plan was created and Captain Underwood was satisfied with its provisions. Although the lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing, it was not an entirely voluntary effort on Petitioners' part. Captain Underwood testified that Petitioners' "initial plan of action was to leave it there for . . . eight months or greater, depending on the time frame needed to have the product decompose and cool down to a temperature that they could remove it." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 83. It took Lee County code enforcement efforts "to compel MW to remove this material off-site as quickly as possible." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 82. 1 Throughout this proceeding, the lake pile was referred to by various names in testimony and exhibits, such as, "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile," "lake yard," "trac[t] D," and "temporary site." As recently as February 12, 2020, a large pile of hardwood, green waste, and compost at the North Yard caught fire as a result of spontaneous combustion. The size of the fire was so large and hot that the Bayshore Fire District could not safely extinguish the fire with water or equipment, and allowed it to free-burn openly for 24 hours in order to reduce some of the fuel. The fire produced smoke that drifted across the travel lanes of Interstate 75. The free-burn allowed the pile to reduce in size "down to the abilities of the district and the equipment on-site." See Tr. Vol. I, pgs. 51-52. Captain Underwood testified that "once we started putting water on it, then the MW crews with their heavy equipment covered the rest of the smoldering areas with dirt." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 56. Rule Violations By Petitioners' own admission, the facilities have repeatedly violated applicable Department rules throughout the course of their operations over the last two and one-half years. The most pertinent of these violations center around the Department's standards for fire protection and control to deal with accidental burning of solid waste at SOPFs. Renee Kwiat, the Department's expert, testified that the Department cited the South Yard nine times for failing to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road. The South Yard consistently violated the requirement to maintain processed and unprocessed material within 50 feet of access by motorized firefighting equipment, and the North Yard has violated this requirement twice. The North Yard consistently violated the requirement to size-reduce or remove the lake pile material within six months. Both the North Yard and South Yard were cited multiple times for mechanically compacting processed and unprocessed material. Following a period of noncompliance and nearly 11 months of compliance assistance at the South Yard, Petitioner MW told the Department it would resolve all outstanding violations by July 1, 2018. The July 1, 2018, deadline passed and on October 18, 2018, the Department proposed a consent order to resolve the violations at the South Yard. However, Petitioner MW did not respond. On November 20, 2018, the Department issued the NOV to Petitioner MW regarding the South Yard. The violations included failure to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road around the perimeter of the site, failure to ensure access by motorized firefighting equipment, mechanical compaction, and the unauthorized open burning of solid waste. On February 22, 2019, the Department executed the Order with Petitioner MW to resolve outstanding violations in the NOV. By signing the Order, Petitioner MW agreed to undertake the listed corrective actions within the stated time frames. Compliance visits to the South Yard on April 29, 2019, June 7, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 18, 2019, and August 22, 2019, documented that many violations outlined above were still present at the site. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that none of the time periods in the Order were met. The preponderance of the evidence established the violations listed in paragraphs 5 and 6 above. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that Petitioner MW still had not reduced the height of the piles such that their equipment could reach the tops of the piles without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material. Thus, all the processed and unprocessed material was not more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open-burning of solid waste; and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material. The evidence also established that the South Yard does not encroach on Seminole's real property interest. The Department did not issue an NOV for the North Yard. The preponderance of the evidence established that there were repeated rule violations at the North Yard. These violations formed the basis for denying the North Yard's registration as outlined in paragraph 8 above. The Department deferred to Lee County's enforcement action for violations of County rules as resolution of the violations of Department rules. At the time of the final hearing, however, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open burning of solid waste, and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material at the North Yard. Petitioners' Response and Explanation Approximately two and one-half years before the date of the hearing in this case, Hurricane Irma, a category four hurricane, made landfall in the state of Florida. It was September 10, 2017, and Hurricane Irma significantly impacted the southwest coast of Florida, where Petitioners' facilities are located. Hurricane Irma caused extensive damage, including the destruction of trees, vegetation, and other horticultural waste which required disposal. Massive amounts of such yard waste and horticultural debris were deposited on roadways and streets throughout Lee County, creating a significant issue that needed to be addressed by local governments, and state and federal agencies. Due to the threat posed by Hurricane Irma, the state of Florida declared a state of emergency on September 4, 2017, for every county in Florida. This state of emergency was subsequently extended to approximately March 31, 2019, for certain counties, including Lee County, due to the damage caused by Hurricane Irma. An overwhelming volume of material needed to be processed and disposed of following Hurricane Irma. The Petitioners' facilities were inundated with material brought there by Lee County, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others. After Hurricane Irma, haulers took considerable time just to get the materials off the streets, and processors like the Petitioners, ran out of space because there was limited space permitted at the time. As a result, these materials stacked up and had to be managed over time at facilities, including Petitioners' facilities. To accommodate the material, Petitioner MW-NFM added the temporary site that was labeled the "lake pile" or "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile" in Department inspection and compliance reports of the North Yard. In order to address the volume of material on the site after Hurricane Irma, Petitioner MW-NFM requested approval from the Department to move the material off-site to other locations in order to reduce the size of the piles at the North Yard's lake pile. For reasons that remain unclear, such authorization was not obtained, and Petitioner MW-NFM believes that this would have size-reduced the piles and prevented accumulation of material in violation of Department rules. In order to process the North Yard's lake pile and move it off-site more quickly, Petitioner MW-NFM requested permission from Lee County and the Department to grind unprocessed material on site, which would have size-reduced the lake pile and allowed it to be moved off-site more quickly. Because existing zoning did not authorize this grinding, the request was denied in spite of the fact that a state of emergency had been declared which Petitioner MW-NFM believes would have permitted such an activity. This further hampered Petitioner MW-NFM's ability to size-reduce the lake pile leading to more issues with hot spots and fires. Because the material was of such volume, and was decomposing, a major fire erupted in 2018 at the North Yard's lake pile. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, Jeff Collins, wrote reports to address this issue and recommended to the local fire department that the pile be smothered in dirt until the fire was extinguished. The request was denied by the Bayshore Fire District, which instead directed that Petitioners break into the pile in order to extinguish the fire. When Petitioners did so, the piles immediately erupted into flames as predicted by Petitioners' fire safety engineer. Moving the smoldering material to the South Yard also led to fires at the South Yard. In spite of the large volume of material at the North Yard's lake pile, Petitioners made steady progress in size reducing the material and moving it off-site. However, as of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were still completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meandered between the piles themselves. Mechanical Compaction Each party presented testimony regarding the question of whether Petitioners' facilities violated the prohibition that any processed or unprocessed material shall not be mechanically compacted. The parties disagreed over how the prohibition against mechanical compaction was applied to yard trash transfer facilities. In March of 2018, Petitioners' representative, Denise Houghtaling, wrote an email to the Department requesting clarification of the Department's definition of "mechanical compaction" because it is undefined in the rules. On April 3, 2018, Lauren O' Connor, a government operations consultant for the Department's Division of Solid Waste Management, responded to Petitioners' request. The response stated that the Department interprets "mechanical compaction" as the use of heavy equipment over processed or unprocessed material that increases the density of waste material stored. Mechanical compaction is authorized at permitted disposal sites and waste processing facilities, but is not permissible under a registration for a yard trash transfer facility.2 Mechanical compaction contributes to spontaneous combustion fires, which is the primary reason for its prohibition at yard trash transfer facilities. Petitioners' interpretation of mechanical compaction as running over material in "stages" or "lifts" was not supported by their expert witnesses. Both David Hill and Jeff Collins agreed with the Department's interpretation that operating heavy equipment on piles of material is mechanical compaction. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners mechanically compact material at their facilities. Mechanical compaction was apparent at both sites by either direct observation of equipment on the piles of material, or by observation of paths worn into the material by regular and repeated trips. Department personnel observed evidence of mechanical compaction on eight separate inspections between December 2017 and January 2019. Additional compaction was observed at the South Yard on June 7, 2019, and in aerial surveillance footage from August 28, 2019, September 5, 2019, January 30, 2020, and February 12, 2020. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, who assisted them at the North Yard lake pile, testified that the fire code required access ramps or pathways for equipment onto the piles in order to suppress or prevent fire. However, Captain Underwood and Fire Marshal Lennon testified they do not and have never required Petitioners to maintain such access ramps or paths on the piles. The fire code provision cited by Petitioners' expert does not apply to their piles. See Tr. Vol. II, pgs. 78-80. In addition, Fire Marshal Lennon testified that placing firefighting equipment on top of piles is not an acceptable and safe way to fight fires at the site by his fire department. 2 Rule 62-701.710 prohibits the operation of a waste processing facility without a permit issued by the Department. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.803(4). Rule 62- 701.320(16)(b) contemplates the availability of equipment for excavating, spreading, compacting, and covering waste at a permitted solid waste disposal facility. Despite receiving clarification from the Department in April of 2018, Petitioners choose to ignore the Department's prohibition against mechanically compacting unprocessed or processed material piles. In addition, the persuasive and credible evidence suggests that Petitioners blanket the piles with dirt to both suppress fires and accommodate the "access roads" or "paths" on the piles.3 Ultimate findings The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the North Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the South Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners did not consistently comply with Department rules over the two and one-half years prior to the final hearing. However, Petitioners established through persuasive and credible evidence that because of the impacts of Hurricane Irma, and the subsequent circumstances, they could not have reasonably prevented the violations. The totality of the evidence does not justify labeling the Petitioners as irresponsible applicants under the relevant statute and Department rule. However, Petitioners did not provide reasonable assurances that they would comply with Department standards for annual registration of yard trash transfer facilities. 3 The evidence suggests that Petitioners may prefer to follow the advice of their hired experts with regard to the practice of mechanical compaction and blanketing the piles with dirt. See, e.g., Petitioners' Ex. 16. However, the evidence suggests that the experts' level of experience is with large commercial composting and recycling facilities that may be regulated by solid waste management facility permits and not simple annual registrations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioners' annual registration renewal applications for the North Yard and South Yard. DONE AND ENTERED this this 17th day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Clayton W. Crevasse, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Sarah E. Spector, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Carson Zimmer, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 49 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County is responsible for maintaining a solid waste management program for the unincorporated areas of the county. The portion of the Florida Keys known as the "lower keys" between Pigeon Key on the north and Key West on the south is such an area. Prior to July 1, 1977, solid waste from this area was dumped at a site located on Middle Torch Key. Until approximately two years prior to the hearing, the Middle Torch Key dump site had been operated by private companies. The private companies apparently could not operate the site profitably under rules and regulations promulgated by the Department, and the County took over operation of the site. The site served as the solid waste dump for the lower keys until July 1, 1977. The Department had issued a temporary operating permit for the site, and open burning was permitted. The temporary permit expired on July 1, 1977. The Middle Torch Key dump site was never operated in full compliance with the Department's rules. The temporary operating permit was issued for the apparent purpose of allowing the County an opportunity to develop a system that could be operated accordance with the Department's rules. The County purchased a site on Cudjoe Key in the lower keys with the intention of utilizing it as a sanitary landfill. The instant proceeding is the culmination of the County's effort to obtain a permit to operate the Cudjoe Key site. The County has been utilizing the Cudjoe Key Site as a sanitary landfill since July 1, 1977. The Petitioners are homeowners in a residential subdivision which is located between three fourths of a mile and one mile from the proposed landfill site on Cudjoe Key. They object to operation of a sanitary landfill in such close proximity to their homes. In order to meet its obligation to maintain a solid waste disposal system, and in order to comply with DER regulations, the County needed to locate a landfill site in the area of the lower keys. The County lacks resources to truck solid waste from the lower keys to any sites in the upper keys, or on the mainland. Tie Cudjoe Key site was chosen for a sanitary landfill for two reasons. First, it was relatively isolated and had been used as a dump before. Secondly, it was for sale, and the County could afford to purchase it. The Cudjoe Key landfill site is not visible from any highway or from any residences or businesses. The site adjoins other public property, and is next to electric company property. The average height of the site is seven to eight feet above sea level. The site is located in close proximity to a borrow pit, and fill is thus obtainable at a fairly inexpensive rate. The County's plan of operation basically is to place solid waste on the site, and to cover it with six inches of landfill at the end of each working day. The site, if used in this manner, would have a useful life of approximately three years. If incineration techniques are eventually permitted, the life expectancy of the site would be increased to approximately twenty years. It does not appear that there is any ideal site for a sanitary landfill in the lower keys. There is very little dry land available that has not been previously developed. It appears that the best present alternative for solid waste disposal for the lower keys would be a joint venture with the City of Key West to desalinate salt water through incinerating activities at a site on Stock Island located just south of Key West. Neither the City of Key West, nor the unincorporated areas of the lower keys produce sufficient solid waste alone to make such a project feasible. Thus far a solution of this sort has not been politically feasible. Aside from this possibility, it appears that the proposed Cudjoe Key site is the best location for a sanitary landfill in the lower keys. The site on Middle Torch Key, which was previously operated as a dump would not comply with the Department's rules. The site is under water at high tide. In order to develop the site so that it would comply with the Department's regulation, a very large expenditure would be required. A copy of the County's completed application to the Department was received in evidence at the hearing as Department's Composite Exhibit 1. The application is complete, and contains the material required under Rule 17-7.05,, Florida Administrative Code. No competent evidence was presented at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the proposed Cudjoe Key landfill site does not comply with statutory requirements, or with the requirements set out in the Department's rules and regulations. Considerable evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the site has not been operated in full compliance with the Department's regulations since July 1, 1977. Clearly the County has been operating the site since that date without a permit issued by the Department. It is apparent that the Department has not sought to take action against the County due to the pendency of this action. Pictures offered at the hearing, and observations made at the view of the site demonstrate that the required daily cover of solid waste has not been applied at the site. These violations could, and should if they continue, result in enforcement action being taken by the Department. The violations, and anticipated violations cannot, however, constitute grounds for denying a permit to operate a sanitary landfill site which complies with the pertinent statutes and rules and regulations.
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
Findings Of Fact Bray is the owner of and lives on property located at 5550 Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida. He operates a solid waste disposal site on this property. By application dated June 6, 1977, and revised June 13, 1977, Bray applied to DER for an Operation Permit for a Solid Waste Resource Recovery and Management Facility pursuant to Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. At that time, Bray held a Temporary Operating Permit which had been issued on February 4, 1976. In Bray's application materials, which included the application dated June 6, 1977 and revised June 13, 1977, and letters from Bray to DER dated June 8, 1977, and June 30, 1977, Bray proposed an alternate procedure pursuant to Rule 17-7.05(3) (q) for operation of his landfill which procedure would permit Bray to cover, spread and compact the fill material in a manner different from that specifically set forth in Rule 17-7.05, Florida Administrative Code. DER did not consider Bray's request for an alternate procedure, but responded by letter stating that Bray must apply for a variance pursuant to Rule 17-1.25, Florida Administrative Code, and recommended denial of Bray's application for a permit for the following reasons: No provisions were made for daily cover. Refuse was not spread in two (2) foot layers. No intermediate cover was applied within one week of cell completion. No cover materials were stockpiled. During the testimony presented, DER acknowledged that the fourth reason given for denial of the permits-no cover materials were stockpiled-is not a requirement of the Rules and is not a valid reason for denial of a Permit Application. This Hearing Examiner agrees and finds that Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code only requires that the site have an adequate quantity of acceptable earth cover available. See Rule 17-7.05(1) (c)3, Florida Administrative Code. Bray presented adequate testimony demonstrating that sufficient acceptable cover material was available at his site. Bray conceded at the hearing that it was still his intention to operate the landfill site without daily cover, intermediate cover and compaction as required by DER. Bray's principal contention is that compaction and daily cover are not necessary for a landfill which accepts only non-putrescible waste. Bray urges that the attenuation of leachate, prevention of fires, prevention of settling and ponding of water which provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vectors and reducing the area of land needed to dispose of solid waste are justifications for the requirements of compaction and daily cover of solid waste which may not be present at non-putrescible landfills. Bray concludes that the absence of these problems at his landfill obviates the necessity for the application of the provisions of the rule requiring daily and intermediate cover and compaction. However, Bray has not met his burden of establishing that non- putrescible waste does not require compaction and daily cover. There are multiple reasons for the requirement of compaction and daily cover of solid waste. When solid-waste is spread to approximately a 2-foot thickness and then compacted to a 1-foot thickness, followed by the daily application of a cover of 6 inches of compacted earth, a layering effect is created which helps attenuate, if not prevent, the formation of leachate from both putrescibles and non-putrescibles which may be contained in the waste. Leachate is a liquid that has percolated through solid waste, usually originating as rain, which contains dissolved or suspended material that may contaminate ground water supply. Leachate occurs in landfills that accept putrescible material as well as landfills that accept only non-putrescibles. Compaction and daily cover consequently slow, if not prevent, the contamination of ground water supplies. The formation of leachate containing various chemicals which would have adverse affects on the human body is expected when water percolates through strictly non-putrescible waste Commonly discarded non-putrescibles such as metals, plastics, ashes, rocks and dirt from an industrial site, miscellaneous organics, heavy metal solutions and sludges, organic solvents and oils, caustic and acid solutions, inorganic chemical solutions and sludges, pesticides and fungicide wastes, paint and ink wastes, asphalt roofing and paving material, explosive waste and radioactive waste are probable sources of leachate contamination. The process of leachate formation from non-putrescibles involve the physical and chemical reaction of compounds in the non-putrescibles with the water percolating through them. The contamination of ground water supplies by leachate from either a putrescible or non-putrescible site constitutes a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public as many of the contaminates are toxic and have adverse affects on the human body. In particular, leachate from non-putrescibles may contain toxic metal solutions, carcinogenic pesticides and other organic compounds as well as toxic inorganic compounds. Another reason for compacting and daily cover is the prevention of fires. Exposed, non-putrescible wastes can ignite and result in serious dump fires. Daily cover, if applied, serves as a fire break and eliminates the fire hazard created by exposed combustible non-putrescible wastes. Furthermore, compaction and daily cover prevent settling and ponding which would contribute to both downward flow' of water through the solid waste and the creation of breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vectors. Compaction and daily cover contribute to the general aesthetics of the site and reduce the area of land needed to dispose of solid waste Bray has attempted to show that his method of operation effectively screens putrescible wastes from the site and otherwise adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare. However, the evidence which belies the assertion, shows that putrescibles have, in fact, been dumped at Bray Landfill. Coliform readings obtained in samples from monitoring wells at the Bray property can reasonably be attributed to putrescible matter on site. Birds have been observed feeding on site and these would not be feeding on non-putrescible wastes. The policing techniques are largely ineffectual. The site contains unopened trash bags with undisclosed contents as well as observed putrescible garbage. Trucks enter the site and dump their loads without inspection. Two major dump fires have occurred at the Bray Landfill during the past four years.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Angelo's Aggregate Materials, LTD ("Angelo's") is entitled to permits from the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") to construct and operate a Class I landfill in Pasco County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency with the power and duty under chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to review and take action on applications for permits to construct and operate solid waste management facilities, including landfills. Angelo's is a Florida limited partnership authorized to conduct business under the name Angelo's Recycled Materials. Angelo's filed the permit applications which are the subject of this proceeding. Angelo's owns the property on which the proposed landfill would be constructed and operated. Crystal Springs Preserve is a Florida corporation that owns approximately 525 acres in Pasco County, Florida on which is located Crystal Springs, a second magnitude spring that flows into the Hillsborough River. The property is about 10 miles south of Angelo's proposed landfill site. Crystal Springs Preserve's primary business activities are selling spring water for bottling for human consumption and operating an environmental education center that focuses on Crystal Springs and the Hillsborough River. Crystal Springs Preserve hosts approximately 50,000 visitors annually at the environmental education center. Crystal Springs Preserve holds a water use permit which authorizes it to withdraw up to 756,893 gallons of water per day (annual average) from Crystal Springs for production of bottled water. The water is transported about three miles to a water bottling facility operated by Nestlé. Nestlé is a private corporation engaged in the business of bottling and selling spring water. Nestlé purchases spring water from Crystal Springs Preserve. Nestlé's "Zephyrhills Spring Water" brand is composed of approximately 90 percent Crystal Springs water and 10 percent Madison Blue Spring water. The only water treatment applied by Nestlé is filtering the water to remove gross contaminants and passing the water through ultraviolet light or ozone to kill any potential bacteria before bottling. Nestlé has established "norms" for its spring water and would not be able to use the water from Crystal Springs if its chemical composition varied significantly from the norms. WRB is a Florida corporation that owns 1,866 acres in Pasco County known as Boarshead Ranch. Boarshead Ranch is adjacent to the east and south of Angelo’s property and is approximately 3,000 feet from the proposed landfill at its closest point. Boarshead Ranch is currently being used for agricultural, recreational, residential, and conservation purposes, including wildlife management. Nearly all of Boarshead Ranch is subject to a conservation easement held by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The conservation easement allows WRB to continue agricultural operations. Numerous agricultural water wells are located on Boarshead Ranch. WRB holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal of 820,000 gallons per day (gpd) (annual average) for a number of uses, including production of agricultural products, animal drinking water, and personal use. The City of Zephyrhills is located in Pasco County and is a municipal corporation. Zephyrhills' water service area encompasses Zephyrhills and portions of Pasco County. Zephyrhills owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Zephyrhills holds a water use permit which authorizes nine potable water supply wells with a combined withdrawal of 2.9 million gallons per day ("mgd") (annual average). Zephyrhills has two new production wells located about two miles southeast of the proposed landfill. The City of Tampa owns and operates the David L. Tippin Water Treatment Plant, the Hillsborough River dam, and the City of Tampa reservoir on the Hillsborough River. Flows from Crystal Springs make up a substantial amount of the water in the Hillsborough River, especially during drought conditions when the spring flow accounts for about 50 percent of the flow. The City of Tampa holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal 82 mgd (annual average). The City of Tampa owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Carl Roth, Marvin Hall, and Louis Potenziano own property in Pasco County near the proposed landfill site. Roth's property is 3.5 miles west of the proposed landfill site; Hall's property is located approximately one mile southwest of the site; and Potenziano's property is 1.6 miles to the south/southeast of the site. Roth, Hall, and Potenziano have water wells on their properties. The record does not establish that John Floyd owns property in the area. Floyd and Associates, Inc., owns about 55 acres in the area and holds a water use permit authorizing the withdrawal of water for agricultural uses. The Stipulated Agreement On March 1, 2010, Angelo's filed with DOAH a "Stipulated Agreement" signed by all parties. The Stipulated Agreement states in relevant part: Angelo's shall provide a final design, revised complete permit application and site investigation (referred to jointly as "Revised Submittal") to DEP with copies to all Parties and DEP shall make a completeness determination prior to this proceeding being set for a new final hearing date. * * * Angelo's shall not revise its permit application or supporting information beyond the Revised Submittal prior to or during the final hearing except in response to issues raised by DEP. It appears that the Aligned Parties did not remember the Stipulated Agreement until the commencement of the final hearing. They did not object before then to any of the evidence which Angelo's had prepared or intended to prepare for hearing on the basis that it violated the terms of the Stipulated Agreement. At the commencement of the hearing, Nestlé argued that the Stipulated Agreement barred Angelo's from revising its application or presenting new support for its project at the final hearing. The Stipulated Agreement is unusual and the necessity for Angelo's to make any concessions to the Aligned Parties in order to obtain their agreement to an abeyance was not explained. Allowing an applicant time to amend a permit application is usually good cause for an abeyance. The Stipulated Agreement allowed Angelo's to continue to respond to issues raised by the Department. Angelo's contends that all of the evidence it presented at the final hearing qualifies as a response to issues raised by the Department. The Proposed Landfill Angelo's applied to construct and operate a Class I landfill with associated buildings and leachate holding tanks. Application No. 22913-001-SC/01 corresponds to the construction permit application and Application No. 22913-001-SO/01 corresponds to the operation permit application. A Class I landfill is a landfill authorized to receive Class I waste, which is solid waste from households and businesses. Class I waste does not include hazardous waste, yard waste, or construction and demolition debris. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(13) and (14). The proposed landfill would be approximately 30 acres in size. It is part of a 1,020-acre parcel owned by Angelo's that is west of County Road 35 and south of Enterprise Road in Pasco County. The site is currently leased for cattle grazing and hay and sod production. There are also spray fields, orange groves, and a pond on the 1,020-acre parcel. Angelo's would construct the landfill by first clearing the 30-acre site. It would then excavate and fill to create the design subgrade or floor of the landfill with slopes required for the liner system. The subgrade would be compacted with a vibratory roller. After the subgrade compaction, the grouting plan would be implemented. The grouting plan calls for grouting 39 subsurface locations on the site that have voids, loose soils, or other unstable characteristics. A liner system would be installed after the grouting is completed and the subgrade is finished. From the bottom upward, the liner system would begin with a 12-inch layer of clay, over which a reinforcement geotextile would be installed, followed by another 12-inch layer of clay. This reinforcement geotextile is in addition to the double liner system required by Department rule. Its purpose is to maintain the integrity of the liner system in the event that a sinkhole occurs beneath the landfill. Installed above the reinforcement geotextile and clay layer would be a 60-millimeter high-density polyethylene ("HDPE") geomembrane, followed by a HDPE drainage net. These last two components comprise the secondary leachate collection system. Above the HDPE drainage net would be the primary leachate collection system, consisting of another 60-millimeter HDPE geomembrane and HDPE drainage net, followed by a geotextile, then a 12-inch sand layer for drainage, and an additional 12-inch sand layer for protection against puncture of the HDPE liner. A 48-inch layer of selected waste, free of items that could puncture the liner, would be the first waste placed over the primary leachate collection system. "Leachate" is "liquid that has passed through or merged from solid waste and may contain soluble, suspended, or miscible materials." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(66). Leachate would be collected through a system of perforated pipes that empty into a sloping trench with a leachate collection pipe. The leachate collection pipe would run down the center of the landfill to the lowest point where a pump would send the collected leachate through a force main 0.25 miles to storage tanks. Five above-ground storage tanks would be installed on a concrete pad with capacity to store 90,000 gallons of leachate. The stored leachate would be periodically transported to an offsite location, such as a wastewater treatment facility, for disposal. Sinkholes and Karst The terms "sinkhole" and "sinkhole activity" are not defined by Department rule, but the statutory definitions in chapter 627, a chapter dealing with insurance coverage for homes and other buildings, are generally consistent with the scientific meanings of these terms. The term "sinkhole" is defined in section 627.706(2)(h) as: a landform created by subsidence of soil, sediment, or rock as underlying strata are dissolved by groundwater. A sinkhole forms by collapse into subterranean voids created by dissolution of limestone or dolostone or by subsidence as these strata are dissolved. The term "sinkhole activity" is defined in section 627.706(2)(i) as: settlement or systematic weakening of the earth supporting the covered building only if the settlement or systematic weakening results from contemporaneous movement or raveling of soils, sediments, or rock materials into subterranean voids created by the effect of water on a limestone or similar rock formation. Sinkholes occur throughout Florida. There have been many reported and confirmed sinkholes in Pasco County. The more common type of sinkhole that has occurred on the Brooksville Ridge is a "cover subsidence" sinkhole, which is caused by voids in the limestone and the downward movement--"raveling"--of overlying soils into the cavity. Eventually, the loss of soils in the raveling zone will propagate upward until the soils at the ground surface also move downward and a depression is formed at the surface. Cover subsidence sinkholes develop slowly and are usually small, less than ten feet in diameter. Less common are "cover collapse" sinkholes, which can form in a matter of days or hours as the result of the collapse of the "roof" of a dissolved cavity in the limestone. These sinkholes are usually large and deep. The occurrence of a sinkhole does not always mean that areas near the sinkhole are unstable. However, the occurrence of a sinkhole is reasonable cause for concern about the stability of nearby areas and a reasonable basis for the Department to require thorough geologic investigations. "Karst" refers to limestone that is undergoing dissolution and it is common in Florida. A sinkhole forms in karst. "Epikarst" is limestone that was weathered while exposed above sea level millions of years ago before being submerged again. It is generally softer and more permeable than unweathered limestone. "Paleokarst" refers to karst that is very old in geologic time. Paleosinks are old sinkhole features in the paleokarst. A paleosink may no longer be unstable because it has been filled in for thousands or millions of years. A "lineament," or a "photolineament," is a relatively straight line seen in the topography or aerial photographs of the ground surface in an area. It might be defined by soil color, sloughs, ponds, wetlands, or other land features that follow a linear path. Lineaments are sometimes, but not always, associated with subsurface fractures in the bedrock where one would expect to also find active karst, sinkholes, and relatively rapid groundwater flow. Even where there is no lineament, there can be fractures in limestone that, when extensive enough, will allow for "fractured," "preferential," or "conduit flow" of groundwater. Fractured flow can occur in a small area or may go on for miles. Springs in Florida are usually associated with fractured flow or conduit flow that allows groundwater to move through the aquifer a long distance relatively rapidly, in weeks rather than decades. Geotechnical Investigation The Department's rules require subsurface conditions to be explored and described, including soil stratigraphy, soft ground, lineaments, and unstable areas, but the rules do not require the application of any particular geologic testing technique. An applicant's testing program is primarily a function of the professional judgment of the applicant’s geologist in cooperation with Department staff. The amount of geological testing done by Angelo's during its initial testing was similar to what was done for recent landfill applications. Angelo's conducted additional testing to respond to Department concerns and to prepare for the final hearing in this case, making the total amount of testing at Angelo's proposed site more extensive than is usual for a proposed landfill. The geologic investigation conducted by Angelo's experts to determine subsurface features, including any sinkholes, employed several technologies. Split Spoon Penetrometer Test (SPT) or SPT borings were drilled with a drill rig that advances a split spoon sampler into the ground with a 140 pound hammer. The hammer is dropped 30 inches and the number of blows required to drive the sampler each successive 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and indicates soil strength and density. The higher the N value, the denser the soil. When the material is so dense the drill rod cannot (essentially) be hammered deeper, the N value is shown as "R," which stands for "refusal." SPT Bore logs also note any observed "weight of hammer," "weight of rod," or "loss of circulation." These terms describe areas where the drilling encounters very soft material or voids. Weight of rod, for example, means the weight of the drilling rod, by itself, with no hammer blow, was enough to cause the rod to fall deeper through the soil or rock. Cone Penetrometer Test ("CPT") borings were also conducted. CPT borings are relatively shallow, performed with a hand-held rod and special tip that the operator pushes into the ground. The CPT equipment continuously measures and records tip resistance and sleeve resistance as the rod moves downward through soils. It is helpful in some applications, but is less precise in determining soil type, strength, and compressibility than SPT borings and cannot be used to explore deep zones. Ground penetrating radar ("GPR") studies were used. GPR equipment transmits pulses of radio frequency waves into the ground. The manner in which the radio waves are reflected indicates the types of soil and rock encountered. It can also detect cavities and other features that would suggest karst activity. When the GPR identifies geologic features of interest, they can be further investigated with SPT borings. Another investigative tool used by Angelo's was Multiple Electrode Resistivity ("MER"). MER uses a grid of wires and electrodes and the equipment interprets the resistivity of electrical signals transmitted through the subsurface. MER data can be displayed in a two dimensional or three dimensional format, depending on the software program that is used to process the data. Like GPR, MER is useful for indentifying geologic features of interest that can be further explored with SPT borings. However, GPR generally has good resolution only near the ground surface, while MER has good resolution to a depth of 100 feet. The Regional Geology The proposed site is in a geologic transition zone on the eastern flank of a regional, geological feature known as the Brooksville Ridge. It is a transition zone for both the Suwannee Limestone and Hawthorn Group. The Brooksville Ridge was formed when it was part of the coastline. In its geologic past, the Brooksville Ridge experienced sea level changes, weathering, erosion of sediments, and beach reworking. The general layering of geologic features on the Brooksville Ridge, from the top down, begins with topsoil and a layer of sand. Under the sand layer is the Hawthorn Group, an older geologic layer consisting of a heterogeneous mix of limestone, clays, and sands which generally range in depth from slightly under 60 feet to 80 feet or more. It was formed by river and wind erosion, flushing, and re-deposition in a beach dune environment. Below the Hawthorn Group is the Suwannee Limestone Formation, which is present throughout eastern Pasco County. The upper surface of the Suwannee Limestone Formation is undulating, due to a gradual chemical weathering of its upper surface, representing a "paleokarst environment." Underlying the Suwannee Limestone Formation is the Ocala Limestone Formation. It extends throughout most of Florida. It is composed of nearly pure limestone and is considered the Floridan Aquifer. It extends across the site’s subsurface. Angelo's used the Florida Geologic Survey's data base to determine there are six sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. A seventh sinkhole, not in the data base, is the 15- foot sinkhole at the Angelo's Enterprise Road Facility landfill, a Class III landfill (yard waste and construction and demolition debris) about a mile northwest of the proposed site. Angelo's contends that the sinkhole at its Class III landfill was "induced" during construction of the facility by the diversion of stormwater runoff to an area where overburden had been removed. The average diameter of the seven sinkholes is 11.9 feet. The Geology of the Proposed Site Rule 62-701.410(2)(c) requires a geotechnical site investigation and report, which shall: Explore and describe subsurface conditions including soil stratigraphy and ground water table conditions; Explore and address the presence of muck, previously filled areas, soft ground, lineaments, and sinkholes; Evaluate and address fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas as described in 40 C.F.R. 258.13, 258.14 and 258.15; Include estimates of the average and maximum high ground water table across the site; and Include a foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the landfill. It may include geotechnical measures necessary to modify the foundation to accommodate the imposed loads and stresses. The foundation shall be analyzed for short-term, end of construction, and long-term stability and settlement conditions. Considering the existing or proposed subgrade conditions and the landfill geometry, analysis shall include: Foundation bearing capacity; Subgrade settlements, both total and differential; and Subgrade slope stability. Angelo's conducted a geotechnical site investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below and in sections I. and J. The proposed landfill site is geologically complex, having features that are discontinuous horizontally and vertically. The site has karst features or areas where the limestone has dissolved. There is a clay layer in some areas, but it is not continuous and its depth and thickness vary. There are deposits of hard and soft sands at various depths. There are pinnacles of limestone surrounded by softer materials. Photographs from a quarry called the Vulcan Mine, located on the western flank of the Brooksville Ridge, show exposed features in the top 20 to 30 feet of the Suwannee Limestone in the region. The features at the Vulcan Mine are roughly similar to features at the Angelo's site. There are a number of shallow depressions on the surface of the ground on the Angelo's site. The origin and significance of these depressions was a matter of dispute. The Aligned Parties believe they represent sinkhole activity, but the evidence presented did not rise to the level of proof. However, Angelo's did not prove they were unassociated with geotechnical issues that could affect the proposed landfill. Angelo's offered no reasonable explanation for the depressions. Determining the exact cause of the depressions may not be possible even with more extensive investigation, but it was Angelo's responsibility as the permit applicant, pursuant to rule 62-701.410(2)(c), to make a greater effort to account for them. Angelo's initial permit application identified two intersecting lineaments on Angelo's property, based on aligned lowlands, enclosed valleys, and ponds. Angelo's contends the lineaments do not reflect an unstable subsurface or fractured limestone. The Aligned Parties contend that the lineaments are regional features and reflect fractures in the bedrock. They also contend that the onsite pond, which is located along the lineament, is an old sinkhole. The Aligned Parties did not prove the proposed landfill site is above an area of fractured bedrock, but the evidence presented by Angelo's was incomplete and insufficient to show there are no fractures. The limestone on the site was not adequately investigated for voids and fractures. Angelo's did not refute the possibility that the lineaments reflect a significant subsurface feature that could affect both site stability and groundwater movement. The Regional and Local Hydrogeology Rule 62-701.410(1) requires a hydrogeological investigation and site report, which shall: Define the landfill site geology and hydrology and its relationship to the local and regional hydrogeologic patterns including: Direction and rate of ground water and surface water flow, including seasonal variations; Background quality of ground water and surface water; Any on site hydraulic connections between aquifers; For all confining layers, semi-confining layers, and all aquifers below the landfill site that may be affected by the landfill, the porosity or effective porosity, horizontal and vertical permeabilities, and the depth to and lithology of the layers and aquifers; and Topography, soil types and characteristics, and surface water drainage systems of the site and surrounding the site. Include an inventory of all the public and private water wells within a one-mile radius of the proposed landfill site. The inventory shall include, where available: The approximate elevation of the top of the well casing and the depth of each well; The name of the owner, the age and usage of each well, and the estimated daily pumpage; and The stratigraphic unit screened, well construction technique, and static water levels of each well. Identify and locate any existing contaminated areas on the landfill site. Include a map showing the locations of all potable wells within 500 feet of the waste storage and disposal areas to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 62- 701.300(2)(b), F.A.C. Angelo's conducted a hydrogeological investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below. Angelo's and the Aligned Parties disputed the hydrogeological characteristics of the proposed landfill site and region. The principal disputes related to the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. Angelo's contends that groundwater flows from the landfill site to the west, making the proposed landfill site part of the Withlacoochee River groundwater basin. The Aligned Parties contend that groundwater flows south toward Crystal Springs and, therefore, the site is within the "springshed" of Crystal Springs. A United States Geological Survey map of the Crystal Springs springshed shows Angelo's proposed landfill site within the springshed. A springshed study done for SWFWMD also indicates the site is within the Crystal Springs springshed, but the District has not always been consistent in its statements about the groundwater basin boundaries in this area. A water chemistry analysis of the groundwater in the area of Angelo's proposed landfill indicates that the site is an area of higher recharge and within the Crystal Springs springshed. The springshed boundary can shift, depending on rainfall. Angelo's hydrogeological evidence was not sufficient to refute the reasonable possibility that the proposed landfill site is within the Crystal Springs springshed. Therefore, the Department's determination whether Angelo's has provided reasonable assurances must account for the threat of contamination to Crystal Springs and the other public and private water supply sources to the south. There are no creeks or streams and only a few lakes in the area between Crystal Springs and the Angelo's site. The absence of surface runoff features indicates it is an area of high recharge to the groundwater. Crystal Springs is in an area of conduit flow. The hydrologic investigation conducted by Angelo's was not thorough enough to characterize surficial aquifer flow and flow between aquifers. The preponderance of the evidence shows more groundwater recharge to the Floridan Aquifer in the area than estimated by Angelo's. Angelo's hydrogeological investigation was inadequate to refute the possibility of fractured flow or rapid groundwater movement at the proposed landfill site. Angelo's contends there is a continuous clay confining layer that would prevent contamination from moving into deep zones, but the preponderance of the evidence shows discontinuity in the clay and large variations in thickness and depth. The landfill's impermeable liner will impede water movement downward from the landfill, but groundwater will still recharge from outside the landfill to carry any contaminants deeper. If fractured flow or conduit flow extends south from the proposed landfill site, any leachate released into the groundwater beneath the landfill could travel rapidly toward the water supply sources of the City of Zephyrhills, Crystal Springs, Nestlé, and the City of Tampa. Whether the Proposed Landfill is in an Unstable Area Rule 62-701.200(2)(a) prohibits the storage or disposal of solid waste "[i]n an area where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the solid waste." However, the Department has adopted by reference a federal regulation, 40 C.F.R. 258.15, which allows a landfill to be constructed in a geologically unstable area if the permit applicant can demonstrate that engineering measures are incorporated into the design to ensure that the integrity of the landfill’s structural components "will not be disrupted." The parties presented evidence on many disputed issues of fact at the final hearing, but most of the case involved two ultimate questions: whether the proposed landfill site is unstable and, if so, whether Angelo's has proposed measures that would eliminate the unstable conditions and make the site suitable for a landfill. as: An "unstable area" is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 258.15 A location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from a landfill. Unstable areas can include poor foundation conditions, areas susceptible to mass movements, and Karst terrains. There is overwhelming evidence that the proposed landfill site is an unstable area. A considerable amount of evidence presented by Angelo's supports this finding. For example, Angelo's experts agreed there are loose soils, evidence of raveling, and sinkhole activity. These conditions make the site susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from the proposed landfill. The Department's landfill permitting staff requested a sinkhole risk assessment from the Florida Geologic Survey ("FGS"). The State Geologist and Director of the FGS, Dr. Jonathan Arthur, believes the potential for sinkhole formation at the proposed site is moderately high to high. That potential is consistent with the characterization of the area as unstable. Whether the Proposed Engineering Measures Are Adequate Because the site is unstable, Angelo’s must demonstrate that engineering measures have been incorporated into the landfill's design to ensure that the integrity of its structural components will not be disrupted. See 40 C.F.R. § 258.15(a). The engineering measures proposed by Angelo's are discussed below. Because it was found that Angelo's hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations were not sufficient to characterize all potentially unstable features of the subsurface, it was not demonstrated that the proposed engineering measures would overcome the instability and make the site suitable for a landfill. Roller Compaction Angelo's would use roller compaction on the graded floor of the landfill to compact the soils to a depth of about five feet and eliminate any voids within that depth. The Aligned Parties did not contradict Angelo's evidence that its proposed roller compaction will be done in a manner exceeding what the Department usually requires as far as roller force and the number of roller "passes." However, roller compaction will not affect deep voids. Liner System In order to ensure that the landfill’s liner system components will not be disrupted in the event of a sinkhole, Angelo’s proposes to include the reinforcement geotextile discussed above. The Department previously approved the use of geotextile reinforcement, combined with grouting, to demonstrate site stability for the Hernando County Northwest Landfill, which had a comparable risk of sinkhole formation according to the Department. The reinforcement geotextile can span a 15-foot diameter sinkhole without failure. As found above, the average diameter of the seven sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill is 11.9 feet. Angelo's proved that the proposed liner system meets all applicable criteria, except the requirement of rule 62- 701.400(3)(a) that the liner be installed upon a geologically stable base. Grouting Plan Angelo's grouting plan would be implemented to fill voids and stabilize areas of loose or weak material. The grouting plan was first designed to grout all locations where there was a Weight of Hammer, Weight of Rod, Loss of Circulation, or loose sands, as indicated by a low blow count. Angelo's revised the grout plan to include several more areas of concern identified later, for a total of 39 locations. Each grout location would have seven grout points, one in the center and six others equally-spaced on a ten-foot radius from the center. If more than ten cubic yards of grout is needed, additional grout points further outward would be injected until the void or loose soils are filled or stabilized. Although Angelo's proposes to grout every boring of concern, that still ties the integrity of the grouting plan to the thoroughness of the borings. The geologic evidence indicates that there are unstable areas which the grouting plan does not address. The Aligned Parties' MER analysis was persuasive in identifying potential areas of instability that were omitted from Angelo's investigation and from its grouting plan. There are other unstable areas existing on the site that should be grouted or otherwise engineered to provide support for the landfill. The grouting plan does not provide reasonable assurance that the integrity of the structural components of the landfill will not be disturbed. Other Issues Raised by the Aligned Parties The Aligned Parties raise a number of other issues, some of which begin with the assumption that the site is unstable and a large sinkhole would form at the landfill. This sometimes mixes issues inappropriately. It has been found that Angelo's did not provide reasonable assurance that the site will support the proposed landfill, but other project elements must be reviewed on their own merits where possible, assuming the site was engineered for stability. Leachate Collection System There is a single leachate collection trench in the center of the two landfill cells, which makes the landfill operate much like a single cell. The two halves of the cell slope toward the center, so that leachate will drain to the leachate collection trench, and the entire landfill slopes to the west, so that the trench will drain to a sump from which the leachate is pumped to storage tanks. At full capacity, the landfill will generate about 40,000 gallons of leachate per day. Careful cutting and grading of the earth is necessary to create the slopes that are essential to the proper functioning of the project’s leachate collection system. Settlement analyses are necessary to assure that the slopes are maintained. Rule 62-701.410(2)(e) requires a foundation analysis which must include a study of "subgrade settlements, both total and differential." "Total settlement" refers to the overall settlement of a landfill after construction and the loading of solid waste. "Differential settlement" compares settlement at two different points. Angelo's did not meet its burden to provide reasonable assurance on this point. The settlement analysis conducted by Angelo's was amended two or three times during the course of the final hearing to account for computational errors and other issues raised by the Aligned Parties. The analysis never came completely into focus. The final analysis was not signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The settlement analysis is dependent on the geologic analysis, which is inadequate. Without adequate settlement and geologic analyses, it cannot be determined that leachate collection would meet applicable criteria. Storage Tanks The Aligned Parties contend that the leachate storage tanks cannot be supported by the site. Because it was found that Angelo's geologic investigation was not adequate to identify all unstable areas, it is also found that Angelo's failed to provide reasonable assurance that the site would support the leachate storage tanks. In all other respects, the Aligned Parties failed to refute Angelo's demonstration that the storage tanks would meet applicable criteria. Groundwater Monitoring Plan The Aligned Parties contend that there is an insufficient number of monitor wells proposed by Angelo's to detect a leak from the landfill and the wells are too shallow. Because it was found that Angelo's did not adequately characterize the geology and hydrology of the proposed landfill site, the monitoring plan does not provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable criteria. Cell Design The Aligned Parties contend that the "mega-cell" design proposed by Angelo's provides less flexibility to respond to and isolate landfill problems than other landfill designs with smaller cells, and the mega-cell design could generate more leakage. No evidence was presented to show whether Angelo's design was one that had been approved or rejected in the past by the Department. Although it is not the best landfill design, the Aligned Parties did not show that the proposed design violates any permitting criteria. Operation and Closure The evidence presented by the Aligned Parties in support of their issues regarding the operation of the proposed landfill, such as noise, odor, and traffic, was not sufficient to refute Angelo's evidence of compliance with applicable criteria, with one exception: Angelo's has not provided an adequate contingency plan to show how it would respond to a sinkhole or other incident that required the landfill to be shut down and repaired. Assuming the site was engineered to support the landfill, there is nothing about the Closure Plan that the Aligned Parties showed does not meet applicable criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection deny Angelo's Permit Application Nos. 22913-001-SC/01 and 22913- 002-SO/01. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Roth, Qualified Representative 8031 Island Drive Port Richey, Florida 34668-6220 Christopher M. Kise, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. Suite 150 245 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 Janice M. McLean, Esquire City of Tampa 7th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 Joseph A. Poblick, Esquire City of Zephyrhills 5335 8th Street Zephyrhills, Florida 33542-4312 Doug Manson, Esquire William Bilenky, Esquire Brian A. Bolves, Esquire Manson Bolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1547 David Smolker, Esquire Smolker, Bartlett, Schlosser, Loeb and Hinds, P.A. Suite 200 500 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-4936 Stanley Warden, Esquire Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On November 16, 1983, Lamar Advertising Company submitted it's applications for permits for outdoor advertising signs to be located on the north side of Interstate Highway 10 in Escambia County Florida, 4.8 miles west of the intersection of I-10 and U.S. Highway 90A facing east, and the other to be located on the west side of I-10, 5.08 miles west of its intersection and U. S. 90A facing east. By letter dated November 28, 1983, the Department rejected these applications, stating: In unpermitable zoning. No commercial business visible. Escambia County, Florida, owns the land where the proposed signs would be located. This parcel contains approximately from the Perdido River, the state bounds almost to County Road 99 on the east, with frontage of I-10 for a distance of approximately one mile * Station is located on the south side of I-10 opposite center of this parcel. In January of 1981, the construction of a sanitary landfill this property, known as the Perdido Landfill. permanent buildings located there, one of which house which includes computer equipment and two commercial scales. Another houses p* equipment. Another is used for employee loc* of supplies. Another is the main office. all office facilities and a major garage automotive and heavy equipment. sanitary landfill is used for disposal of solid waste through escavation and burial. Excavation removes soil which is later used to cover waste placed into the hole created by the NOTE: Page 2 of the Recommended Order on file with DOAH has missing or unreadable text and is therefore not available in this ACCESS document. excavation. When a filling operation has been completed in a particular area, there will be built up heights exceeding the existing grade by as much as 50 feet. Before the landfill activity began, the parcel in question was rolling landscape, mostly in pasture land with some timber. It sloped to the west to the Perdido River. It also sloped from north to south towards the north edge of Interstate 10. Escambia County has approximately thirty pieces of equipment on the Perdido Landfill. This equipment consists of two landfill compactors, two bulldozers, three self-elevating scrapers, a frontend loader, a number of dump trucks, a road grader, a hydraulic backhoe, three tractor trailer rigs, a rented dragline, and numerous cars and pickup trucks. Normally there are five pieces of this equipment in operation on any given day. In addition to the equipment operated by Escambia County, approximately 500 vehicles per day visit the landfill to dump solid waste Monday through Friday, of which about 300 are commercial and 200 are private vehicles. On Saturday approximately 800 to 1,000 vehicles visit the landfill to dump waste. These dumping operations on the Perdido Landfill are taking place about 800 to 1,000 feet from the north right-of-way of I-10. In addition, the County has leased 10 acres on the north boundary of this property to a private company which operates a treatment facility for the processing of septic waste material to produce fertilizer. This facility is located between 2,000 and 3,000 feet from the south boundary of the County property. The County has constructed and maintains an earth barrier approximately 100 feet wide along the south boundary of this property on I-10 to hide the landfill operation from traffic on the interstate. This earth barrier also places the private septic waste facility beyond the line of sight from the interstate. In addition, there are trees and other natural growth along the south boundary of the County property which obscures the site from view. Photographs admitted into evidence show that the activities taking place on the landfill are not clearly visible to traffic moving on I-10. None of the vehicles can be seen except the top portion or boom of a crane. The area is hidden by trees and by the earth barrier except for one or two small openings which reveal the crane's boom. A motorist traveling east on I-10 can see through these openings for approximately one second, and traveling west for only a couple of seconds. Nevertheless, some portion of the equipment being used on the landfill property is visible from the interstate. Most of the area of Escambia County outside of the City of Pensacola is not zoned. There are some areas in the vicinity of the University of West Florida in the northwestern part of the county and on Perdido Key in the southwestern part of the county that are zoned. The area in which the Perdido Landfill is located is not zoned. The Petitioner presented the former County Attorney for Escambia County who testified that the activities conducted at the landfill are compatible with an industrial zoning classification. No further evidence on this point was presented by the Petitioner. The Department presented the Administrator Director for zoning and inspection in Okaloosa County, Florida, who testified that there are four sanitary landfills in Okaloosa County, two located on federal land and two located on county property. Okaloosa County is located about 39 miles east of Escambia County, and the four landfills there are operated and maintained by the County. Okaloosa County has county-wide zoning, and sanitary landfills are classified as public service facilities in agricultural areas predominantly. Under the existing Okaloosa County ordinance,, a landfill would be classified as Agricultural or Agricultural Restricted, regardless of the type of landfill it is. The Department also presented a letter from the Land Use Administrator of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department which indicates that Leon County considers sanitary landfills as "resource development activities" which are permitted as a restricted use only in agricultural zoned areas. This hearsay evidence is not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact, but it corroborates the evidence presented by the Okaloosa County zoning director, and was admitted for this purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying the application of Lamar Advertising Company for permits to erect two signs on the north side of I-10 in Escambia County, at points 4.80 miles and 5.08 miles west of U.S. 90A, facing east. THIS Recommended Order entered this 8th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 8th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT P. GAINES, ESQUIRE P. O. BOX 12950 PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32576 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, M.S. 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-8064
The Issue Whether WACOC has given reasonable assurance that the landfill it proposes to build would comply with applicable requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1987), and rules promulgated thereunder?
Findings Of Fact A mile east of the intersection of U.S. Highway 90 and State Road 393, south of Dorcas in eastern Okaloosa County, WACOC has assembled some 1,760 acres on U.S. Highway 90 --- only 160 acres shy of three square miles. WACOC proposes to use as much of the land as possible for the disposal of solid waste, and "would like to use the proposed landfill as a regional landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p.8. (T.68) The company does not own all the land outright but, with the conveyance of a parcel on the morning the final hearing began (T.77), WACOC had obtained (an encumbered) fee interest in the 55 acres on which it proposes to put Phase I, "a hole-in-the-ground landfill which can come into contact with the groundwater table," (T.737) and the subject of the pending application. WACOC has a "whole lot of option money out there," (T.86) although none of WACOC's stockholders has previous experience in the landfill business. Private Enterprise Chris Cadenhead owns stock individually and "is 100 percent owner of SRD, Incorporated" (T.93), itself an owner of WACOC stock. Serving with Chris Cadenhead and Larry Anchors on WACOC's board of directors, at the time of the hearing, was James Ward, formerly a legislator and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. (T.48) Like Mr. Anchors, Mr. Ward originally owned 24% of WACOC's stock. The only shareholder who testified at the hearing was Arthur Frederick Schneider. Before he succeeded Mr. Cadenhead as president of WACOC, Mr. Schneider had had a distinguished career as a naval officer, and later tried his hand at farming, but this venture ended in bankruptcy. "SRD has been funding this thing." (T.86) Where SRD, Inc. obtained more than three-quarters of a million dollars is not clear from the record. As far as the evidence showed, Chris Cadenhead's father, Rhett, had no interest in WACOC, although he did appear on behalf of the company at a county commission meeting in June of 1987. Larry Anchors, a WACOC shareholder and formerly an Okaloosa County Commissioner, contributed $35,000 a few days after the Okaloosa County Commission awarded the waste disposal contract. (T.87) Nothing has been paid the company under the agreement WACOC entered into with Okaloosa County on June 18, 1987, Citizens' Exhibit No. 1, which was reduced to writing on or before July 10, 1987. WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1. Under the contract, WACOC undertakes to move solid waste from transfer points in the southern part of the county and deposit them in the landfill it proposes for a per ton "tip fee of $17.70 (Present value as of 6/16/87)," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 13 (emphasis in original), which is to be "adjusted automatically upward or downward to reflect the change in Consumer Price Index." Id. The County guarantees WACOC 275 tons per day and pledges to "exercise its best efforts to insure that all the Solid Waste generated within the County will be delivered to one of the designated transfer stations or the landfill," WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 8, for the next thirty years. At present, the County generates "including the municipality . . . about 525-550 tons a day." (T. 61) The County agrees to cooperate "to obtain financing of the real property and equipment necessary [for WACOC] to perform . . . by a proposed bond issue." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, App. 1, p. 14. To this end, the county commission adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of industrial revenue bonds in accordance with Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000. Alternatively, and perhaps more in keeping with current tax law, "it's going to one of the larger financial institutions like Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith or someone like that and actually a bond issue through them, non-industrial," (T.74) or so WACOC intends. Phase I Designed to receive Okaloosa County's solid waste for five years, Phase I is to occupy a site on the eastern slope of a small hill between the east and west branches of Mare Creek, which converge in Fawn Lake, north of the property on which WACOC has options. Water flows out of Fawn Lake into a no longer bifurcated Mare Creek (which was dammed to create the lake), and ultimately into the Shoal River, more than 3,000 feet from the site. By rule, DER has designated Shoal River outstanding Florida waters. Fawn Lake and Mare Creek are Class III surface waters. The Phase I site is "zoned for agricultural uses, which was determined by the Okaloosa County attorney to be appropriate for a landfill." Prehearing Stipulation, p. 7, No. 5. "The county attorney's determination has not been ratified by the County Commissioners." Id. Site Geology "Subsurface conditions have obviously a tremendous effect on the design of the landfill." (T.592) "[A] site's geological and hydrological characteristics are relevant to its potential for contamination." Prehearing Stipulation, p.7, No.4. Throughout the 1760-acre site, beneath a thin topsoil and root mat layer, the site soils consist of clean loose sands to an average depth of about 8 feet below ground surface. . . . From a depth of about 8 feet to 18 feet, a layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand (with some coarse sand and fine gravel) covers most of the proposed landfill site. . . . Beneath the clayey sand unit are loose and dense . . . sands . . . . WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B. The clayey sand unit occurring underneath the loose, Pliocene sands on the surface is part of the Citronelle formation, which "characteristically changes abruptly over very short distances." (TB. 29) The Citronelle consists "principally of quartz sand, with numerous beds, stringers and lenses of clay and gravel." CCE's Exhibit No. 21, p. 33. "The soils on the site standing alo[ne] would not be sufficient for a liner." I.T. 559 WACOC's expert reported an "average vertical hydraulic conductivity for [the upper Citronelle of] . . . 6.2 x 10-7 cm/sec (1.7 x 10-3 feet/day)." Laboratory tests on soil samples, taken more than eight and less than 18 feet below the surface of the site proposed for Phase I, demonstrated the variability of the sands making up the upper portion of the Citronelle formation on site. The percent finer than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve (silt and clay size fraction) . . . ranges between 17.5% to 41.7% . . . . "Vertical hydraulic conductivities for . . . [deeper] sands [on which waste disposal cell liners are to be laid] range from approximately 2.7 x 10-5 cm/sec to 5.8 x 10-4 cm/sec (0.08 to 1.62 feet/day)." Id. The variability of fines contents among samples reflects variability in hydraulic conductivity in the upper Citronelle, as well. This variability explains why an average permeability or vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle is of limited use in predicting how quickly rainwater will move through it, if these sands are used to cap the landfill after its completion, as proposed. Samples taken from eleven borings made throughout the entire 1,760-acre site were the basis for the applicant's average vertical hydraulic conductivity number. Only one of the borings was done on the Phase I site itself. If a ten-foot thick, continuous layer of clayey sands with a vertical conductivity of 6.2 x 10-7 centimeters per second occurred eight feet beneath the surface, the overlying Pliocene sands would hold a water table year round, given the high rainfall in the area. In fact, the applicants' consultants reported a water table on the Phase I site 21 to 30 feet down, beneath or within, but not above, the clayey sands in the upper Citronelle, in February of 1988. (T.595) The higher water tables observed in October of 1988 were also below the loose surficial sands. This demonstrates a vertical hydraulic conductivity for the upper Citronelle beneath the site proposed for Phase I well above the reported average. A borrow pit, off site but nearby, illustrates the fallacy of relying on average conductivity values to predict the movement of water. At the upper end of the excavation, a seep emerges from the sand to form a stream that flows 40 or 50 feet across red clayey materials resembling those on site, then sinks, disappearing into the earth. Even the value assigned to a particular split spoon sample may be a misleading average. B.T.126-7. Preliminary Plans Drawn In Phase I, WACOC proposes to excavate three different areas or cells for solid waste disposal "to approximately 20 feet below natural grade." (T.116) Accepting information they were furnished, the design engineers made the important (T.172) but erroneous assumption that the water table on site fluctuates only within a range "from five to fifteen feet" (T.132) below that. The plan is to fill each cell with solid waste and covering layers of various soils to a height 90 feet above existing grade. Trees growing within the 300- foot green belt planned for the perimeter of the 1,760-acre site would shield the landfill from the view of motorists on U.S. Highway 90. Separated from each other by berms, cells 1 (520' x 520') and 2 (520' x 650') would abut each other south of cell 3 (480' x 1170'), with another set of berms circumscribing all three cells. The bottom of each cell is to have a gradual V-shape, sloping "approximately one percent in the longitudinal direction and two percent in the traverse direction[s]," (T.116) toward the centerline. The plans call for compaction of the soils, once excavation has been accomplished, and for "root pickers" to remove rocks, roots and any other sharp objects. The plans do not contemplate the use of sieves. WACOC proposes to line these pits by covering the naturally occurring, compacted soils with a 1.5 millimeter (60 mil) layer of high density polyethylene, a plastic which has been manufactured for use in land fill liners at least since 1982. (T.401) The purpose of lining landfills is to contain contaminated water that would otherwise escape into the environment. Rain percolating through solid waste, together with moisture already in the solid waste at the time it is deposited in the landfill, leaches chemicals from the waste, producing a toxic solution called leachate. Products of industry make their way into household garbage and the municipal waste stream. About two percent of waste that reaches municipal sanitary landfills consists of materials which, if generated industrially in quantity could not lawfully be disposed of, except as hazardous waste. Scientists have "found municipal waste landfill leachates that were as toxic as those from Love Canal." (IT.696) Gundle Liner WACOC has decided to obtain a liner which meets minimum requirements of the National Sanitation Foundation Standard Number 54, Flexible Membrane Liners, November, 1983, from Gundle Lining Systems, Inc. (Gundle). "All Gundle materials are available in 22 1/2' widths with no factory seams " WACOC's Exhibit No. 7. Gundle's own employees would unroll the plastic, position it using "tack welding" to form a continuous sheet, join the strips with extrusion welds, inspect the seams visually, perform destructive "shear and peel tests . . . by random selection no less than the [to be] agreed [but unspecified at hearing] frequency . . . . [and conduct v]acuum testing [which] follows no specific standard." WACOC's Exhibit No. 7, Enclosure 6. (T.403, 411- 2) As a condition of the permit (No. 26), DER would require that an independent third party, a registered professional engineer, participate in quality assurance. High density polyethylene's "chemical resistance and durability. . . . enable[ Gundle] . . . to offer a 20-year warranty . . . for both the product and installation." (T.404) Gundle's liability under the warranty depends on how many years remain under warranty and "shall in no event exceed the amount of the sale price." (IT.434) The warranty excludes "any liability for consequential damages arising from the loss of . . . product owing to the failure of the material or installation," id.; CCE's Exhibit No. 3, and any liability whatsoever in the event of acts of God, including floods, and "excessive pressure or stress from any source." CCE's Exhibit No. 3; (IT.432). While the material may well outlast the warranty, perhaps by decades, in "geological time," it will inevitably fail. In the short term, too, the integrity of liners like that proposed is highly problematic. Past problems have included "mechanical damage . . . of one form or another such as with the bulldozer, or if somebody drops something." (IT.429) Here, before the first lift of solid waste (which would not include construction or demolition debris) is placed, four feet of sand (stockpiled during excavation) would be piled on top of the disposal cell liner. A bulldozer's gash might not go unnoticed, but small holes along seams can be missed, despite rigorous quality control measures. At the Ocean County landfill in New Jersey, "there was more liquid . . . than would have been true from the calculated moisture vapor transmission data," (IT.427) but Gundle's chemist testified this might have been "condensation on the soils on the back side of the liner." Id. Leachate Collection Embedded within the sand layer, in the crotch of the V, six-inch, perforated, schedule 80 PVC pipe, wrapped in filter cloth, is designed to collect leachate. The top of the pipe is to be eight inches above the liner, according to the leachate underdrain detail on sheet 15 of WACOC's Exhibit No. One pipe running the length of cell 3 and another running through cells 1 and 2 would move leachate to the leachate trunk line, another (intact) PVC pipe which would, in turn, empty into a paved flume in the leachate collection pond. The pond has been sized to contain the amount of leachate WACOC's consultants originally predicted a 25 year return 24-hour storm would generate, together with the rainfall such an event would deposit in the leachate collection pond, and still leave a foot of freeboard. "You have room below that major storm elevation that holds 60 to 70,000 cubic feet of leachate." I.T. 127. Except for the flume, the leachate pond is to be lined, like the disposal cells, with high density polyethylene. In the leachate collection pond, only 18 inches of sand would overlie the synthetic liner. From time to time, leachate would be pumped from the pond into tank trucks for removal to the Garnier wastewater treatment plant, which has a capacity of 6,500,000 gallons per day. Garnier is specifically permitted to receive only domestic wastewater, but the permit does not forbid industrial wastewater, and the plant now accepts leachate from the Wright landfill. DER has not classified landfill leachate either as domestic or as industrial wastewater. Before accepting it for treatment, the plant might require pretreatment of the leachate, whether on account of its anticipated acidity or for other reasons. If leachate causes sludge from Garnier to exceed standards for heavy metals, the sludge can be deposited in a Class 1 landfill like the one proposed here. WACOC has not yet entered into a contract with Garnier's operator for treatment of leachate. Not until leachate is removed from the leachate collection pond are pumps to be employed. Leachate would have to accumulate on the waste disposal cell liners and enter a pipe, in order to leave the cells. The design specifies perforations along the whole length of leachate collection pipe, around the bottom of the pipe. If the pipes clogged west of the cell walls, leachate could flow through sand and reenter the pipe further downslope. Outside the waste disposal cells, manholes have been planned, to afford access for cleaning the pipes out. The applicant did not demonstrate with calculations that gravity would induce flow through the pipes at a rate sufficient to remove leachate deeper than 12 inches. In the leachate collection pond, which is to be roughly 200 by 500 feet, leachate might attain a depth of several feet, before being pumped into a tank truck. The pond sides are to be lined with high density polyethylene to a height nine feet above the pond bottom. As far as the evidence showed, the depth of leachate in the pond would never fall below 18 inches anywhere on the pond bottom, once leachate began filling the leachate collection pond. Only if leachate were extracted from the sand covering the liner could the leachate head in the pond fall below one foot. The plan is for tank truck operators to place their hoses on "a concrete flume on top of that sand." I.T. 127. Stormwater Management Berms encircling the solid waste disposal cells, together with a series of ditches and culverts, are intended to direct stormwater away from the solid waste to a retention pond for temporary storage and treatment, before discharge offsite. To the extent stormwater which would otherwise flow into solid waste disposal cells can be diverted elsewhere, the volume of leachate can be diminished. The berms also serve to prevent rain falling on solid waste from reaching the stormwater retention pond, or polluting stormwater that does. Lined with relatively impermeable soils, the stormwater retention pond, "a football field wide and two and a half football fields long," (T.201) is designed to be big enough to hold the runoff from a 100 year return storm, leaving two feet of freeboard. In practice, some stormwater would percolate into the ground through unlined ditch bottoms, never reaching the pond. Stormwater that did reach the pond would either evaporate or drain through sidedrains, which are to consist of perforated six-inch PVC pipe, encased in gravel and covered with permeable sand excavated on site. Lining most of the pond's perimeter, this sand would filter water seeping through it from the pond into the side drains. After collecting in an outfall pipe, water draining from the pond would travel 300 or 400 feet, before discharging above grade, near the east branch of Mare Creek. If, as would be likely, sea gull droppings regularly end up in the stormwater retention pond, phosphorous and nitrogen levels in the east branch of Mare Creek and downstream would increase in time. Other Measures Decomposing solid waste produces methane gas. When cell I is completed, vents are to be installed to direct methane gas into the atmosphere above the center of the cell. I.T.140; WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, p.23 and No.9, p.15. "[T]he wind will disperse any gas within the site." I.T.191,221. If sufficient quantities were generated, a gas collection system would be installed. I.T.140. 31 Spotters will try to divert hazardous or infectious waste, and should succeed in the event a hauler tries to dispose of an accurately labelled 55- gallon drum of a hazardous liquid or red-bagged waste from a hospital, but small quantities of gasoline, paint, paint thinners, cleaning fluids and other hazardous materials cannot practically be diverted. At the end of every working day, solid waste is to be covered with a six inch layer of soils from the site. Fences are planned downwind from the working face to collect windblown debris. Closure A landfill is a long-term proposition. Pollutants still leak from Roman landfills dating to 400 A.D. Contemporary landfills and their regulators recognize the importance of capping landfills to minimize infiltration by rainwater (and so production of leachate.) Even though the plans may be revised later, DER requires applicants for landfill construction permits to make plans for closure, before a construction permit is issued. Landfill operators must also make annual contributions to a trust fund to be used to close the landfill and to bear post-closure expenses, which include trucking leachate and monitoring groundwater. WACOC has already established the trust fund and deposited $100. As a condition of operating the landfill over the five years it proposes, WACOC must deposit one fifth of estimated closure and post-closure costs in the trust fund 60 days before beginning to fill, and another fifth annually (30 days after the anniversary date of the initial payment). The cost estimates are subject to revision annually. (I.T. 384, 843-4) Before closing a landfill, the operator must obtain a closure permit. The trust fund is not expected to absorb the costs of cleaning up polluted groundwater, if that should prove necessary. Local governments, which operate many landfills themselves, sometimes step in when problems with privately run landfills develop. ...A leak develops or something that would cost millions of dollars to address it and you don't have the insurance, you're out of business instantly. ...[WACOC's ability] to address a catastrophic situation that could develop with this is limited to how much capital they have. * * * ...[I]f you don't have some insurance, even if its $500,000 deductible,...if the problem occurs, you're gone. And if you don't have the capital to handle it, it will fall back in the taxpayer's lap which is typically what happens... . (II.T. 70-71) As WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12 concedes, WACOC's "liabilities are considerably in excess of its assets." Landfill operators are under no obligation to contract for environmental liability insurance, which is not readily available, in any event. WACOC proposes to cap Phase I with clayey sands excavated on site. The clay required to cap Phase I amounts to "ten acres of the surface by four feet deep, or one acre 41 feet deep." (II.T. 36) WACOC proposes to spread this quantity over all three cells, covering them with an 18-inch clayey sand blanket. On top of that, WACOC would place 18 inches of surficial sand and, finally, six inches of topsoil. The sands are readily available on site, but there is no topsoil to speak of. The clayey sand WACOC proposes to use as a foundation for the cap is too permeable to constitute an effective barrier. (B.T. 149,158), but WACOC could mix it with clay from off site or some other agent to render it less conductive of rainwater. The present plans do not call for mixing, however. High Density Polyethylene WACOC is proposing the synthetic liner underneath waste disposal cells and the leachate collection pond not as one component of a composite liner, (T.158) but as "the state of the art," (T.153) in and of itself. But "flaws in liners are a common occurrence." (IT. 698) After a liner has been laid down and covered with sand, "inadvertent cuts and nicks of unexplained origin" (IT.699) can and do occur. However conscientious, laborers hired as "root pickers" may miss an occasional rock. The plans only call for removal of objects larger than a quarter inch. High density polyethylene is a plastic. If laid over stone or other protuberances, "the plastic will flow away from that pressure point and eventually you will have a hole in the plastic." Id. An investigator examining 60 mil high density polyethylene used as landfill liner "found six pin-holes per acre, mostly associated with the seams, [an] average of 9.4 cuts [per acre] of unexplained origin, [and] 110 [perforations attributable to] rock protu[bera]nces per acre." (IT.705) In an EPA sponsored study, a liner manufacturer installed and third parties "did a careful job of inspecting," id., twelve "rather small" (IT.706) waste disposal cells. Eight of the twelve leaked. Even if holes did not let leachate escape, several carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic organic constituents of municipal waste leachate dissolve in liners like the one WACOC proposes, "diffuse through and are released on the other side." (IT.699) High density polyethylene is practically impervious to water: water vapor can move through it only at a rate of 1 x 10- 13 centimeters per second. But certain hydrophobic substances, including chlorinated hydrocarbons such as trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride, move readily through high density polyethylene, itself a "very hydrophobic material." (T.807) William T. Cooper, a chemistry professor who participated in developing DER's drinking water standards, appearing in this case as a witness for the objectors, testified: [O]ne of the major problems in doing this work [concerning organic pollutants in groundwater] is establishing . . . standards. In other words, we had to pollute water in a well defined way so that our machines would tell us there was a certain amount of pollution in the water. . . . . . . [W]e started using [p]olyethylene tubes into which we would put several different organic molecules for the very reason that these molecules diffuse so readily through the [p]olyethylene tubes that we could control the rate in which we were contaminating water for laboratory purposes. (IT.806) In order to calibrate their instruments, the scientists who developed drinking water standards for Florida relied on polyethylene containers' ability to transmit organic pollutants in solution inside a container to the water outside at a steady, predictable rate. Chemists think of polyethylene "as a condensed liquid . . . . [because] it has the ability to absorb molecules." (T.807) Water and polyethylene do not mix, however, just as oil and water do not; they are said to be immiscible and to form separate phases. When a third substance is dissolved in either of two immiscibles occurring together, the additive's molecules move between the two phases until equilibrium is reached. The concentration in one phase will differ from the concentration in the other, and both concentrations will depend on the amount of the additive introduced (until saturation), but the ratio of the two concentrations (the "distribution ratio" or "partition coefficient") will always be the same, at equilibrium. A chemist in Gundle's employ testified that any "organic solvents in the leachate . . . would tend to float on the aqueous phase." (T.406) But some hydrophobic organics, including trichloroethylene, are denser than water and would not float. (IT.831) Mr. Cadwallader, Gundle's chemist, conceded that organic materials are soluble in water "to a point of saturation, which typically is not very high . . . ." (T.425) The leachate's nonaqueous phase would occur to some extent, perhaps entirely, within the polyethylene liner. In this connection, the objectors' chemists' opinion, which Dr. Brown also shared, has been credited. For the same reasons Mr. Cadwallader "agree[d] that a liner would gain weight when it is immersed in a pure organic solution," (T423) the liner would swell, as a variety of organic pollutants diffused into it from the leachate. Such swelling has been reported in low density polyethylene. WACOC's Exhibit No. 18. With groundwater in contact with the outside of the liner, the organic pollutants with which the liner was swollen would diffuse into the groundwater, until groundwater touching the liner acquired organic pollutants in the same concentrations in which they occurred in the aqueous phase of the leachate standing on the liner. It is even possible that concentrations of certain hydrophobic organics would be higher outside the liner than inside. (IT.818) If indeed a nonaqueous phase floated on top of the leachate, it would serve to replenish the aqueous phase, as hydrophobic organics diffused into the liner to replace those diffusing out of the liner into the groundwater or soils on the other side. (IT.831) Site Hydrogeology Groundwater flow "mirrors the topography of the site." WACOC's Exhibit No. 1, Appendix B, p.6. On the Phase I site, it flows to the north and the northeast, toward the east branch of Mare Creek. At monitoring well 1, the flow is "about a 45-degree angle down and to the east northeast." B.T.119. Lining the disposal cells and the leachate collection pond with high density polyethylene would curtail recharge (and evapotranspiration) under the cells and the pond. The plan is to line the stormwater retention pond with the same clayey sands that fail to hold a water table. B.T.175 Percolation from stormwater ditches or, despite its lining, even from the retention pond might cause slight mounding of the groundwater under those structures. But construction of Phase I would not appreciably alter the general direction of the groundwater flow. To the extent mounding occurs beneath the stormwater retention pond, groundwater table elevations under proposed cell 3 would be higher than they otherwise would have been. Elsewhere, the cell liners should have the effect of lowering groundwater elevations below what they would otherwise have been, ignoring infiltration from stormwater ditches. Any changes may be very slight, since groundwater from recharge areas upslope apparently flows under the site. In February of 1988, piezometers were used to measure water table elevations on the Phase I site. Distance between elevations proposed for liners and the February 1988 water table varied, but were no less than nine feet at any point measured. Based on the February 1988 measurements, the design engineers assumed an unsaturated zone 25 to 30 feet thick. But, on October 11, 1988, the second day of hearing, the same piezometers (B.T. 19) disclosed much higher water table elevations. Near the creek, the water table had risen only 4.92 feet higher than it had been in February, but in the wells closest to cell 1, the October water table exceeded the February elevations by 11.33 and 11.41 feet. (B.T. 40) On October 11, 1988, the water table was "above the bottom of the liner of the proposed landfill in cell two, portions of cell two, a lot of it, portions of cell one and a corner of cell three," (B.T. 44) with "about two feet of water above the proposed liner in the corner of cell two." Id. The levels may have been considerably higher in September. Since periodic measurements have not been taken over the requisite year or two, the seasonal high water table on the Phase I site has not been determined. The height of the groundwater table depends on how quickly rainwater percolates down to the water table to replace groundwater lost to evapotranspirtation or subterranean flow offsite. Groundwater under the Phase I site discharges into the east branch of Mare Creek. The timing as well as the amount of rainfall figure in, because once the soils are saturated, rain runs off instead of infiltrating. Still monthly rainfall is a good indicator of how much water has percolated down to recharge an aquifer. No records of rainfall on the site itself exist, but statistics from sites not far away show that extraordinarily high rainfall in September of 1988 contributed to the groundwater elevations measured on October 11, 1988. At one or more wells on site, the water table dropped another foot between October 18 and October 26, 1988. CCE's Exhibit No. 36. Rainfall data suggest that in most years, "the actual peak high for a water table probably would be towards the end of August." (B.T. 95) At present, the surficial aquifer beneath the proposed landfill site contains potable water. People living in the area draw water from the surficial aquifer for drinking water purposes, in one case from a well only some 30 feet deep. The nearest well to Phase I is 3,000 feet away, on the other side of the east branch of Mare Creek. The surficial aquifer goes all the way down to the Alum Bluff group, 75 feet below ground. Saltwater intrusion threatens in southern Okaloosa County. By 1995, if its growth continues at the present rate, the City of Destin will require another, supplementary water supply. Plans to tap the Floridan in northern Okaloosa County include well fields in the Eglin Air Force Base area and north of Freeport. But the Floridan "won't supply all the future projected needs." (II.T. 16) Desalinization is expensive. Eventually Okaloosa County is "going to have to look further toward the use of surficial water," (II.T. 13) as a public water supply. Leachate Characteristics Leachate from municipal landfills has high biological oxygen demand, high salt content, and significant concentrations of metals and organics. (I.T. 699) Cleaning solvents, oil-based paint, furniture polish, spot removers, xylene, toluene and benzene are among common constituents of municipal waste. Lisa Stewart, who picks up garbage in northern Okaloosa County four days a week, has noticed "containers containing a substance" (II.T.137) bearing such labels as naphtha, methylene chloride, toluol, burnt motor oil, insecticides, fungicides, trichloroethane, oxalic acid, xylol, petroleum distillates, polyglycol ether, plasticizers, sulfuric acid, methanol, ethanol and sodium hydroxide. Scientists have found every chemical DER lists on its "primary or secondary water quality standard numeric list" (I.T. 697) in municipal leachate, as well as "about 20 chemicals that are known to [b]e carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic which are not on that list." Id. At least some of this latter group can be anticipated at the proposed landfill, if it is built. The organic materials degrade only slowly; they have half-lives ranging from 20 to 50 years. (I.T. 698) Biochemical oxygen demand accounts for most of the stench to be expected from leachate standing in the leachate collection pond. The "combination . . . of hazardous waste from small quantity generators and from households we would expect to be somewhere in the range of five to 10,000 tons per year." (T.T.148) In order to predict the amount of leachate to expect, experts on both sides resorted to a mathematical model, known acronymically as HELP, for "Hydrological Evaluation Landfill Program." (T.689) These experts made assumptions about annual rainfall, the permeability of the cap materials which, after their initial excavation and stockpiling are destined to do double duty as a final cover for the landfill, and other factors, in order to calculate the amount of leachate likely to accumulate above the liner. WACOC's consultants calculated a head of 2.4 inches, assuming annual rainfall of 68 inches, and an unrealistically low permeability for the clayey sands under the Phase I site which are to be used for capping the Phase I cells as they attain their design heights of 90 feet above grade. Using WACOC's average vertical conductivity figure for the clayey sands of 6.2 X 10-7, without changing any other assumptions WACOC made in running the HELP model, yields a leachate head of 8.5 inches. Even if it were appropriate to use an average, this figure is low, because the permeability of materials recompacted in a laboratory is ordinarily ten times less than when the same material is compacted in the field. Here compaction "in the field" would occur on top of a mound of garbage. "[T]he system will be spongy." (I.T. 752) The HELP model makes no allowance for cracks in the cap, which are bound to occur, if WACOC closes the landfill as it proposes. As garbage degrades, it settles and sinks. This would cause shear planes or faults in the clayey sand cap, which cannot readily be detected, buried beneath sand, topsoil and vegetation. Estimating conservatively, "we could be dealing with twice as much water as we're calculating from the HELP model due simply to cracks in the facility." (I.T. 692) During those periods when the groundwater table is above the bottom of the disposal cell liners, groundwater infiltration through such imperfections as exist in submerged portions of the liners will increase leachate volume. Ignoring groundwater intrusion, cell 1 alone should produce 5,000 gallons a day of leachate the first year after closure. (I.T. 510-1). The applicant's own revised HELP model calculations put the leachate head at more than eight inches in a year in which rainfall on the site exceeded the annual average at Crestview by only eight percent (68 inches vs. 63 inches). A foot or more of head annually can be expected, taking into account cracks in the clay cap. Water Quality Monitoring WACOC's groundwater monitoring plan calls for a single well south and upgradient of the Phase I site to monitor "background" groundwater conditions, and a series of monitoring wells east and north of the site designed to detect any groundwater contamination the landfill may cause. WACOC's Exhibit No. 9, Sheet 11. Four of these downgradient wells would be placed by the eastern perimeter of the zone of discharge to measure compliance with DER's numeric water quality standards at that edge of the zone. Four other wells are planned within the zone of discharge. In addition, surface waters are to be monitored at seven points, five on the east branch of Mare Creek and two on the west branch, but none further south than the berm separating cell three from cells one and two. WACOC's own employees would take samples, arrange for their analysis and report the results to DER. Among the specified parameters are iron and chloride. As far as the record reveals, testing for sodium in addition would not make for earlier or more reliable leak detection. CCE's Exhibit No. 20. The suggestion that groundwater be tested for calcium assumed montmorillonite in the clayey sands, which the evidence did not show to be present. I.T. 988. According to a DER chemist, however, groundwater samples near landfills should be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 601/602. Since VOCs always appear to be present in landfill leachate and they can be detected in the subparts per billion (ppb) range, the test is a particularly sensitive indicator for the presence of organics in landfill leachate. (CCE's Exhibit No. 20, p.2.) Also among the specified parameters is fecal coliform, which makes any other routine testing for bacteria superfluous. Given the economic consequences for WACOC if a leak is discovered, it might be well to require WACOC to contract with an independent third party to monitor, in the event the landfill is built. Since groundwater flow on site has a vertical as well as a horizontal component, monitoring requires appropriate placement not only of wells, but also of screens. One approach is to cluster wells so that a succession of screens covers the entire thickness of the aquifer. Monitoring well screens should not exceed 15 feet in length, in order to avoid dilution that might render contaminants indetectable. CCE's Exhibit No. 2. But a hydrogeologist with sufficient information could place screens within transmissive zones through which groundwater flowing underneath the disposal cells or the leachate pond is likely to move. B.T. 136 With respect at least to leachate constituents that do not diffuse through liners, monitoring groundwater to detect pollution is more difficult if a landfill is lined than if it is not, because contaminant plumes are larger if they emanate from larger sources. CCE's Exhibit No. 19. Unless monitoring wells were sunk at ten-foot intervals east and north of where leachate is to collect, it would be easy to miss the plume from a small leak, which might be destined to become a large leak. But even the objectors' experts do not "consider that very practical financially." (B.T. 135) Groundwater Pollution Both through imperfections in the synthetic liner and, as regards hydrophobic organic pollutants with low molecular weights, by diffusion directly through even flawless portions of the liner, pollutants in the leachate will escape into the environment, if WACOC builds the landfill it has proposed for Phase I. As far as can be told from the evidence, the groundwater table would never reach the bottom of the leachate collection pond, so that adsorption and diffusion in soils underneath the pond would attenuate the effect of any leakage there, before it could enter the groundwater. But the soils on site have very low adsorption capacity and very low biological activity. I.T.719 Leachate leaving unlined, northwest Florida landfills five feet above the water table have caused serious pollution problems. The evidence showed that the groundwater table would rise above portions of the lined bottoms of all three waste disposal cells, on which leachate will also be standing. This may occur infrequently, would not necessarily happen every year, and would last for only a few weeks and days at a time, but it was the condition that obtained at the time of the hearing, two months later than seasonal high groundwater should normally occur. When it does happen, "it's entirely possible the leachate will be the same concentration as the groundwater in contact with the bottom of the liner." I.T. 701. In any case, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic agents (I.T. 697), including up to 20 for which DER has not established numeric limits, would occur in the leachate, and some would enter the groundwater, violating the DER "free from" requirement. I.T. 777. Precise concentrations have not been forecast but, at least at times, over the course of the landfill's existence, the leachate would contain certain mutagenic substances for which no safe lower limit has been established. Nor did the evidence give reasonable assurance that violations of DER's numeric standards pertaining to the trichloroethylenes, the tetrachloroethylenes and vinyl chloride would be unlikely outside the zone of discharge. I.T. 771,781-2. It depends in part on the volume or rate at which leachate or these constituents leak. B.T. 94. The evidence showed they will leak at some rate, even where there are no flaws in the liner. In a test involving higher concentrations of trichlorethylene and other organics than are anticipated here, experimenters observed a "flow rate . . . on the order of 125 gallons per acre per day from concentrated organics." I.T. 702. In 27 acres of plastic, flaws are to be expected. Good intentions notwithstanding, the evidence showed holes in the synthetic liner should be anticipated, and taken into account in designing a landfill. The rate at which leachate will leak through these imperfections depends on their number, shape and size; and, as to each, the depth of the leachate above it and the permeability of the medium below it. A circular hole with a diameter of one- sixteenth of an inch will discharge liquid, standing on top of it a foot deep, at the rate of 70 gallons a day, into air, gravel or porous sand. The rate for a similar hole with a diameter of one-eighth of an inch is 192 gallons per day. In the event of a leak above or near an area like the one into which the seep sank in the borrow pit, the soil would not slow the rate of leakage. (I.T. 718) Otherwise, for a given leachate head, the conductivity of the soil (if unsaturated) would determine the leakage rate. "[T]here will be less depth higher up the liner." I.T.760. But where the liner is lowest and the leachate deepest, the liner will lie over the loose sands that occur beneath the clayey sands. Rating tests demonstrated considerable variability in the hydraulic conductivity of all of the sands tested. Piezometer readings on October 18 and 26, 1988, showed how they transmit water as a unit. In eight days the water table (which is only at atmospheric pressure) fell a foot. The clayey sands would not prevent leachate's leaving the waste disposal cells and entering the groundwater, although in some places (where the leachate has less depth), they would slow the rate of leakage. "We could get tens of thousands of gallons [annually] leaking out of a 27-acre site which this is through holes." (I.T. 707) With groundwater in contact with portions of the liners, the leakage rate there would depend on the relative elevations of the groundwater table and the leachate standing on the liners. If the groundwater table were higher, upward pressure might push groundwater into the disposal cells, disminishing or even preventing leachate leakage until the water table fell below the height of the surface of the leachate. But, when that happened, direct discharge of undiluted leachate can be expected, directly to the groundwater, as long as groundwater abutted a flaw in the liner. DER's rules do not apply the numeric standards underneath or within 100 feet of waste disposal cells, which the rules denominate a "zone of discharge." Whether numeric standards are violated at the edge of the zone of discharge depends not only on the leakage rate, but also on where the leak occurs, on the velocity of the groundwater, and on pollutant concentrations in the leachate. Calculations taking all these factors into account have not been done for WACOC's Phase I. But credible expert testimony predicted such violations would eventually occur outside the zone of discharge. I.T.771. Synthetic liners like the one WACOC proposes are usually placed on top of three feet of highly impermeable, mineralogically suitable clay. "A clay liner...will retain organics to a greater extent than a synthetic liner." I.T. 823. Using it as proposed here, where it would come into direct contact with groundwater, does not give reasonable assurance that groundwater pollution will not occur.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER deny WACOC's application for a permit to construct a class I landfill in Okaloosa County. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 23, 24, 25, 32 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 50, 52, 54, 56 except for the last sentence, which is rejected, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 except for the sentence "DER has no rule prohibiting contact of the liner with ground water," 63, 65, 66 except for the second clause which is rejected, 67, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 and 85 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the intent to issue is dated April 1, 1988. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, financial feasibility was not demonstrated but is not material under the rules. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4, 5 and 6, closure cost estimates assume the suitability of the clayey sands on site as a cap, which the weight of the evidence did not establish to be the case. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, the use of a high density polyethylene membrane, without more, to keep hydrophobic organic materials out of abutting groundwater is not proven technology, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the rules do not require environmental liability insurance. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 10, 19, 20, 26, 35, 37, 44, 55, 61, 71, 74, 75, 77, 82, 86 and 87 are rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13, the fact that a synthetic liner separates solid waste from the groundwater does not make it permissible to deposit solid waste in groundwater. While the October readings did not prove that groundwater would rise above the sand in which the leachate will collect to touch the solid waste itself, September's rainfall, the rate at which the water table dropped between October 18 and 26, 1988, and the probability of defects in the liner showed that this was a realistic possibility. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 16, two percent of the materials disposed of in municipal sanitary landfills are hazardous in a chemical, if not legal, sense. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the "state of the art" use of high density polyethylene liners is as one component of a composite liner, or even as part of a double liner system, at a hydrogeologically suitable location. This material works well for some purposes and not at all for others. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 28, there was no showing that any other Florida landfill has been placed so as to come into contact with the groundwater table, or that a synthetic liner has ever been used for a landfill without clay; synthetically lined landfills have only recently been installed in Florida, and detection of leaks from lined landfills is difficult. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 29, since uncontaminated water is not a pollutant, it is not a permeant of concern. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 30, the evidence showed that under ideal, test conditions, 8 of 12 liners leaked. Under actual field conditions leaks exceeded 100 per acre. The weight of the evidence makes it unreasonable to conclude that 27 acres of plastic can be laid down in Okaloosa County without any flaws. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the rate of 192 gallons per day assumed gravel or porous sand which offers essentially the same resistance as air; there is no sandy clay anywhere on site, as far as the evidence showed; more than 18 feet below the surface, where most of the liner is to be laid, there are not even clayey sands, according to WACOC's own expert; the sands that do occur there include loose sands with a permeability greater than 4.9 X 10-4; and include numerous gravel beds; the .00022 gallons per day calculation assumes a hole a quarter as large (half the radius of Dr. Brown's) and ignores horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The fact that the water table dropped a foot in about a week demonstrates that the soils cannot be counted on to contain the leachate underneath flaws in the liner. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 33 and 34, Haxo's results were consistent with their conclusions but explicitly not the only basis for them. Gundle's chemist conceded that hydrophobic organic materials diffuse through high density polyethylene. His opinion that an accumulation in the soils on the other side would equalize concentrations and stop further diffusion did not take into account groundwater abutting the liner, and flushing the soils. The liner absorbs materials; but adsorption does not take place there. Transportation and dispersion need not be known as to "free froms." On page I.T. 777, Dr. Brown testified that diffusion would cause violations of DER's regulations, and this testimony has been credited. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 36, the swelling of the liner with organic materials is evidence of the diffusion which would result in organic materials' entering the groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 39 and 41, one inch of leachate in all three cells amounts to 2.25 acre feet, which is more than a "little." Calculations have not been done. With respect to DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 40 and 42, no allowance was made for cracks in the cap material (which cannot be seen under the vegetation, topsoil and drainage sand layer.) With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 43, a much greater leachate head than within the waste disposal cells may occur depending on where the marker is placed, but hydrophobic organics diffusing through the liner and absorbing in the soils would not be flushed out by groundwater. Except for the last sentence, this proposed finding of fact reflects the weight of the evidence. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 47, some water will evaporate. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 51, monitoring wells 8 and 9 are both more than 100 feet from waste disposal areas. The evidence did not show that the monitoring wells "can be expected to detect any contamination." With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 53, DER's experience also suggested testing for volatile organic chemicals. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the rate of decline also suggests that the water table was as higher elevations than those measured. An applicant must give reasonable assurance that pollution in violation of DER rules will not occur under foreseeable, recurring conditions, including during those times the liner is submerged. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 65, the proposed finding is adopted, as regards physical tears. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 68, the proposed finding is adopted, except for leakage through the liner, sometimes directly to groundwater. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 76, clayey sands were not reported below 18 feet. The difficulty with the groundwater monitoring plan is not the soil characterization, but the number of wells. Because synthetic liners leak, clay mineralogy is important to know. No clay is proposed here, however. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 84, effective odor control would also entail emptying the leachate pond regularly. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45 50, 58, 61, 64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 75, the first sentence of No. 76, Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, and the first sentence of 113 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the current tonnage figures appear in the application but their accuracy has not been established by competent evidence. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 12, projected profits depend on various problematic assumptions. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the initial payment was $100. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 18, the cost estimate's reasonableness depends largely on what it would cost to obtain suitable material for a cap, which is not clear. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 20, Scott had independent knowledge of the availability and cost of clay. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the proposed finding accurately reflects the evidence, with the qualification that the layer of dense orange clayey medium to fine sand also contains some coarse sand and fine gravel. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 22, the water table will be below the liner most, but not all, of the time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 28, see the discussion of DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13. WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 29, 59, 63 and 78 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, without comment. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 30, hazardous materials will end up in the landfill. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 39, the liner's permeability depends on the permeant. Although it is almost impervious to water, hydrophobic organics move readily through. Clay is a much better liner for those materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 40, the Gundle liner by itself is not the state of the art in Florida or anywhere else for municipal sanitary landfills. Proposed conclusions of law are addressed elsewhere. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 41, in the puncture test, the liner withstood a probe exerting 270 ponds of pressure. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 44, there are no clayey sands at the depth proposed for the deeper portions of the waste disposal cell liners, as WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21 and 27, taken together reflect. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 46, as the manufacturer's representative said, "these liners are a part of the quote unquote state of the art requirement for lined hazardous waste facilities." I.T. 404 (emphasis supplied). The other part is three feet of clay, not sand, underneath. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 47, it depends on the hazardous waste facility. A DER chemist, Mr. Watts, recommended monitoring groundwater near a municipal landfill for volatile organic chemicals. While most municipal garbage is not toxic, leachate from municipal waste is toxic. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 48, the testimony was that the groundwater pollution at Wright landfill was "most likely" from unlined cells. No lined landfill in DER's Northwest District has been built below the groundwater table as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 49, While municipal leachate constituents should not corrode the liner, many can diffuse through it. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 50, some two percent of the waste stream will still be hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 51, some organic materials will sink, rather than float. The sand within which the leachate will accumulate will not extract or absorb organic constituents of the leachate, as far as the evidence showed. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 52, removal is first to the leachate collection pond, also lined with high density polytheylene. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 53, it is wholly improbable that 27 acres of plastic will be installed "without physical flaws." Leakage could exceed 10,000 gallons a year. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 54, not all organic materials diffuse though high density polyethylene. Dr. Haxo's views on WACOC's proposal are not a matter of record. The 448-page EPA Study discusses containment techniques. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 55, the Haxo studies are pertinent although they do not purport to replicate a landfill precisely. In some studies he used concentrations of a single organic that were comparable to the concentrations of organics as a whole in municipal leachate. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 56, direct discharge of leachate into the groundwater, even in small quantities could violate the "free from" standards as could diffusion into the groundwater of carcinogenic, teratogenic or mutagenic, hydrophobic organic materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 57, CCE's experts' views about synthetic liners coincided in important respects with those of Gundle's chemist. There is no clayey layer where much of the waste disposal cells' liners are supposed to go. Given the certainty of leakage directly to the groundwater, it is the applicant's burden to do quantative analysis. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 60, there are no data for the site itself. The available data are incomplete. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 62, the February water level is likely to be more common than the October water level. The weight of the evidence did not establish that "under normal conditions the water level should fluctuate no more than five feet." With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 64, the proposed finding reflects the evidence except for the final sentence. *** With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 67, 68 and 69, it is inappropriate to schedule pumpout times at this stage. But it is appropriate to consider above average annual rainfall. Annual leachate production differs from the amount of head at any one time. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 73, the design engineer suggested Roto-Rooter. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 74, intersection should not occur. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 77, municipal landfills are not viewed as hazardous waste generators under federal law. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 82, the second sentence was not proven. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 84, there may be some infiltration. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 89, it would be very expensive to place enough monitoring wells to assure detection of any leaks. Placement of screens should be less of a problem than sinking enough wells. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 91, the Watts memo's suggestion of testing for volatile organic chemicals should give additional assurance. With respect to WACOC's proposed finding of fact No. 95, two percent of the waste stream can be anticipated to consist of hazardous materials. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109, the proposed clayey sand materials used in the thickness proposed would not create the barrier claimed. Modifications not proposed in the application are possible. With respect to WACOC's proposed findings of fact Nos. 110, 111 and 112, WACOC has not given reasonable assurance that pollution of the groundwater in violation of DER water quality standards would not occur; or that no more than a foot of leachate would stand on the liner. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert H. Huelsman Anna M. Huelsman 608 Ironwood Drive Fort Walton, FL 32548 Debra Swim, Esquire 1323 Diamond Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire Post Office Box 887 Mary Esther, Florida 32569 William L. Hyde, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, Laface & Richard Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Chris McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
