The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents, Holmes Dirt Service, Inc., and William J. Holmes, are in violation of various rules and regulations as alleged in the Notice of Violation issued by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, Holmes Dirt Service, Inc. (Holmes, Inc.), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Holmes, Inc., along with William J. Holmes (Holmes), is responsible for the operation and management of a solid waste facility permitted by the Department under the name "Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill" (Facility). Holmes is a citizen of the State of Florida. Holmes was also the Director of Holmes Dirt Service, Inc. Background On or about August 24, 1998, the Department issued Permit/ Certification No. SO42-0133361-001 to Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill for the operation and management of a C & D disposal facility. The permit was sent to the attention of Holmes and had an expiration date of August 24, 2003. This was a renewal permit, with the initial permit issued in or around 1993. On or about June 26, 2000, Respondents notified the Department that the facility was temporarily closed. The Facility has remained closed since that time. Holmes, Inc., and Holmes own and operate the Facility known as Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill Holmes testified by deposition that he received a Conditional Use Permit from Marion County to operate the Facility. This permit expired on June 1, 2000. The Facility has been closed since at least June 1, 2000, although it has not been officially closed pursuant to Department rules.2 The Facility has not received any additional C & D material after June 1, 2000. On December 17, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Violation to Holmes, Inc., and Holmes. On June 3, 2002, Respondents requested an administrative hearing before the Division. Count I-Failure to Provide Department with Adequate Financial Assurance Documentation In Count I, the Department alleges "that from June 2000, to the present, Respondents have failed to provide the Department with adequate financial assurance documentation." On June 4, 2001, the Department sent Respondents a letter advising that the financial assurance documentation was inadequate. (Respondents admit the letter was sent, but deny their documentation was inadequate.) The Department specifically contends that Respondents did not provide an annual update of the closing costs to the Department and that the assurance bond, previously issued in 1998, see Finding of Fact 11, was no longer acceptable to the Department. Rule 62-701.730(11), Florida Administrative Code, requires an owner or operator of an off-site construction and demolition debris disposal facility to provide to the Department proof of financial assurance "issued in favor of the State of Florida in the amount of the closing and long-term care cost estimates for the facility." This information is required to be submitted with the permit application for the facility. Financial assurance is required should the State of Florida have to take over closure or long term care of a facility. On May 29, 1998, Holmes, Inc., and Holmes (as Vice President of Holmes Inc.) entered into a Trust Agreement with United Southern Bank, as Trustee, to provide financial assurance for the Facility. This agreement contained a cost estimate of $76,551.72 for closure and post-closure of the Facility. On April 29, 1998, a bond was executed between Holmes, Inc., and Frontier Insurance Company (Frontier) in this amount. Thus, when the C & D permit was renewed in 1998, Respondents obtained financial assurance in the form of a closure cost/long-term care bond from Frontier. Rule 62-701.630(3), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to "cost estimates for closure," provides that the owner or operator shall estimate the total closure cost for the permitted potions of the landfill for the period in the operation "when the extent and manner of its operation make closing costs most expensive." Rule 62-701.630(4)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to "cost adjustments for closure," requires the financial assurance to be updated annually to account for the inflation factor of 1.01. Once a bond is in place, as here as of 1998, these subsections require the permittee, here Holmes Inc., to provide the Department, on an annual basis, with an update to the closure cost, which includes the inflation factor. Additionally, the Department requires notification from the owner or operator that the annual update has been made. Prior to 2001, there was no set time for a facility to report this information. As of 2001, each facility was required to report by March 1 of each year. In 2000, the Department's Tallahassee office notified its Central District Office that the financial assurance for the Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill was inadequate. On June 14, 2000, the Central District Office mailed a letter to the Holmes facility notifying Respondents that there was a problem with financial assurance in that as of June 1, 2000, Frontier was no longer listed as an acceptable surety and, as a result, Respondents were requested to "submit proof of alternate financial assurance," or risk an enforcement action. A letter dated November 15, 2002, from Frontier to Judith Holmes, who is listed in the letter as the President of Holmes Dirt Service, Inc., was sent to Respondents to notify them that premiums were still due and outstanding on their closure/long-term care financial assurance bond for the past two years. This letter also informs that it was the position of Frank Hornbrook of the Department "that all of the requirements covered by our bond have not been satisfied and our bond has not been officially closed by the obligee. As a result, this bond still carries liability and premiums due." (The Department does not release a bond until a facility is officially closed and the Facility is not officially closed.) Invoices for "01/02 and 02/03 renewal premium due" were enclosed with the letter. Holmes admitted that the premium is past due and that he has no money to pay the premium. Even though the bond renewal premiums are past due, there is no persuasive evidence that Frontier has been relieved of its obligations under the bond issued in 1998. Rather, the Department wants a replacement bond from Respondents, but the original bond will remain in place until a replacement bond is furnished by Respondents. In fact, the Department will look to Frontier for potential payment under the 1998 bond, if necessary. However, Respondents have not provided the Department with the inflation update financial assurance in 2001. As a result, the current financial assurance for Holmes Fill Dirt Landfill is inadequate. Count II- Failure to Provide Ground Water Monitoring Reports The Department alleged that from "June 2000 to June 2001, Respondents failed to sample and analyze the ground water in accordance with the approved ground water monitoring plan for two consecutive sampling events." Respondents admit these allegations. Apparently, the last report was submitted to the Department in 2000. The Department does not allege that the ground water on and off-site violate Department rules. Holmes testified during a deposition that "the water tests have been clean. . . . until he stopped the sampling process." Holmes says he does not have "any money"--"[he is] broke." Count III-Objectionable Odors The Department alleged that "[d]uring the period June 2000 to the present, the Department has received numerous complaints from residents in the area, alleging objectionable odors emanating from the landfill." Respondents deny that there have been "objectionable odors." Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, pertains to "Solid Waste Management Facilities." Rule 62-701.730(7)(e), Florida Administrative Code, provides that C & D debris disposal facilities "shall be operated to control objectionable odors in accordance with Rule 62-296.320(2), F.A.C. If objectionable odors are detected off-site, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraph 62-701.530(3)(b), F.A.C."3 Rule 62-701.200(84), Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the definition of "objectionable odors" found at Rule 62- 210.200(181), Florida Administrative Code. "Odor" is defined as "[a] sensation resulting from stimulation of the human olfactory organ." Rule 62- 210.200(182), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62- 210.200(181), Florida Administrative Code, defines an "objectionable odor" as "[a]ny odor present in the outdoor atmosphere which by itself or in combination with other odors, is or may be harmful or injurious to human health or welfare, which unreasonably interferes with the comfortable use and enjoyment of life or property, or which creates a nuisance." Rule 62-296.320(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[n]o person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the discharge of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor." See also Rule 62-210.200(19)-(20), Florida Administrative Code. Joint Exhibit I is a study currently being done by Professor Timothy Townsend, Ph.D., of the University of Florida, Department of Environmental Services, which states that disposal of drywall, which contains gypsum, has caused hydrogen sulfide generation ("rotten egg" smell) at numerous C & D landfills in Florida. (Dr. Townsend is recognized as an authority on landfills.) Further, the primary constituents in the gas creating the problem is, among other reduced sulfur compounds, hydrogen sulfide. The main ingredient for these compounds is gypsum drywall. The study finds that hydrogen sulfide possesses a very strong odor at very low concentrations and is known to be toxic at high concentrations. The discussion of human health impact with regard to odor problems is raised and culminates with the observation that while hydrogen sulfide concentrations in ambient air surrounding C & D waste landfills are less than those thought of as harmful, some studies indicate that long- term exposure even to low concentrations can have a health impact.4 Holmes admitted that there is an odor problem at the Facility caused by gypsum and drywall and that the odor is worse in rainy weather. Holmes also admitted attempting to correct the problem by previously inviting individuals from the University of Florida to the facility, but reported that there was nothing they could do at that time, except for keeping the area covered with dirt. Individuals residing near the Facility offered opinion testimony that they suffered various problems resulting from the odor emanating from the Facility. Neighbor Charles F. LaBell, who resides 500 to 600 feet from the landfill, testified that the odor began as a rotten egg smell and evolved into what they "assumed was a hydrogen sulfide" odor. Mr. LaBell testified to being familiar with the odor of hydrogen sulfide due to his work experience at a wastewater treatment plant. Mr. LaBell further stated that the odor was unpredictable and not constant, but he equated rainy periods and "foggy mornings" with times when the odor would occur. The neighbors have found that outdoor activities have been severely impacted, resulting in a loss of use of portions of their property and diminished enjoyment of their outdoor life. Neighbor Donald L. Strickland confirmed Mr. LaBell's testimony, stating, in part, "You can't go outdoors, you can't stand it." James Bradner, an employee with the Department for twenty-three years and current manager of the Department's solid and hazardous waste program, offered opinion and expert testimony on the issue of odor problems at C & D debris disposal facilities. Mr. Bradner has served in a technical advisory capacity to a technical awareness group on odors caused by gypsum drywall in C & D debris facilities and has had experience at various C & D debris facilities in the State of Florida contending with odor problems. Mr. Bradner has experienced hydrogen sulfide odors at water treatment plants and would characterize the odor as a rotten egg odor. He has also had experience with C & D debris disposal facilities dealing with gypsum-related odor problems and testified that there are various methods to deal with the odor problems, such as putting an impervious cap (excluding water and liquids) of a clay liner and actually closing the Facility. Mr. Bradner has never been on the Facility site. The Department's rules do not define "health." Odor is a subjective measure, according to Mr. Bradner. Department employee John Turner was responsible for taking air samples in order to assess the odor problems at the Facility. Mr. Turner has been with the Department for 26 years, and in his experience with the Department, has smelled the rotten egg odor of hydrogen sulfide at sewage treatment plants and municipal solid waste facilities. Mr. Turner met with neighbors residing near the Facility as a results of complaints of odor. He visited the Facility five times to collect air samples. He detected an odor during his initial three visits, but did not take any samples because the aired smelled was not representative of a strong odor. For Mr. Turner, during each visit, the odor was the same in quality. There was some variation in strength. "It was periodic in some cases and less periodic in other cases." He collected samples during his fourth and fifth visits, but the "samples were below the minimum detection levels for the method." Mr. Turner offered no scientific evidence that would indicate that the air was harmful on the dates when samples were taken and analyzed. Nevertheless, Mr. Turner opined that the odor was objectionable in accordance with the definition found in Rule 62-210.200(181), Florida Administrative Code, on all five occasions. Count IV-Failure to Control Access The Department alleged that "access to the Facility was not completely controlled." Respondents deny the allegation. Rule 62-701.730(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides: "Operation requirements. Owners and operators of construction and demolition debris disposal facilities shall comply with the following requirements by May 1, 1997, or at the time of permit issuance, whichever is sooner: . . .(c) Access to the disposal facility shall be controlled during the active life of the facility by fencing or other effective barriers to prevent disposal of solid waste other than construction and demolition debris." Department employee Gloria-Jean DePradine testified that Florida Rules require that all C & D facilities have an effective barrier so as to prevent unauthorized disposal of waste. An effective barrier could be fencing, although the Department does not require a specific type of fencing. It depends on the situation. Holmes originally owned a 46-acre tract (the property). The Facility is located on 13 acres of this property. Holmes resided on the property until he sold his residence in 2000 to Valentina Ellis. The property has an earthen berm along Highway 42, the southern boundary of the property, which is a barrier. The entrance to the property is controlled by a gate, which provides access to the property. There is no fence separating the Facility from the residence. A fence exists along the perimeter of the property. The property is in the same condition today as when the Department originally issued the permit in 1993. When the Facility was permitted and operated by Holmes, the Department found the access control to be acceptable. However, when a portion of the property (10 acres) was sold to Ms. Ellis, access was no longer being controlled completely because Holmes had provided the necessary security for the Facility, being the owner of the entire 46-acre tract. Because there are two separate property owners, Ms. Ellis can now directly enter the Facility property, or any other members of the public that entered her property, could enter the Facility and dump unauthorized waste. Randall Cunningham has been employed with the Department since May 1999, and has been working in the solid waste section since October 2000. On November 19, 2001, Mr. Cunningham conducted an inspection of the Facility site in response to an odor complaint and found that there was no barrier between the property owned by Ms. Ellis and the Facility. Mr. Cunningham was able to drive from Ms. Ellis’ property onto the landfill. Mr. Cunningham saw a fence leading onto Ms. Ellis' driveway with a swinging gate attached to a post, which was attached to a fence. Mr. Cunningham did not visit the Facility while it was in operation. There is no effective barrier between Ms. Ellis' property and the Facility. Additionally, the Facility is not yet officially closed. Count V-Investigative Costs The Department alleged that it incurred expenses of not less than $500 while investigating this matter. Investigative costs are recoverable pursuant to Section 403.141(1), Florida Statutes, which states: "Whoever commits a violation specified in s. 403.161(1) is liable to the state for . . . reasonable costs and expenses of the state in tracing the source of the discharge, [and] in controlling and abating the source and the pollutants. " Mr. Bradner’s salary is approximately $35.00 per hour. He spent approximately 20 to 30 hours on this case which would total approximately $700.00. Mr. Turner’s salary is approximately $25.00 per hour. Mr. Turner visited the Facility on five separate occasions in order to attempt to collect an air sample. It took him an hour and a half, to one hour and 45 minutes to get to the Facility. He usually spent approximately one half hour at the Facility. The Department conducted the two sampling events referred to above, which were sent to a lab in Los Angeles for analyses. Each analysis cost $250.00.
Conclusions Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore ORDERED: Respondents shall forthwith comply with all Department rules regarding solid waste management as related to the disposal of C & D debris. Respondents shall correct and redress all violations in the time periods required below and shall comply with all applicable rules in Chapters 62-296 and 62-701, Florida Administrative Code. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall prevent unauthorized waste disposal at the Facility, and shall provide access control by the use of fencing, gates, or other effective barriers on the portion of property that is contiguous with property owned by Ms. Valentina Ellis. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall obtain adequate financial assurance and shall provide the Department with proof of financial assurance issued in favor of the State of Florida, in the amount of the closing and long-term care cost estimates for the Facility, if the 1998 renewal bond is no longer in full force and effect. (If the renewal bond is in full force and effect, Respondents shall provide the Department with an appropriate financial update.) Otherwise, proof of financial assurance shall consist of one or more of the following instruments which, comply with the requirements of Rule 62-701.630(6), Florida Administrative Code: trust fund agreement; certificate of deposit; surety bonds guaranteeing payment; surety bonds guaranteeing performance; irrevocable letter of credit; closure insurance; or financial test and corporate guarantee. Respondents shall continue to monitor and analyze the ground water at the Facility in accordance with the approved monitoring plan through the active life of the Facility, and for five years after closure activities are completed. The ground water monitoring results shall be submitted to the Department for review within 45 days of each sampling event. Respondents shall control any objectionable odors emanating from the Facility in accordance with Rule 62- 296.320(2), Florida Administrative Code. Since strong odors have been detected off-site, beyond the disposal area boundary, Respondents shall comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.530(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. See Endnote 3. Therefore, within 30 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall implement a routine monitoring program to determine the timing and the extent of any off-site odors. If the monitoring program confirms the existence of objectionable odor, Respondents shall submit to the Department for approval an Odor Remediation Plan (Plan) within 60 days of confirmation of objectionable odors. The Plan shall describe the nature and extent of the problem and the proposed remedy. The Plan shall be implemented within 30 days of approval. Upon review of the Plan, the Department may request additional information. Any additional information shall be submitted to the Department within 30 days of receipt of the Department’s written request. If additional information is not submitted in a timely manner, the Department will approve or deny the Plan as submitted. Upon approval, the Plan shall be incorporated herein and made part of this Final Order and the Respondents shall implement the conditions in the Plan pursuant to an approved schedule. If the proposal is denied, Respondents shall submit a new plan or modifications to the plan within 30 days and the review process shall continue as detailed herein. Respondents shall submit monthly reports to the Department. The reports shall include all data collected during the monitoring. The first report shall be submitted to the Department within 45 days of the implementation of the plan and shall continue every 30 days thereafter. Respondents are ordered to close the Facility within 60 days of this Final Order, unless the time is extended by the Department. Respondents shall implement closure activities in accordance with Rule 62-701.730(9)(b)(c)(d) and (10), Florida Administrative Code. Closure activities shall include, but not be limited to the following: Grade and compact the disposal area to eliminate ponding, promote drainage and minimize erosion. Establish and maintain side slopes no greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical rise in all above-grade disposal areas. Establish and maintain final cover consisting of a 24-inch thick layer of clean soil, the upper six inches of which shall be capable of supporting vegetation. Seed and/or plant vegetative cover over the disposal area. Respondents shall monitor the effectiveness of the cover for a minimum of five years following completion of closure activities, and acceptance by the Department. Within 30 days of the completion of the closure activities, Respondents shall provide the Department with "Certification of Closure Construction Completion" and a final survey report, conducted by a Professional Land Surveyor in accordance with Rule 62-701.610(3) Florida Administrative Code, if the disposal operation has raised the elevation higher than 20 feet above natural land surface. Within 60 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondents shall pay $3,000.00 to the Department for the administrative penalties assessed above. Payment shall be made by cashier's check or money order payable to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection" and shall include thereon the OGC Case No.: 01-1946 and notation "Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund." The payment shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, Central District Office, 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Orlando, Florida 32803-3767. In addition to the administrative penalties, within 60 days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondents shall pay $500.00 to the Department for costs and expenses. Payment shall be made by cashiers check or money order payable to "State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection" and shall include OGC Case No. 01-1946 thereon with the notation "Ecosystem Management and Restoration Fund." The payment shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, Central District Office, 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Orlando, Florida 32803-3767. Respondents will remain liable to the Department for any damages resulting from the violations alleged herein and for the correction, control, and abatement of any pollution emanating from Respondents' Facility. Respondents may request and the Department may extend the time limits imposed by this Final Order. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 24th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) may issue to Respondent Republic Services of Florida, L.P. (Republic), permits to construct and operate a Class III landfill, pursuant to Permit Numbers 266830-003-SC/01 and 266830-004-SO/01, as modified as set forth below.
Findings Of Fact Background On June 30, 2009, Republic filed with DEP an application for a permit to construct and operate a Class I landfill (Application). In response to DEP's request for additional information dated July 30, 2009 (RAI), Republic filed a response dated September 14, 2009 (RRAI), upon receipt of which, DEP deemed the Application to be complete. References to the Application typically include the Application, RRAI, and other materials, such as reports, plans, and drawings, that are part of the Application, as well as three subsequent modifications, which are detailed below. Republic revised several reports, plans, and drawings in the RRAI; references to these items, such as the Engineering Report and Operation Plan, are to the versions contained in the RRAI. On November 13, 2009, DEP filed its intent to issue construction permit #266830- 003-SC/01 (Construction Permit) and intent to issue operation permit #266830-004-SO/01 (Operation Permit; collectively, the Permit). Republic Services, Inc. and its affiliates constitute the second largest waste-management operator group in the United States. Their market capitalization is just over $11 billion. The capitalization of the affiliate formed to operate the subject landfill is doubtlessly less than $11 billion, as the record does not suggest that any significant part of the overall capitalization of Republic Services, Inc., and its affiliates would be at risk in the operation of the proposed landfill. Republic presently owns and operates a Class III landfill in the City of Bartow, Polk County, known as the Cedar Trail Landfill. The oldest part of this landfill is an unlined Class III landfill of 52.5 acres in the center of the property owned by Republic. Immediately west of this unlined landfill is a 30.7-acre lined Class III landfill, which comprises cells 1-4. The Cedar Trail Landfill is located at 2500 West State Road 60, about three miles west northwest of the intersection of State Road 60 and State Road 98, which marks the center of Bartow. The landfill is immediately west of E.F. Griffin Road. Petitioners Frost live on E.F. Griffin Road, about one mile north of the Cedar Trail Landfill. Petitioner Highland Lakes Estates Homeowner's Association serves a residential subdivision known as Highland Lakes Estates. Highland Lakes Estates occupies a notch at the southeast corner of Republic's property. Aerial photographs reveal the changing land use of the land on which Cedar Trail Landfill is situated. Fifty years ago, the land was vacant with indications of agricultural uses. At the site of the proposed landfill were mostly citrus groves on the west side and some rangeland or vacant land on the east side. Ten years later, a large area immediately northeast of the subject land reveals the effects of strip mining for phosphate. Three years later, in 1971, the mined area had greatly expanded to encompass all or nearly all of the subject site and much of the surrounding area, including the western half of what would become Highland Lakes Estates. By 1980, the pits had been refilled and active mining had ceased, and the streets had been constructed for what is now known as Highland Lakes Estates. By 1993, about three dozen homes had been built in this residential, large-lot subdivision. 9. The Cedar Trail Landfill was constructed in the early 1990s as an unlined construction and demolition debris landfill. Now designated an approved landfill for Class III waste, this facility accepts such waste as is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(14) (2010), which includes construction and demolition debris, yard trash, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, paper, glass, furniture (but not white goods), plastic, and other materials not expected to produce leachate that presents a risk to the public health or environment. A zoning/land use map reveals that the land for which the proposed landfill is proposed is designated "sewage/borrow pits/spray fields." Highland Lakes Estates occupies land that is designated single-family residential with a density of one dwelling unit on up to 2.49 acres. The Cedar Trail Landfill has been the subject of three recent environmental resource permits (ERPs). Appendix R to the Application is an individual ERP issued in April 2009, and Appendix R to the RRAI is a conceptual ERP issued in March 2005. The April 2009 ERP mentions that the entire stormwater project was conceptually approved by an ERP issued on September 10, 2008, but this ERP is not part of the record. In any event, these ERPs approve the construction of a comprehensive stormwater or surface water management system for the entire Republic property. In particular, the April 2009 ERP permits the construction of a borrow pit at the southeast corner of the Republic property and a modification of the perimeter ditch/wet retention system. The April 2009 ERP states that the permitted stormwater management system will provide total onsite retention for runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The April 2009 ERP requires 2.8 acres of compensation for 2.8 acres of encroachment in the 100-year floodplain. Specific Condition 14 prohibits excavation of the borrow pits to a clay confining layer or limestone bedrock layer. Specific Condition 20 prohibits the mixing of leachate with stormwater and provides that, if leachate enters stormwater, the stormwater becomes leachate. Presumably reflecting this permitting activity, Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, is the site plan, including the unlined Class III landfill, the four-cell lined Class III landfill immediately to the west of the unlined landfill, and the eight cells proposed to accept Class I waste. These eight cells are immediately south of the four cells of the lined Class III landfill. The two northernmost of these eight cells abut, on their east boundary, the unlined Class III landfill. The remaining six cells abut, on their east boundary, an 800-foot wide borrow pit, which lies between these cells and Highland Lakes Estates. Immediately north of Highland Lake Estates is a second borrow pit, and west of this borrow pit is the unlined Class III landfill. The other major feature on the site plan is a third borrow pit running, from west to east, along the north border of the lined Class III cells, the unlined Class III landfill, and the second borrow pit. Bearing no signs of ambitious reclamation activity, the backfilled mining cuts host large water storage areas and, as described in the application for the March 2005 ERP, wetlands of "very poor quality." The backfilled soils are best described as complex surficial soils, consisting mostly of fine sands with varying amounts of organics, silts, and clays. Geotechnical investigations of the Cedar Trail Landfill suggest that mining depths, although variable, probably averaged 40 feet. Petitioners and Intervenor are substantially affected by the Permit and the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, which will stand nearly 200 feet above grade and will be the focus of substantial activity six days per week during its years of operation. Like Petitioners, Intervenor owns land in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Trail Landfill, which is in the jurisdiction of Intervenor, and Intervenor's various municipal operations are much affected by whether the proposed Class I landfill is permitted. Among other things, Intervenor has agreed to accept untreated leachate from the proposed landfill. Petitioners Frost built their home in 1980 or 1981. During the hours of operation of the existing landfill, Petitioners Frost constantly hear the beeping noise of heavy- duty equipment, presumably a safety device when the equipment is moved. Over a dozen lots in Highland Lakes Estates abut the property line of the Cedar Trail Landfill, and the closest residence is about 1000 feet from the nearest proposed Class I cell. At present, the existing landfill subjects the Highland Lakes Estates to constant noise during operating hours and a coating of dust inside their homes. Several residents of Highland Lakes Estates testified. Hard-working people, some of whom are now retired, these residents decided to purchase homes in Highland Lakes Estates because it was a sunny, healthy place to live. Over time, most of these residents, by varying degrees, have come to accept the fact of the Class III operations at Cedar Trail Landfill, but they object to the substantial intensification of land use that will result from a regional Class I landfill. One resident testified that she finds in her pool dirt that has escaped from the existing landfill, and she has become concerned about her grandchildren coming over to swim. Another resident testified that he only began closing his windows five or six years ago when the noise levels at the existing landfill increased; he eventually had to install a window air- conditioner. The same resident testified that the green herons and snowy egrets that he used to see around his house have not returned for five years, and his wife, who has health problems, including respiratory distress, would suffer from the expanded landfill operations. Application, RRAI, and Permit, Including Modifications The Permit incorporates the Application, including the RRAI, Engineering Report, Operation Plan, and drawings. Thus, all of the documents are part of the Permit. In the Application, Republic proposes to convert cells 5-8, which are not yet constructed, from a Class III to a Class I landfill and add four new cells adjacent to the unused cells. The unfilled portion of Cells 1-4 would continue to receive only Class III waste. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(13) (2010), Class I waste is all solid waste, other than hazardous waste, that is not otherwise prohibited by rule. The Application states that the proposed landfill will serve communities within 100 miles. The service area of this regional landfill will thus extend in central Florida from Marion to Osceola counties, along the Gulf Coast from Pasco to Lee counties, and along the Atlantic Coast from Volusia to Martin counties. As stated in the Application, this service area is populated by 9.7 million persons, who would daily account for 3000 tons of waste at the Cedar Trail Landfill. Initially, according to the Engineering Report, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste, but, once the existing Class III cells are filled, the proposed landfill will receive 1600 tons per day of Class I waste plus the 1400 tons per day of the Class III waste that is currently going into the existing landfill. As revised by the RRAI, the life expectancy of the proposed landfill is seven years. The Application states that Republic will employ an attendant, a trained operator, and 3-5 spotters at the landfill. The Application reports that the landfill would operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the working face would be covered daily. The Application reports that Republic would install seven new detection wells and use 17 existing wells for monitoring groundwater and would use two existing staff gauges for monitoring surface water, evidently at a single location, as discussed in the next paragraph. 23. Application Appendix V is the Water Monitoring Plan. Appendix V states that surface water will be monitored every time that the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area discharges offsite, but not more frequently than weekly. Application Drawing 4, as revised in the RRAI, shows that the sole surface water monitoring location is close to the leachate storage tanks, which are described below. 23. Appendix V also requires leachate monitoring, "at least annually," for five field parameters--specific conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, colors, and sheens; eight laboratory parameters--including chloride, mercury, and total dissolved solids; and the parameters listed in 40 CFS Part 258, Appendix II, which includes a comprehensive list of volatile organic compounds; persistent organic pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (a major dioxin) and Dibenzofuran; and metals, including lead and chromium. Fourteen days prior to all sampling events, Republic is required to notify DEP, so that it may obtain split samples for its own analysis. Republic is required to report the results of the groundwater monitoring quarterly and to analyze the groundwater data in a technical report filed with DEP every two years. Appendix V also requires monitoring for odors and combustible gases, mostly methane. Republic will monitor combustible gas quarterly at various ambient locations, such as the office buildings and to monitor combustible gas quarterly in the soil down to the seasonal high water table. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine combustible gas concentrations and, if they exceed 25%, take "all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health." Some confusion in the Application arises as to the issue of whether the Cedar Trails Landfill will be subject to, or voluntarily implement, the more elaborate provisions applicable to a landfill covered under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Regulated emissions for a new source might include particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and specified hazardous air pollutants. Appendix V states that the landfill will become a Title V landfill once permitted to receive Class I waste, and, at that time, it will be subject to a "more comprehensive system of landfill gas collection and monitoring." Appendix V assures that these items "will be addressed in separate documentation from this monitoring plan"--and, apparently, separate from the present record. By contrast, the Operation Plan concedes only that, based on the nature of Class I waste and the design capacity of the proposed landfill, Cedar Trail Landfill "may" become a Title V facility. The Operation Plan states: "If the regulatory thresholds at [Cedar Trail Landfill] are met [under Title V] requiring an active gas collection and control system (GCCS), [Cedar Trail Landfill] will submit as required the GCCS design plans for approval and install an active gas extraction system within the regulatory timeframes specified by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart WWW." More specific provisions in the Operation Plan identify best management practices to prevent objectionable odors. Four practices are identified, including an "active gas collection and extraction system." On the DEP form application, which is a cover sheet to the more elaborate application materials, Republic checked boxes indicating that the landfill would use active gas controls with gas flaring and gas recovery, which is probably what is meant by an "active gas collection and extraction system." The Application provides that the landfill liner would be double composite; the leachate collections system would consist of collection pipes, geonets, and a sand layer; the leachate would be stored in tanks; some of the leachate would be recirculated as spray on the working face; and the remainder of the leachate would be stored onsite and periodically transferred to a wastewater treatment center for treatment. The Engineering Report states that the waste disposal footprint will not be located where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the waste. The Engineering Report identifies appendices addressing the slope-stability analysis and foundation analysis and relies on a March 12, 1997, report by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. (Ardaman Report), January 23, 2004, report by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder Report), and June 26, 2009, report by Hanecki Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Hanecki Report). These items are discussed in greater detail below in connection with the sinkhole issue. The Engineering Report assures that the waste disposal footprint will not be within 500 feet of an existing or approved potable water well, nor will it be within 1000 feet of an existing or approved potable water well serving a community water supply. The Engineering Report adds that the minimum horizontal distance between waste deposits and the property line is 100 feet. The Engineering Report assures that the landfill footprint will not be in a dewatered pit, as the installation elevations are at least 2-3 feet higher than the seasonal high water table. The Engineering Report acknowledges that a small part of the eastern end of the four southernmost cells lies within the 100-year floodplain, as depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Map effective December 29, 2000, and as shown in Application Appendix A, Drawing 1. Claiming that the relevant map was not revised in 2000, the Engineering Report asserts that the last update to the FIRM map was in 1975, and the depicted floodplain was filled during the mine reclamation process. The Engineering Report notes that the floodplain concerns were addressed in the April 2009 ERP. 34. The Engineering Report discloses two enforcement actions against Republic at the Cedar Trail Landfill. In a letter dated October 19, 2001, DEP warned Republic about noncompliant items at the site, and, in a notice of noncompliance dated January 30, 2006, DEP warned Republic not to use a new cell prior to construction certification of the cell's stormwater system. Both matters were reportedly resolved, and Republic has not been the subject of other enforcement actions for the Cedar Trails Landfill. At DEP's urging, the RRAI elaborates on enforcement actions against Republic or, evidently, Republic affiliates at a variety of Florida facilities, not just landfills. The additional information reveals that DEP imposed a fine of $61,300 for the October 2001 violations, which included disposing of unacceptable waste, storing an excessive number of tires and exceeding groundwater standards without notifying DEP, and a fine of $1000 for the January 2006 notice of noncompliance. The other enforcement actions against Republic or affiliates concerning landfills involved consent orders about the Nine Mile Road Landfill (Seaboard Waste): in February 2003, DEP imposed a fine of $13,000 in settlement of charges that employees were not removing all unacceptable waste from the site and, in November 2005, DEP imposed a $285 fine for a failure to submit required stormwater monitoring reports. There were many other enforcement actions, generally resulting in modest fines, but they involved hauling facilities, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities, not landfills. The Engineering Report states that the proposed landfill is within six miles of, but greater than 10,000 feet from, the Bartow Municipal Airport. Airport safety is addressed in more detail below. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system, which uses materials whose physical, chemical, and mechanical properties prevent failure due to contact with Class I waste and leachate, climactic conditions, installation stress, and other applied stresses and hydraulic pressures. The Engineering Report performs no contingency sinkhole analysis. The report does not suggest that the liner system could withstand the stresses and pressures resulting from any size sinkhole, so the necessary inference is that the liner will fail if any sinkhole forms directly beneath it. The Engineering Report states that waste placement will remain within the lined containment berm. The Engineering Report describes in detail the double composite liner system for use at the proposed landfill. The primary liner system and secondary liner system each comprises three layers with the top layer consisting of a composite drainage net, the middle layer consisting of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane with a minimum average thickness of 60 ml, and the bottom layer consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-9 cm/second. The Engineering Report describes in detail the leachate collection and removal system, which, sitting atop the primary liner, includes a 24-inch thick sand drainage layer with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/second, a composite drainage net, and a single perforated 8-inch diameter lateral pipe in each cell. The collection lateral pipes will gravity drain to the east to a header pipe that gravity drains to the primary leachate collection pump stations--one station for the four converted cells and one station for the four new cells. A smaller leachate collection and removal system will handle the leachate that penetrates to the leak detection layer by routing it to a secondary leachate collection pump station. Based on calculations derived from the HELP groundwater model, the leachate collection and removal system is designed to prevent leachate head from exceeding the thickness of the composite drainage net (about 1 cm) over the secondary geomembrane and from exceeding one foot over the primary geomembrane. According to the Engineering Report, flow meters will be installed at each of the pump stations to allow daily readings of the amount of leachate being pumped. At one foot of head over the primary liner, the Engineering Report expects just over three gallons per day collected at each secondary leachate collection pump station--significantly less than the leakage rate typical of a double liner system without a geosynthetic clay liner beneath the primary liner. However, the Engineering Report provides a standard action leakage rate of 100 gallons/acre/day, meaning that Republic is required to report to DEP liner leakage only when this leakage rate is attained. The pump stations will transmit the leachate to one of two above-ground, 150,000-gallon storage tanks. From these tanks, most of the leachate will be transported to an offsite location for treatment. However, up to 12,000 gallons per day of the untreated leachate will be recirculated to be sprayed on the working faces of the landfill. This is to control dust and possibly to assist with the degradation of the waste. The Engineering Report states that the Cedar Trail Landfill implements a facility-wide water quality monitoring plan. Upon completion of the pump stations for the eight cells that are the subject of the Application, Republic will expand its leachate sampling program to include annual sampling of the leachate collected in the primary and secondary leachate collection pump stations. The groundwater monitoring wells would be installed as closely as possible to the outer edge of the roadway that, with a stormwater ditch, will run the perimeter of the proposed Class I landfill. In the revised Engineering Report contained in the RRAI, Republic proposes a surface water discharge point in the stormwater pond located near the leachate storage tanks. The Engineering Report adds that Republic will continue to comply with the following prohibitions: No waste will be knowingly burned on site; Hazardous waste will not knowingly be accepted; PCB contaminated waste will not knowingly be accepted; Untreated biomedical waste will not knowingly be accepted. Please note that treated biomedical waste may be accepted at [Cedar Trail Landfill]'s Class I Landfill provided that the waste containers are marked "Treated Biomedical Waste.;" No waste disposal at the proposed Class I Landfill will occur within 3,000 feet of a Class I surface water body; [Cedar Trails Landfill] will not knowingly accept liquid waste within containers, excluding leachate and gas condensate derived from solid waste disposal operations. [Cedar Trails Landfill] will comply with the requirements of Rule 62- 701.300(10), FAC regarding the handling of liquid wastes; Neither oily waste nor commingled oily waste will knowingly be accepted; and Lead-acid batteries, used oil, white goods, and whole-waste tires will not knowingly be disposed of in the Class I waste disposal system. The Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, identified above, adds four items to this list of operational prohibitions: i. Garbage will not be knowingly accepted; Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste, will not be knowingly accepted; Animal carcasses will not be knowingly accepted; and Aluminum dross will not be knowingly accepted. Capitalized terms are generally defined in the Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(39) defines "Garbage" as " all kitchen and table food waste, and animal or vegetative waste that is attendant with or results from the storage, preparation, cooking, or handling of food materials." Application Appendix H is the Operation Plan, which also identifies the types of wastes to be permitted at the proposed landfill. Section 3(b) of the Operation Plan authorizes the proposed landfill to accept: Commercial waste Ash residue Incinerator by-pass waste Construction and demolition debris, including from a residence Treated biomedical waste Agricultural waste Industrial waste Yard trash, including from a residence Sewage sludge Industrial sludge Water/air treatment sludges Waste tires De minimis amounts of non-hazardous waste from incidental residential sources Section 5 of the Operation Plan provides, in relevant part: [Cedar Trail Landfill] will accept waste included in any of the waste categories identified under Section 3(b) of this Operation Plan[, but] will . . . NOT knowingly accept any hazardous waste, untreated biomedical waste, liquid waste (including paint), explosive waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste for disposal at the [Cedar Trail Landfill.] Unacceptable types of refuse are listed below and will not be knowingly accepted for disposal. --Hazardous waste --Explosive waste --Radioactive waste --Drums that have not been opened and Emptied --Refrigerators, freezers, air Conditioners (white goods) --Any toxic or hazardous materials, i.e. batteries, solvents, oil, etc. --Automobiles or parts that contain fuel, lubricants, or coolants --Untreated Biomedical waste The original Application prohibited the acceptance of septic tank pumpage, but the application form accompanying the original Application indicated that the proposed landfill would accept industrial sludge and domestic sludge. After modification by the RRAI, the prohibition against accepting septic tank pumpage was deleted, and the Operating Plan added, among acceptable wastes, sewage sludge, industrial sludge, and water- and air-treatment sludge. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(101) (2001) defines "sludge" to include solid waste pollution control residual from an industrial or domestic wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, air pollution control facility, septic tank, grease trap, portable toilet, or other source generating a waste with similar characteristics. Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200(64) (2001) defines "liquid waste" as any waste with free liquids, according to the "Paint Filler Liquids Test." As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Section 5 of the Operation Plan was amended to add the following items to unacceptable types of refuse that will not be knowingly accepted for disposal: --Garbage --Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste --Animal carcasses --Aluminum dross At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan that unacceptable waste would include Garbage contained in commercial, industrial or agricultural waste. According to the Operation Plan, the initial waste screening occurs at the gate house where the attendant interviews the driver and inspects the incoming waste load. If the attendant sees more than a negligible amount of unauthorized wastes, he will reject the load and will contact the hauler to identify the source of the waste. Additionally, Republic will notify DEP if anyone tries to dispose of hazardous waste at the proposed landfill. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, the Operation Plan was amended to provide a new paragraph between the paragraph addressing the initial waste screening at the gate house and, as discussed below, the second screening at the working face. The new paragraph provides: Any malodorous waste will be covered with mulch and/or additional soil or other approved cover materials to control odors promptly, within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. Cedar Trail Landfill will promptly cover any sludge deposited on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of the unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as extreme weather. At the hearing, Republic and DEP agreed to an additional condition to the Operation Plan, which would prohibit Republic from accepting malodorous waste or sludge that, due to exigent circumstances, it would not be able to cover within one hour from the time of unloading. If the load passes the initial waste screening, it will proceed to the working face of the landfill, according to the Operation Plan. At least one spotter will be stationed at the working face at all times that the landfill receives waste. Her job will be to detect unauthorized wastes. Republic is to assure that it has a sufficient number of spotters to find and remove unauthorized waste prior to compaction. The Operation Plan allows the spotter to work from ground level or the cab of a compactor. If the operator of a piece of heavy equipment is trained as a spotter, she may also serve as a spotter. During periods of higher waste traffic, the equipment operator will, according to the Operation Plan, "likely" need the assistance of another operator or spotter to screen the higher waste volumes. When finding unauthorized wastes in manageable volumes, the spotter or operator will remove these wastes by hand and place them into nearby containers for removal to an appropriate facility. The third waste screen occurs as the equipment operator spreads the waste, pursuant to the Operation Plan. The equipment operator is required to place any unacceptable observed wastes into containers, which will be located "within the lined area." These wastes will also be removed to an appropriate facility. In the RAI, DEP questioned the proximity of the containers to the working face, as the lined area consists of 72 acres, but, in the RRAI, Republic ignored the comment, restating only that the containers would not be located outside the lined area. The Operation Plan specifies a filling sequence. Republic will assure that the first layer of waste placed above the liner in each cell will be a minimum of four feet in compacted thickness and will be free of rigid objects that could damage the liner or leachate collection and removal system. Republic will maintain the working face to minimize the amount of exposed waste and initial cover necessary at the end of each day. The filling sequence will proceed until the permitted final grade elevations have been reached, less three feet for the final cover. The Operation Plan states that the initial cover at the Class I landfill will consist of a six-inch layer of soil that is transferred from onsite borrow pits or offsite sources. This soil will be compacted and placed on top of the waste by the end of each work day. At Republic's option, subject to DEP's approval, it may use a spray-on or tarpaulin cover, instead of a soil cover. The Operation Plan requires Republic to apply at least one foot of intermediate cover within seven days of cell completion, if additional waste will not be deposited within 180 days of cell completion. Republic may remove all or part of this intermediate cover before placing additional waste or the final cover. Through the placement of initial, daily, and intermediate cover, Republic will minimize the occurrence of moisture infiltration, fires, odors, blowing litter, and animals and other disease vectors. 59. The Operation Plan requires Republic to control litter primarily by daily waste compaction and cover. However, at least daily, if needed, employees will collect litter along the entrance and access roads and around the working face. Complaints about litter must be logged. In addition to the inspections detailed above, the Operation Plan establishes a random load-checking program to detect unauthorized wastes. Each week, Republic employees will examine at least three random loads of solid waste by requiring drivers to discharge their loads at a designated location within the landfill where the employees may undertake a detailed inspection. All random inspections will be logged. Notwithstanding the daily limit of 12,000 gallons per day, the Operation Plan prohibits Republic from spraying leachate during rain events. To apply the recirculated leachate, the lead operator will drive the leachate tanker truck on the working face, so that it can spray leachate over waste as it is being compacted, but after it has been screened by spotters. The spraying will be done to avoid causing leachate to pond atop the waste and will not be done within 50 feet of an outside slope. No restrictions apply to wind conditions. The Operation Plan states that, if the annual sampling of leachate water quality at the two pump stations reveals a contaminant in excess of the permissible limits listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24, Republic will start monthly sampling and notify DEP in writing. Also, the Cedar Trail Landfill will maintain a recording rain gauge. The Operation Plan requires Republic employees to conduct daily surveys for objectionable odors and take immediate corrective action, if odors are found at the property line. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, this portion of the Operation Plan was amended to add two odor- remediation actions and another form of odor inspection. The two additional actions to prevent odors are to 1) provide additional cover using mulch, additional soil, or other approved cover material and 2) use odor masking or neutralizing agents. The new inspection provision states: Internal inspection will be performed on a weekly basis by a properly trained odor ranger or equivalently trained person. Such individual will tour the facility, property boundary, and the subdivision of Highland Lakes Estates . . . to identify any odors leaving the Landfill's property boundaries. The results of each weekly inspection will be document, and any odors identified will be mitigated. Another new provision from the Joint Stipulation for Permit Modification applies to the handling of sludge. As amended, the Operation Plan states: When accepting sludge from a new source or distributor, [Republic] will obtain information regarding the characteristics and constituents of the sludge, including a description of the industrial process or circumstances that resulted in the generation of the sludge. Upon delivery of the sludge, [Republic] will mix lime, sodium hydroxide, or any other suitable agents to eliminate objectionable odors as required during disposal of the sludge before the material is covered. Furthermore, [Republic] will obtain advance notice from contributors prior to delivery of any sludge and shall promptly cover any sludge unloaded on the landfill working face within one (1) hour from the time of unloading, except in the event of exigent circumstances, such as severe weather. [Republic] shall use its best efforts to avoid accepting or disposing of sludge on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. Additionally, with respect to sludge received from wastewater treatment facilities only, such sludge shall not exceed the lesser of (1) twenty percent (20%) of the total volume of waste disposed in the landfill on an average monthly basis, determined annually on the prior calendar year, or (2) two-hundred (200) tons per day, averaged over the prior 12-month calendar year. Republic is required to monitor combustible gases quarterly and transmit the results to DEP, according to the Operation Plan. If Republic detects methane above the limits specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.530 (2010), Republic must submit a gas remediation plan to DEP within seven days. The Operating Plan indicates that the separation of the waste from the groundwater prevents the saturation of the waste and, thus, the generation of odor. Sloping and compacting will promote stormwater runoff, again to discourage the generation of odor. The Construction Permit authorizes construction of the proposed landfill in accordance with the "rules[,] . . . reports, plans and other information" submitted by Republic "(unless otherwise specified)." This parenthetical reference provides that the provisions of the Construction Permit control over any contrary provisions in the other documents that are part of the Permit due to incorporation by reference. In addition to the original Application, RRAI, and drawings, the Construction Permit also incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001). The Construction Permit states that Republic may not violate the prohibitions set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Construction Permit Specific Condition A.9.a requires notification to DEP of the discovery of limestone during excavation or discovery. Specific Condition A.9.b requires notification to DEP of any surface depressions or other indications of sinkhole activity onsite or within 500 feet of the site. Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Construction Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate, during construction or operation, to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner and leachate management system. Specific Condition C.4 prohibits the acceptance of hazardous waste and does not condition this prohibition on Republic's knowledge that the waste is a hazardous waste. Specific Condition C.5 requires Republic to "control . . . odors and fugitive particulates (dust)" and "minimize the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property." "Nuisance conditions" include "complaints confirmed by [DEP] personnel upon site inspection." Specific Condition C.5 orders Republic to "take immediate corrective action to abate the nuisance" and to "control disease vectors so as to protect the public health and welfare." Construction Permit Specific Condition C.6.b requires immediate notice to DEP of any sinkholes or other subsurface instability. Specific Condition C.8 requires Republic to manage leachate in accordance with the Operating Permit and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-700.500(8). The Operating Permit incorporates the same materials that are incorporated into the Construction Permit, again "(unless otherwise specified)." Like the Construction Permit, the Operating Permit incorporates Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701 (2001) and requires immediate notice to DEP in the event of a sinkhole or subsurface instability. The Operating Permit specifies that the action leakage rate is 100 gallons per acre per day and the leachate recirculation rate is 12,000 gallons per day. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition A.1.b states: This Facility is not authorized to accept Garbage; untreated Biomedical Waste; animal carcasses; liquids and non-liquid PCB containing materials or wastes with a PCB concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million; Liquid Waste; and aluminum dross. Additionally, this facility is not authorized to accept Household Waste, except waste from residential sources generated as Class III waste. Class III waste means yard trash, construction and demolition debris, processed tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, or other materials approved by [DEP] that are not expected to produce leachate which are a threat to public health or the environment as defined in Rule 62-701.200(14), F.A.C. Based on this authorization to allow certain wastes as described above from residential sources, and since the landfill design, including liner and leachate collection systems, meets the requirements of Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., for Class I landfills, the facility will be entitled to [the] household hazardous waste exemption pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(1). Specific Condition A.9.c prohibits open burning. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.b prohibits the discharge of leachate to soils, surface water, or groundwater outside the liner. Specific Condition C.1.c prohibits the discharge of "residual contaminants," such as gasoline, oil, paint, antifreeze, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), onto the ground or into surface water or groundwater. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides that authorized waste types are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations Plan, and unacceptable wastes shall be removed from the site as described in Sections 3(a) and 7. As modified by the Joint Stipulation to Permit Modification, Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(1) provides: "Waste types authorized for management at this site are those listed in Section 3(b) of the Operations [sic] Plan. Unacceptable wastes are those listed in Section 5 [of the Operation Plan] " Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.k(2) requires the use of a sufficient number of spotters to remove unacceptable wastes, but allows Republic to direct its equipment operators to serve as spotters from the equipment. This condition allows DEP to require that spotters work from the ground, if DEP determines that spotting from equipment is not effective. Specific Condition C.1.k(3) requires Republic to remove unacceptable wastes immediately and not to unload additional wastes in the immediate vicinity until placing unacceptable wastes in the designated waste containers" "near the working face" and within the lined landfill area. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.1.l(2) requires Republic to inspect on each operating day the property boundary for objectionable odors and, if any are detected, abate them in accordance with Specific Condition C.5. Specific Condition C.5.a requires Republic to control odors, disease vectors (insects and rodents), and fugitive particles (dust and smoke) to protect the public health and welfare. Control is defined as "minimiz[ing]" the creation of nuisance conditions on adjoining property. Odors confirmed by DEP personnel are a nuisance condition, and Republic must take immediate corrective action to "abate" the nuisance. Specific Condition C.5.b provides that, if odor control measures do not "sufficiently abate" objectionable odors within 30 days, Republic will submit an odor remediation plan to DEP for approval. Operating Permit Specific Condition C.8.e requires monthly reports to DEP of leachate quantities. Specific Condition C.8.h(1) prohibits recirculation of leachate at rates that result in seepage that may discharge outside the lined area. Leachate may not be sprayed when the application area is saturated or during a rainfall event. There is no prohibition against spraying during windy conditions. Operating Permit Specific Condition E details the extensive water quality monitoring requirements. However, Specific Condition E.9.b requires only annual testing of the five field parameters, eight laboratory parameters, and the comprehensive list of Appendix II parameters set forth in 40 CFR Part 258, all of which are identified below. Specific Condition E.9.c provides that, if a contaminant listed in 40 CFR 261.24 exceeds the level listed therein, Republic will notify DEP and take monthly leachate samples until no exceedances are detected for three consecutive months. Operating Permit Specific Condition F.1.a states: "This solid waste permit will meet the statutory requirement to obtain an air construction permit before . . . constructing a source of air pollution, except for those landfills that are subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of Chapter 62-212, F.A.C." Such facilities are required to obtain an air construction permit from the Bureau of Air Regulations prior to construction. Specific Condition F.1.b requires Republic to comply with Title V of 40 CFR 60, Subparts WWW and CC. This section notes that Title V permit applications must be submitted to the District Air Program Administrator or County Air Program Administrator responsible for the landfill. Aviation Safety Landfills attract birds in search of food. Flying birds may interfere with aviation safety. Thus, landfills are typically not located in close proximity to airfields to minimize the risk that flying birds will interfere with airborne aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. The nearest airport to the Cedar Trail Landfill is the Bartow Municipal Airport, which is operated by the Bartow Aviation Development Authority. This airport is over five miles from the footprint of the active landfill and 4.6 miles from the boundary of the proposed site. Republic provided notice of the Application to all airports within six miles of the proposed landfill, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation. None of these entities objected to the proposed landfill. When Republic gave the Bartow Aviation Development Authority notice of an earlier application, which sought a permit for a landfill that would accept garbage, the authority objected to the proposal due to concerns posed by birds to aviation safety. When asked about the Application, the authority's executive director testified that she still has concerns about the proposed landfill, but she did not specify the nature of her concerns or her analysis. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, these are the only facts required for a determination of whether Republic has provided reasonable assurance of aviation safety. The record provides no basis for finding that Republic has failed to provide reasonable assurance of aviation safety. Neither the FAA nor the Bartow Aviation Development Authority has objected to the proposed landfill. The executive director's unspecified concerns do not override the absence of a formal objection from these agencies. Petitioners assign too much weight to the earlier objection submitted by the authority. The composition of the authority may have changed or some authority members may have decided they were wrong in their earlier analysis. This earlier objection does not outweigh the absence of objection to the present proposal from any of the aviation agencies and the absence of any evidence of the expected nature or extent of bird usage of the proposed landfill and the extent to which these birds would interfere with existing and expected flight paths of aircraft using the Bartow Municipal Airport. Public Health Petitioners' expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. David Carpenter, is a medical doctor with a long, prestigious history of public service, including with the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the United States Public Health Service, and the New York Department of Health, where he served as director from 1980-85. At that time, Dr. Carpenter started the School of Public Health at the University of Albany. Republic's expert witness on public-health issues, Dr. Christopher Teaf, is an expert in the evaluation of environmental contamination, waste management, and toxicology, but not a medical doctor. Dr. Teaf is a professor at Florida State University and owns a small consulting firm. The major part of Dr. Carpenter's career has been devoted to research. For the past ten years, he has focused more on human health, especially human disease from exposure to environmental contaminants. Dr. Carpenter has considerable experience with the adverse effects of landfills on human health, but his experience has been mostly with older landfills, where containment measures were few and offsite releases were many. Clearly, Dr. Carpenter's experience does not extend to the role of landfill design, construction, and operation in the transmission of human disease. Thus, Dr. Carpenter is qualified to opine on the effects of pollutants that may escape landfills, but not on the relationship of landfill design, construction, and operation on the probability that a landfill will transmit pollutants. For the most part, Dr. Carpenter did not attempt to address matters outside of his expertise. However, Dr. Carpenter testified that the risk of disease or injury increased in relationship to the proximity of the person to the landfill. This testimony can only be credited if one assumes that the landfills are identical in terms of design, construction, and operation and in terms of the environmental conditions of the landfill site. In other words, in real-world applications, it is impossible to credit this element of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, especially to the extent of his implicit suggestion that public health is unreasonably endangered by the construction of a landfill, in compliance with all rules, that satisfies all of the separation criteria and design criteria set forth in the rules, as discussed below. By contrast, Dr. Teaf focused on the details of the proposed landfill. Applying his knowledge of toxicology, Dr. Teaf determined that the proposed landfill adequately protects public health. In making this determination, Dr. Teaf analyzed the effects of various design and operational characteristics of the proposed landfill, including the double liner system, the leachate collection and management system, the selection of appropriate waste types, the procedures for the evaluation and covering of sludges, the prohibition against municipal garbage, the restrictions on household items, the monitoring of groundwater and surface water, the stormwater management system, and the plans to control dust and odors. Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the literature that he sponsored suggested important links between older landfills and a wide range of human disease. But the recurring problem with Dr. Carpenter's testimony and the research articles that he sponsored was the inability to link this information to the proposed landfill. All of the landfills studied in his research articles were older, and most of them appeared to have been designed, constructed, and operated under far more relaxed regulatory regimes than exist today. Nothing in Dr. Carpenter's testimony or sponsored literature attempted to delineate the design or operational characteristics of these landfills, such as whether they were double- or even single-lined, served by leachate circulation and recovery systems, limited as to materials that they could accept, or required to install stormwater management and water monitoring systems. 93. Analysis of the risk to public health posed by the proposed landfill requires consideration of the various means of transmission of the pollutants received by the landfill: water, land, and air. Of these, water requires little analysis, on this record. Even Dr. Carpenter conceded that the proposed landfill does not appear to pose a threat to groundwater. The double liner, leachate collection and recovery system, and groundwater monitoring plan support the finding that groundwater transmission of pollutants from the proposed landfill is unlikely. Transmission by surface water is also unlikely. Compared to groundwater monitoring, surface water monitoring is limited. For instance, there is only a single monitoring site. Also, as noted above, the stormwater pond for the leachate storage area is expected to discharge stormwater offsite during excessive storm events, at which time surface water samples will be taken. However, a comprehensive surface water management system is in place at the landfill and will prevent offsite discharges in all but a few excessive rain events. Transmission by land is also unlikely. The Application contains engineering analysis of the proposed stability of the side slopes and a determination that they will be stable. The discussion of sinkholes, below, does not affect this finding. Treating dust as transmission by air, the only other means by which pollutants may transmit by land is by animals, such as insects, rodents, and birds. An important factor limiting the activity of animals in spreading pollutants offsite is the fact that the proposed landfill will not receive garbage. Although putrescible waste may be received within other categories of waste, the prohibition against receiving garbage will greatly reduce the amount of potential food sources for animals and thus the utilization rate of the proposed landfill by these animals. A further reduction in animal utilization will be achieved through the daily and intermediate cover requirements. Thus, transmission of pollutants by animals is also unlikely. Transmission by air takes several forms. Pollutants may be transmitted as or on dust, with water in the form of aerosol, or as gas. In terms of how transmission by air is addressed by the Permit, this means of transmission potentially represents a greater threat than transmission by water or land for four reasons. First, the explicit focus of the Permit, as to gas, is to avoid explosive concentrations of methane and objectionable odors, but not the transmission of other pollutants by air. Second, the effect of the Permit is to prohibit the release of pollutants into the groundwater or offsite surface water and to prohibit the release of pollutant-bearing land offsite, but no such flat prohibition applies to the offsite release of pollutants by air. Third, the leachate recirculation system provides a good opportunity for the release of certain pollutants into the air by aerosol or evaporation, but similar releases to offsite land, surface water, or groundwater are prohibited. Fourth, scientific understanding of the effects of exposure, especially by inhalation, to pollutants, especially in the form of organic compounds, is continuing to develop: with the use of chemicals increasing three fold in the 50 years preceding 1995 and approximately 80,000 chemicals in use in 2002, only a few hundreds of these chemicals have been subjected to long- or short-term study, resulting in the discovery that about 10% of the chemicals in use in 2002 were carcinogens. Transmission by dust appears to be limited by the frequent covering and spraying of the working faces. Although nearby residents complain of dust in their homes, the practices of the less-regulated Class III landfill cannot be extrapolated to the proposed Class I landfill. Thus, the prospect of dust transmission of chemicals contained in the fill received by the proposed landfill appears also to be slight. The use of untreated leachate as the spray medium to control the dust itself raises two risks, however. First, spraying leachate will release chemicals in aerosol. The potential range of aerosol is great, especially as the landfill ascends toward its design height of 190 feet. However, the risk of transmission by aerosol is reduced to insubstantial levels by adding a Permit condition that prohibits spraying during windy conditions. Second, depositing leachate on the landfill face will release chemicals through evaporation. The point of spraying the landfill face is to control dust between the addition of the waste materials to the pile and the application of the cover. Between these two events, dry conditions will sometimes intervene and may cause the evaporation of certain, but not all, pollutants. The leachate acquires pollutants as it percolates down the waste column and into the leachate collection system. As Dr. Teaf noted, the leachate becomes more concentrated as it recirculates, but, otherwise, this record is largely silent as to the likely composition of the recirculated leachate. However, for landfills accepting sludge, higher levels of mercury may be present in the leachate. As reported by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, in a report issued March 2007, and titled, "Design and Operational Issues Related to Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids and Class I Landfills--Phase III," one study found that the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that receive sludge is almost three times greater than the concentration of mercury in the leachate of landfills that do not accept sludge. The same study reported that total dissolved solids and chlorides were present at greater concentrations at the landfills that did not accept sludge and that other parameters--unidentified in the cited article--were not significantly different between the two types of landfills. Republic proposes to recirculate substantial volumes of leachate--sufficient, for instance, to raise the moisture content of the fill from 25 percent to 28.9 percent. The Permit allows the proposed landfill to operate six days per week, for a total of 312 days annually. The Operation Plan prohibits the application of leachate during rain, but the number of days annually during which rain extends for the entire day is few, probably no more than a dozen. These numbers suggest that Republic may apply as much as 3.6 million gallons annually of untreated leachate to the landfill face. The 12,000 gallon-per-day limit and restrictions on head in the leachate collection and removal system effectively limit the quantities of leachate that may be recirculated, but the sole provision addressing leachate water quality is the annual monitoring event described above. Given the time required to analyze the many parameters included in the EPA regulation, for most of the year between tests, Republic will be applying over three million gallons of leachate whose pollutant concentrations will be completely unknown. Some assurances emerge, though, when considering air transmission of pollutants by class. In general, on this record, as to transmission by gas, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a compound's volatility, which is a measure of its ability to enter the air, and a compound's persistence. VOCs are one of the most dangerous classes of pollutants to public health and include such carcinogens as benzene, tolulene, xylene and, the most dangerous of all VOCs, vinyl chloride, which is released upon the degradation of such common substances as plastics, carpets, and upholstery. Biogas, which is generated by the anerobic decomposition of organic compounds in a landfill, contains mostly methane and carbon dioxide, but also significant levels of VOCs. When inhaled, the primary results of exposure to VOC are respiratory irritation and allergenic effects. Volatility is measured by vapor pressure, which is a measure of a chemical's ability to get into the air. As their name suggests, VOCs enter the air easily. They are also capable of traveling great distances due to their light molecule. However, VOCs are easily destroyed by sunlight and diluted by wind. Other organic compounds common to landfills are only semi-VOCs, such as PCBs. Although less volatile, these chemicals, too, are hazardous to public health--in the case of PCBs, in any amount. Due to this fact and their persistence in the environment, the United States has prohibited the manufacture of PCBs for over 30 years. However, not only are PCBs considerably less likely to enter the air than VOCs, they also travel shorter distances than VOCs due to a heavier molecule. Dr. Carpenter opined that there is little evidence that PCBs are an issue in the proposed landfill. Another class of organic compound, 1000 times less volatile than even PCBs, is phthalates, which are used in the production of plastics. Phthalates pose significant threats to public health, especially reproductive health. However, the exceptionally low volatility of this compound renders transmission by evaporation highly unlikely. Much of the regulatory framework imposed on landfill design, construction, and operation arises out of concerns for the control of human pathogens, which are infection-causing organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. One of the great advances in human longevity in the United States occurred in the early 1900s--not with the development of antibiotics or improved medical care--but with the implementation of basic sanitation control and the removal of pathogens from the drinking water. For the proposed landfill, sludge will be the primary source of pathogens. Sludge is nutrient-rich organic matter, which will be received at the proposed landfill without any treatment except possibly dewatering. Even with the acceptance of sludge, the proposed landfill presents little risk for the transmission of pathogens. Pathogens communicate disease only when a person is exposed to an effective dose and are better transmitted by direct contact or animal than air. Bacterial pathogens are themselves killed by wind, as well as sunlight, temperature, and humidity differentials, so the preferred means of air transmission would be aerosol versus gas. The record permits no findings as to the persistence of pathogenic viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms. However, as noted above in connection with the land transmission of pathogens, the immediate application of lime and cover to the sludge will tend to prevent the release of effective doses of pathogens by air, as well. The last major class of pollutant that could be transmitted by air is heavy metals, such as mercury or lead. Although these metals produce a wide range of neurological diseases and generally interfere with cognition and behavior, Dr. Carpenter admitted that heavy metals were not as much of a concern as VOCs, presumably due to their resistance to vaporization. Even though transmission by air is not as tightly controlled as transmission by water or land, for the four reasons noted above, there is little risk of transmission by air--i.e., dust, aerosol, or gas--when the specific properties of likely pollutants are considered. In all but five respects, then, Republic has provided reasonable assurance that public health will not be endangered by pollutants released from the landfill by water, land, or air. First, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs a condition that prohibits spraying leachate during windy conditions, which DEP may define as it reasonably sees fit. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this is a requirement in the rules and, due to its importance, should be restated explicitly in the Permit, which restates numerous other rule requirements. Second, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs more frequent monitoring of leachate water quality, at least at the frequency, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, set forth in the rules. Large volumes of untreated leachate will be recirculated through the landfill. Even if aerosol transmission is controlled, transmission by evaporation of some pollutants, although not the heavy metals, is possible. Also, pollutants are concentrated in recirculated leachate and thus the consequences of transmission into groundwater or surface water, however unlikely, become greater. At the same time, the action leakage rate is generous--to Republic, not the groundwater. At 100 gallons per acre per day, Republic is not required to report to DEP possible liner leakage until about 7300 gallons per day are lost to the surficial aquifer. Suitable for the detection of catastrophic failures associated with most sinkholes, this action leakage rate is too high to trigger action for small liner leaks. If Republic is to be allowed this much leakage into the groundwater, it must identify the leachate's constituents and their concentrations at least semi-annually. Third, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Application must extend the right of split testing to all of the parties in these cases, if DEP fails to exercise its right to take a split sample. The spraying of untreated leachate and generous limit applied to liner leakage before reporting and remedial action are required underscore the importance to public health of independent leachate testing. There is no reason to allow budgetary constraints or administrative oversight to preclude Petitioners and Intervenor, who are uniquely situated to suffer from the escape of excessive pollutants in the leachate, from providing, at their expense, this independent leachate testing. Fourth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to restate accurately the language of the rules concerning the extent of knowledge required of Republic, if it is to be liable for the acceptance of certain prohibited wastes. Fifth, to provide reasonable assurance concerning public health, the Permit needs to be modified to ensure that at least one spotter, whose sole responsibility is spotting, will be assigned to each working face while the landfill is receiving waste. Sinkholes The sinkhole issue arises in the geotechnical analysis of the sufficiency of the foundation to support the considerable loads of a landfill and also in the stability of the side slopes of the landfill. This analysis starts with consideration of the geology of the area, of which Republic's property is a part, and, among other things, the potential for sinkhole formation in the area. The Cedar Trail Landfill lies within the Bartow Embayment and along the eastern slope of the Lakeland Ridge of the Central Lake District Physiographic Province. This embayment is a large erosional basin partially backfilled with phosphatic sand and clayey sand of the Bone Valley Member. At this location, the top of the Floridan Aquifer is formed by Suwannee Limestone, which consists of white to tan, soft to hard, granular, porous, very fossiliferous limestone with interbedded dolomite. This rock unit is 110-140 feet thick. Atop the Suwannee Limestone sits the Hawthorne Group, which comprises the Arcadia Formation, at the base of which is the Nocatee Member, which is a relatively impermeable sand and clay unit. Atop the Nocatee Member is the Tampa Member, which consists of hard, dense, sandy, locally phosphatic, fossiliferous limestone. The top of this member, which is the top of the Arcadia Formation, is locally referred to as the "bedrock complex," which marks the lower limit of phosphate mining. Atop the Arcadia Formation, still within the Hawthorne Group, sits the Peace River Formation, which consists of phosphatic clayey sand and clayey sand. The lower portion of the Peace River Formation is a relatively impermeable, undifferentiated clayey unit locally known as "bedclay." The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is mined for phosphate and is locally known as "matrix." Atop of the Peace River Formation are undifferentiated surficial soils, typically consisting of silty sand, clayey sand, and some hardpan and organic soils. These materials are locally known as "overburden." Phosphate mining is prevalent in the area, including, as noted above, much or all of the Cedar Trail Landfill site. Strip mining for phosphate normally removes the entire surficial aquifer, just into the bedclay. Mined areas are then backfilled with overburden spoil soils, clay, waste clay, and sand tailings. After backfilling, the soil strata bear little resemblance to premining strata. Sinkholes are prevalent in the general area surrounding the Cedar Trail Landfill. A sinkhole is a surface depression varying in depth from a few feet up to several hundreds of feet and in area from several square feet to several acres. Sinkholes are typically funnel-shaped and open broadly upward. Sinkholes form when weakly acidic groundwater creates cavities in the calcium carbonate within limestone. Soils above these cavities erode into the cavities. In the area that includes the Cedar Trail Landfill, cover-collapse and cover- subsidence sinkholes predominate among sinkhole types. A cover-collapse sinkhole, which is typically steep- sided and rocky, forms when cohesive soils over a limestone cavity can no longer bridge the cavity under the weight of overlying soil and rock. At this point, the cohesive soils suddenly collapse into the cavity. These are more common in the part of the state in which the Cedar Trail Landfill is located. A cover-subsidence sinkhole occurs due to the gradual lowering of the rock surface as solutioning occurs in the subsurface rocks. This type of sinkhole develops as subsurface soluble rock is dissolved and overlying soils subside into the resulting shallow surface depressions. Regardless of the type of sinkhole, borings into sinkholes will reveal zones of very loose soil sediments that have washed downward into the cavernous voids within the bedrock. This very loose soil zone is called a raveling zone, which starts at the limestone layer, as the overlying soils begin to collapse into the solution features within the limestone. As the loosening works its way upward toward the surface, it eventually results in the subsidence of the ground surface and formation of a sinkhole. Considerable sinkhole activity has taken place in the immediate vicinity of Republic's property. Most visibly, a sinkhole formed in 2006 in 285-acre Scott Lake, 4.5 miles northwest of the landfill. This sinkhole drained the entire lake and destroyed several structures. The Florida Geological Service sinkhole database, which consists of anecdotal reports of sinkhole activity, some of which are unverified, includes 49 sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. Two documented sinkholes have occurred within .17 mile of the landfill--one of which is reported to be 125 feet in diameter and 80 feet deep. Based upon the information contained in the preceding paragraph, Clint Kromhout, a professional geologist with the Florida Geological Survey, opined on August 23, 2009, that the potential for sinkhole formation "within the proposed site and surrounding area" is "low to moderate." Mr. Kromhout does not provide a definition of "low," but part of his opinion is shared by the Golder Report, which agrees that the sinkhole potential on the proposed site is "low." The potential for sinkhole formation in the general area surrounding the proposed landfill, as distinguished from the site itself, is at least moderate. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Republic and Intervenor necessarily concede: "All parties acknowledge that the proposed landfill site is in a general region that has a relatively high frequency of sinkholes as compared with the rest of the state of Florida." It is misleading to characterize the area surrounding the proposed landfill as of low potential for the formation of sinkholes, unless there is another category, like "nonexistent." But characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate is not determinative of the likelihood of sinkholes at the landfill's footprint, nor is a site-specific geotechnical investigation mooted by such a characterization. Rather, characterizing the sinkhole potential of the surrounding area as moderate dictates the intensity and scope of the ensuing geotechnical investigation, if the investigation is to provide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the proposed landfill. Acknowledging moderate potential for sinkhole formation in the surrounding area, Republic has appropriately relied on three geotechnical reports, including three sets of boring data. The final of these reports, the Hanecki Report, is based on the collection and analysis of boring data, as well as a review of the data and analysis contained in the two earlier geotechnical reports, the Ardaman Report and Golder Report. The boring data reveal that the proposed landfill site features four units. Nearest the surface is Unit 1, which is brown to dark brown, medium- to fine-grained sand with minor amounts of clayey silt. Unit 1 is 0-10 feet thick. Next down is Unit 2, which is tan to gray, medium- to fine-grained sand with increasing silty clay or clayey silt. Unit 2 is 5-10 feet thick and generally marks the upper limit of fine-grained, granular soils (i.e., clayed sands and silty sands). Unit 3 is orange brown to yellow brown, gray and tan silty clay to clayey silt or fine sand and silty clay. Unit 3 is 5-15 feet thick. Unit 4 is gray and tan clayey silt or silty clay with minor amounts of fine sand. This material is very stiff or very dense, and most borings terminated in this unit. The few borings that penetrated this unit suggest that it may consist of dolomitic sandy clays and silts and dolomitic limestone to depths greater than 100 feet below grade. Units 3 and 4 generally mark the upper limits of low permeability/low compressibility soils. The Hanecki investigation comprised two main steps. First, Hanecki retained a subconsultant to perform electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) along 100-foot-wide transects run across the site. Any anomalies revealed by the ERIs were to be followed by standard penetration test (SPT) borings, which permit soil testing at predetermined intervals, as well as a measure of the compressibility of the soils. Compressibility is measured during the soil-testing intervals, during which the drill bit is replaced by a soil sampler. The driller records the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to produce 12 inches of penetration. The value is expressed in N-values, where N represents the number of such blows. Looser soils produce lower N values. Another important piece of information obtained during SPT boring is the partial or total loss of circulation fluid during drilling. While the drill is penetrating soil, a slurry circulates through the borehole to prevent the collapse of the sides of the hole. This slurry is recycled during drilling, but, if the drill encounters a void, all or part of the circulation fluid is lost. The ERI survey revealed no real anomalies because of a narrow range of resistance values. However, taking relatively small differences in resistivity as an anomalies, Hanecki identified 14 features of interest. At each of these locations, Hanecki performed an SPT boring. Because the ERI transects were unable to span the two onsite ponds, Hanecki added two locations for SPT borings adjacent to each side of each pond, for a total of four additional SPT borings. At the request of DEP, Hanecki added a nineteenth SPT boring at Golder site G-11, which had revealed low N-values during Golder's borings. Hanecki extended the borings into "refusal" quality soil, which was defined as soils requiring more than 50 blows of the 140-pound hammer to achieve six inches or less of penetration. All of Hanecki's SPT borings encountered very hard limestone. Among the most significant findings of Hanecki's borings, only one boring, G-11, experienced any circulation fluid loss, and this was estimated at 50 percent. However, it is more likely that this partial circulation fluid loss is due to loosely deposited sands than a void that might be indicative of conditions suitable for sinkhole formation. Not all circulation losses indicate voids that that will result in sinkhole formation. Also significant among Hanecki's findings is a clayey soil, or bedclay, at every SPT boring, which severely limits hydraulic recharge to the limestone. By impeding vertical migration of surface and shallow subsurface water to the limestone layer, this bedclay "greatly inhibits limestone erosion." This bedclay also supports the looser soils above the bedclay and thus prevents raveling, without which sinkholes cannot form. Two borings--G-11 and F3-1--lacked a layer of Unit 3 or 4 soil above the limestone, but Hanecki concluded that the Unit 2 layers above the limestone at these locations contained sufficient clay or clayey sand to serve the same functions of impeding the downward movement of groundwater and preventing the downward movement of loose soils. This conclusion appears reasonable because Unit 2 is the uppermost reach of the finer- grained materials, of which clays and silts are examples when compared to sands. There is obviously some variability in the distribution of finer- and coarser-grained materials within each occurrence of Unit 2 soils. Hanecki's findings indicated intervals of loose soils, sometimes at depth, which typically would suggest raveling zones. At the proposed location, though, these findings do not support raveling due to the underlying bedclay layer and the history of mining, which probably introduced looser soils typically found closer to the surface through the entire 40-foot depth of the mine cut. Based on these findings, the Hanecki Report concludes that, regardless of at least moderate potential for sinkhole potential in the area, the footprint of the proposed landfill has an acceptably low risk of sinkhole development to permit development of the proposed landfill. This is a reasonable conclusion because it is supported by the data collected by Hanecki and his reasoned analysis of these data. Hanecki's conclusion is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Golder Report and Ardaman Report, which are based on an additional 84 SPT borings, post- reclamation. Only about 12 percent of these SPT borings reached the limestone, and they cover all of Republic's property, not merely the footprint of the proposed landfill. Even so, these borings confirm two important findings of the Hanecki Report. First, they produced data indicative of an extensive bedclay layer intact on Republic's property. Second, the Ardaman and Golder borings reveal only two or three instances of partial circulation loss that, like the sole occurrence of partial circulation loss in the Hanecki borings, are located on Republic's property, but outside the footprint of the proposed landfill. Republic has provided reasonable assurance that the site will provide an adequate foundation for the proposed landfill and sinkholes are unlikely to undermine the structural integrity of the proposed landfill.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Construction Permit and Operation Permit, but only if the Operation Permit is modified by the addition of the five items identified in paragraphs 172, 174, 175, 181, and 187. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi A. Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ronald L. Clark, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801-5271 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Jennings Kemp Brinson, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 800 Lakeland, Florida 33801 Sean R. Parker, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 North Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-4620 Ralph A. DeMeo, Esquire Hopping, Green, & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paula L. Cobb, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 John W. Frost, Esquire Frost Sessums Van den Boom & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 2188 Bartow, Florida 33831 John Stanley Fus Highland Lakes Estates HOA 2190 Boardman Road Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's operation of an overweight truck over the low-limit bridge involved herein is a violation and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutes involving commercial carrier and truck vehicle weights on covered vehicles operated on the streets and highways of this state. It does so through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to conduct random safety and compliance inspections of commercial vehicles being operated in this state. The parties agree that on August 8, 1991, Respondent, P.J. Constructors, Inc. was prime contractor to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation for the removal and replacement of a highway bridge over the Florida Turnpike where it intersects with Hood Road in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. At the time in issue, Respondent was operating a 1981 MAC tractor trailer low boy on which it was transporting a piece of heavy construction equipment. At the time in issue, Officer Neff stopped the vehicle for crossing over this bridge which was clearly posted as having a maximum weight limit for tractor trailers of 15 tons, (30,000 pounds). Following standard Department weighing procedures measuring weight at each axle and combining those weights to arrive at a total, and using portable Department scales which are calibrated every 6 months for accuracy, Officer Neff determined the vehicle weight at 54,800 pounds. This was 24,800 pounds over the legal weight and resulted in a penalty assessment of $1,240.00 at 5 per pound of overweight. The approaches to this bridge were clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this type vehicle was 15 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge to give a driver ample notice of the restrictions and ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route over roads situated between the signs and the bridge. In addition to the signs, however, earlier the same day, as warnings were issued to users of the bridge who were going to a construction site on the other side, Respondent's driver was specifically told of the bridge's low limits and advised of an alternate route to avoid it. Admittedly, the alternate routes would be longer than the route over the bridge, but no evidence as presented by either party as to how much the difference was. Respondent's General Manager, Mr. McAllester, claims the signs were not in position on the two occasions he visited the site during the bid process in February or March, 1991. He cannot say that he knew where the signs might have been located (away from the site), but avers only that he did not see any. However, officer Neff specifically checked to see that the signs were in place before issuing the citation on August 8, 1991 and it is, therefore, found that the signs were properly in place on that date. Mr. McAllester also urges in the alternative, however, that even if the signs were in place, as contractor on the bridge replacement project, the terms of the bid specifications, which directs contractors from operating equipment in excess of the maximum weights set out by law, exempts the contractor where the existing road or bridge is to be removed as a part of the work included in the project. The bridge in issue here was removed and replaced as a part of the project on which Respondent was contractor and the current bridge has no limit. Mr. McAllester admits that when the instant citation was issued, Respondent had no special permit to cross the bridge with an excess load. Once the citation was issued, however, Respondent quickly retained an engineer to do a structural analysis of the bridge in issue. Based on that analysis, Respondent thereafter sought and obtained permission to cross the bridge with an overload provided all other traffic was stopped on Hood Road while the excessively laden vehicle was on the bridge so it would be the only vehicle thereon at the time, and provided that vehicle kept to the center of the road while on the bridge. Subsequent to the citation and before the permit was issued, Respondent did not operate any excessively laden vehicles on the bridge. Respondent admits that at the time the citation was issued, there was traffic operating both on the Turnpike and on Hood Road. Therefore, a potential danger to the public existed. Nonetheless, traffic was maintained on both roadways throughout the entire project without incident. None of the weight limits or a need to maintain weight standards was discussed at the pre-bid conference, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a civil fine in the amount of $1,240.00 against the Respondent. P.J. Constructors, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Foster McAllester Vice President and General Manager P.J. Constructors, Inc. 4100 S.W. 70th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Ben G.Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel ]Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a rancher who obtained cattle grazing rights to property owned by Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) in Lee County, Florida. Essentially, Respondent became a tenant on the FP&L property pursuant to the terms of a contract or "license" entered into by FP&L and Respondent. The license was in effect between May 1, 1980 and April 30, 1986, when FP&L evicted Respondent from the property. After his entry onto the FP&L property in 1980, Respondent undertook several projects to improve the land for cattle grazing. One such project involved the filling of a ditch dug by FP&L to build a power line access road. This ditch is water-filled much of the time and drains into the Caloosahatchee River, a Class III Florida Water Body. Respondent did not seek a dredge and fill permit for the ditch project. As "fill" he arranged for the dumping of waste tires over about a one year period. He intended to cover the tires with dirt but lacked sufficient financial resources to complete the project. At present, the tires are strewn over a distance of about 2,000 feet in this ditch, and are "migrating" downstream. Tire cleanup and disposal costs will be substantial and are estimated by FP&L at $130,000. Respondent refuses to remove these tires and contends that he would be financially unable to do so even if he were willing to remove them. He believes the tires should remain in place and be covered with dirt as he originally intended. Petitioner learned of the tire-filled ditch on July 6, 1984, and has thereafter sought to force Respondent to remove these tires without success. 1/ Prior to DER involvement, FP&L became aware of Respondent's fill activities and instructed him to complete the project by relocating some of the tires and covering them with dirt. After DER became involved, FP&L changed its instructions to Respondent and required him to remove the tires as ordered by DER. When he failed to do so, FP&L evicted him. FP&L and Respondent are in disagreement as to the terms of the license and are apparently in litigation over Respondent's eviction. For purposes of the instant proceedings, however, FP&L was aware of the tire dumping project while it was under way and did nothing to stop it prior to action by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order: Directing Respondent, within sixty days of the effective date of the Final Order, to remove and transfer all tires from the subject property to a DER approved sanitary landfill or a DER approved incinerator, or properly recycle the tires in a DER approved manner. Within seven days thereafter, Respondent is required to submit landfill, incinerator, or recycling receipts to DER as proof of proper disposal. Pursuant to Section 403.141(1), F.S., Respondent is directed to pay $145.92 to DER for expenses of the State in tracing, controlling, and abating this source of pollution. Payment is to be made by certified check to the "Pollution Recovery Fund," delivered to the South Florida District Office, 2269 Bay Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901, within ten days of the effective date of the Final Order. It is further RECOMMENDED: That any civil enforcement suit filed pursuant to Section 120.69, 403.121 or 403.131, F.S., join Florida Power and Light Company as a Party Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 10th day of September, 1985.
The Issue Is Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson), entitled to a general permit allowing it to operate a construction and demolition debris facility in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact DEP, in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is responsible for enhancing the beauty and quality of the environment; conservation and recycling of natural resources; prevention of the spread of disease and creation of nuisances; protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and provision for a coordinated statewide solid waste management program. It accomplishes these tasks, in part, by regulatory oversight directed to entities who operate solid waste facilities in Florida. That oversight includes permitting the activities by the facilities subject to compliance with statutory and rule requirements. Watson wishes to operate a solid waste facility in Newberry, Florida. In particular, Watson seeks to operate a C&D facility for off-site disposal of C&D debris to be placed where sand has been mined. Watson would pursue this enterprise by using a general permit, as allowed by DEP. Petitioner, City of Newberry (the City), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It opposes Watson's use of a general permit to conduct business as a C&D facility, based upon the belief that Watson has not demonstrated compliance with regulatory provisions that would allow Watson to use a general permit. Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. (Citizens), is a corporation constituted of persons who oppose the use of the general permit for the same reasons expressed by the City. On July 21, 1994, Watson noticed DEP that it intended to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility. On July 29, 1994, a notice was published in the Gainesville Sun, a local newspaper, concerning the pendency of the use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility in Newberry, Florida. On August 12 and 16, 1994, the Petitioners filed petitions seeking an administrative hearing on the use of a general permit by Watson to operate the C & D facility. On August 19, 1994, DEP issued a Notice of Denial of the permission to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. This permit request was under an arrangement between Watson and a co-applicant, Whitehurst. Following the Notice of Denial, no further action being requested by the applicants, DEP issued an order closing its file. In December 1994, in its name only, Watson resubmitted an application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility in question. The level of consideration at that time was as a pre-application review. This was followed by a formal notice by Watson and application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. The formal application was filed on January 17, 1995. On January 24, 1995, notice was published in the Gainesville Sun concerning the more recent intention to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 6, 1995, Citizens filed a verified petition opposing the use of the general permit contemplated by the January 17, 1995 application. Two days later, the City filed a verified petition in opposition to the most recent request to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 15, 1995, DEP gave notice that it did not object to Watson's use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility. Watson's most recent request to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility was made on a form provided by DEP in accordance with Rule 62- 701.900(3), Florida Administrative Code. The application to use a general permit was sealed by a professional engineer. The legal description of the property in question is described in the application. It is located in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida. The site location for the proposed C&D facility is one and one-eighth mile south of Southwest 46th Avenue on the east side of County Road 337 in Newberry, Florida. Documentation has been provided which identifies the legal authorization to use the property as a C&D facility. The C&D facility has a planned active life of 50 years. It is intended that the sand that is excavated will be replaced by C&D debris at a similar grade. The mailing address and telephone number of the C&D owner and operator is identified. Watson is the owner/operator. There are 158 acres within the proposed site. Approximately 143 acres would be used in the C&D operation by mining sand as a prelude to recontouring the site by placing the C&D debris. It is intended to excavate tan sand and silty sand to a depth of 20-30 feet. Although Watson anticipates excavating sand to a depth of 30 feet, bore hole data reveals the existence of sand below that depth. Watson does not intend to excavate below 62 feet mean sea level (MSL). In any event, it is not the intention to excavate below the interface of the sand and underlying sandy clays. Once the sand has been excavated, it is anticipated that the bottom of the C&D disposal area will be approximately 15 feet above the piezometric water table associated with the Floridan Aquifer, according to the applicant. The proposed site is located in rolling terrain, whose elevations range from approximately 80 feet MSL to 100 feet MSL. To support the use of a general permit, Watson has provided a site plan with a scale not greater than 200 feet to the inch, which identifies the project location, with proposed disposal areas, total acreage of the site and of the proposed disposal area, and other relevant features that exist on or within 500 feet of the site. The property boundaries are identified. The site would be fenced. Access to the facility would be controlled by a locked gate on County Road 337. The gate would be open during daily operations. The site does not contain surface water. There being no surface water, the C&D facility does not require a surface water management permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. The site does not present a problem with stormwater runoff. A potable well is located within 500 feet of the property boundary. However, placement of C&D debris would be offset by a 500-foot buffer from the well. Wetlands are located 2,100 feet from the southern edge of the proposed site in the eastern part of the adjacent Whitehurst parcel. Within 3,000 feet of the proposed site is an old phosphate mining pit on the Whitehurst parcel, and 6,200 feet from the proposed site is the northern-most unnamed pond associated with Watermelon Pond. The site is not susceptible to flooding at present. The sand mined at the proposed site would be used to build roads and for foundations for houses and other buildings. Clay removed from the building sites to make room for the sand would be placed in the C&D facility. The material that is removed from building sites and substituted by sand fill is clay with a high shrink and swell factor. That material, together with flint rocks, tree limbs and stumps, would be transported to the C&D facility by Watson's dump trucks. At present, Watson has 20 dump trucks. The dump trucks hold 20 yards each. In addition to those materials removed from Watson job sites by dump trucks, Watson has approximately 36 roll-off dumpsters which hold 20 yards each. Two Watson trucks are available to transport the roll-off dumpsters to the C&D facility. The roll-off dumpsters are placed on construction sites, not exclusively Watson's, and construction materials not used in the building process would be placed in the roll-off dumpsters for disposal at the C&D facility. Approximately 70 percent of the fill material to be placed in the C&D facility would be unsuitable soils, trees, limbs and stumps. The remaining material would be the C&D debris from construction at sites where the dumpsters have been placed. The dump trucks that hold the clay, limbs and stumps would be loaded by Watson employees, who can control what is placed in the trucks. Watson would not control what is placed in the roll-off dumpsters at other construction sites. The Watson dump trucks from job sites directly related to its activities would arrive at the C&D facility and dump their loads for compaction. Those loads would not be spotted for unsuitable fill materials. By contrast, the roll-off dumpsters would be examined at the construction site by the Watson driver. If the driver discovers excessive amounts of material not classified for C&D fill, contact would be made with the Watson office and the material taken to the Alachua County landfill for disposal. If the driver picks up the dumpster at the construction site and there are limited amounts of material not suitable for disposition at the C&D facility, the dumpster would be taken to the C&D facility. The material would be spread out, and a spotter would segregate materials that are not suitable for C&D fill. The unsuitable material would be placed in temporary containers at the disposal site and transported off-site to a permitted landfill or other appropriate facility. Some material brought to the landfill would be recycled. Woods, such as pine or hardwood would be recycled. The limbs and stumps would be placed in the pit as fill. Copper, aluminum, steel, iron, and any other metal would be recycled. The metals would be sold to a scrap-iron facility. An employee at the landfill would keep the money earned from recycling. Metal embedded in broken concrete would be used as fill. The C&D facility would be operated by two persons: one, a loader/operator who loads the dump trucks with the sand that is being excavated; the second individual, a bulldozer operator who pushes the dump truck loads of clay, limbs, and stumps into the fill area and spreads them. He would also spot the roll-off dumpsters and segregate the fill material from unsuitable material. The sorted construction material to be used as fill would be pushed into the working face of the pit, where the tree limbs, stumps and clay would have also been placed. It is anticipated that six to ten roll-off dumpsters with C&D material would be brought to the C&D facility on a daily basis. The amount of unsuitable material that must be sorted from the dumpsters would vary with the individual loads. Watson operates an existing C&D facility in Alachua County, Florida. The proposed C&D facility would be similar in its operation. Based upon the experience in the existing facility, there is no indication that the proposed C&D facility could not be adequately operated by two employees, taking into account the need to segregate unsuitable material before filling. The spotter would receive verbal training concerning his duties. The training provided the spotter is on-site training. He would be reminded once a week of the need to do an adequate job of looking for unsuitable materials. At present, Alachua County inspects the existing C&D facility on a weekly basis and reminds the spotter at that facility what is appropriate for placement and what is not. The expectation is that the same function would be performed at the proposed facility. If sinkholes are encountered in excavating the sand, the equipment operator would contact the Watson office. In turn, Watson would contact its consulting engineer to address the problem, to include placing a plug or cap to repair the breach caused by the sinkhole. In the event that limerock is encountered in the excavation, a clay cap will be placed to prohibit leachate from flowing into the ground water. Areas where limerock is located at higher elevations and not covered by clay present the greatest risk for sinkhole formation. The period between excavation and fill will be approximately two years, leaving the site exposed at the level of excavation before fill is replaced. When the site is closed, the front-end loader operator and bulldozer operator will spread 24 inches of soil as a cap and grade the site in preparation for planting of pine trees. The soil material would be constituted as six inches of top soil suitable for planting pine trees. The remaining 18 inches would contain clay with high shrink/swell properties. The planting of pine trees would be done through a contract forester. The equipment operated at the facility would employ approved muffler systems. Odor generated by the facility is not anticipated to be a problem, in that household garbage, if found, would only be temporarily maintained, pending placement in an appropriate landfill. The site will be examined on a weekly basis to remove blown "litter". Proper provision is made for maintenance of slopes and compaction of fill material as it is placed. Through the application process noticing DEP that Watson intends to use a general permit to operate its C&D facility, DEP has been informed of the location of the proposed site. DEP would have permission to inspect the site during normal business hours. In response to Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, Watson conducted a geotechnical investigation and prepared a report to support the application for a general permit. In support of the application Kenneth J. Hill, P.E. investigated the subsurface conditions at the proposed site through drilling activities. The drilling was done at the site and adjacent to the site. In May, 1995, Douglas L. Smith, Ph.D., P.G., conducted an electrical resistivity study (ER) at the site to investigate the subsurface conditions. Thomas H. Patton, Ph.D., P.G. and Charles Swallows, P.E. assisted in the investigation of the subsurface conditions at the site. Ralph E. Eng, P.E., signed and sealed the application for general permit for the proposed C&D facility. In rendering a report following his investigation of the subsurface conditions, Mr. Hill signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation. Likewise, Dr. Smith signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation associated with the ER study, together with Anthony F. Randazzo, Ph.D., P.G. The contribution by Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows to the geotechnical investigation did not include signing and sealing a report and documentation. Nonetheless, Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows, when testifying concerning the permit request, as with other professional witnesses, were found qualified to offer testimony consistent with their professional credentials and factual knowledge. 1/ A foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the fill material revealed that the weight of the construction debris was approximately 70 pounds per cubic foot, whereas the weight of the existing sand to be excavated is approximately 100 pounds per cubic foot. Thus, the placement of fill material following excavation would impose less stress on the subsurface than before. No significant settlement of the fill materials is expected to occur, resulting from its weight. The nature and fate of leachate promoted by the placement of fill at the site, in an environmental susceptible to bio-chemical and physical influences in transport through the subsurface, has the potential to adversely impact ground water. Those impacts could possibly cause violations of water- quality standards, ground-water standards, and drinking-water standards. These issues are considered based upon facts associated with the imperatives which must be properly addressed through the geotechnical investigation. That process anticipates gaining an understanding of subsurface conditions, to include the soil stratigraphy and ground-water table conditions. The ground-water table conditions involves estimations of the average and maximum high ground-water table. The geotechnical investigation should also explore the possibility of and address the existence of any sinkholes on the site. No specific testimony was given concerning the degree to which leachate, when present in the ground water at the Floridan Aquifer, might promote water-quality violations. Leachate properties and constituents were described in general terms of water-quality considerations, for example, hardness, nitrates, nitrites, alkalinity, presence of ammonia, chlorides, iron manganese, phenols, barium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, TDS and sulfates, urea formaldehyde, plaster, creosote, glues, and mastic hardeners. The evidence presented concerning the parameters for water quality did include a reference to barium, ranging from .5UG/L to 8UG/L in basically similar circumstances. The fill material can influence the natural PH by creating acidic conditions causing the PH to fall from a neutral 7.0 to 5.5 to 6.5. The process that takes place over time with the fill material also releases gases, such as methane, hydrogensulphide, and carbon dioxide. Rainwater falling on the ground's surface forms the basis for transporting the leachate through the subsurface. Only the Floridan Aquifer is potentially at risk, there being no surface water bodies or surficial aquifer at the site. Taking into account rainfall disposition by evapotranspiration, storm- water runoff, and subsurface infiltration, without certainty as to the amounts in those processes, it can be said that a significant amount of rainfall is available through infiltration to recharge the Floridan Aquifer and to transport leachate promoted by the fill. This is borne out by the absence of surface water bodies and a surficial aquifer on the site. To gain basic information concerning the subsurface conditions, Watson had 14 standard penetration test borings conducted by Mr. Hill and his firm. Those borings were advanced to depths of 35-72 feet. Additionally, three auger borings were performed to a depth of 40-50 feet. The auger borings were at sites A-1, A-2, and A-3, performed on April 17, 1993. In July of 1993, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4. In April of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8. In September of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-14. The borings that were performed at the proposed site were at B-2, B-5, B-6, B-9, B-10, and B-14, for a total of six borings. The other borings were performed on the adjacent parcel. The borings at the proposed site were widely dispersed over the 143 acres contemplated for excavation and fill. The borings on the adjacent parcel, referred to as the Whitehurst parcel, were widely dispersed over 475 acres. Logs of the soil borings were prepared depicting the findings in the subsurface. The soil stratigraphy found in the borings was varied with sand, clayey sand, sandy clay and limerock present in some but not all borings. The sands that have been described are Aeolian. The sands are remnants of an ancient coastal dune system. Soil permeability tests were conducted on a limited basis at boring B- 9 at a 25-foot sample depth. The tan and orange clayey sand described had a co- efficient for permeability of 1x10-6. That sample and others described were obtained through a split-spoon. At B-12, at 35 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 2.6x10-8. At B-13, at 30 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found and tested as 2.0x10-8 for the co- efficient for permeability. At B-14, at 30 feet, tan and orange sandy clay was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 9.6x10-9. In describing the soils, sieve analysis was not performed to more precisely classify the sediments encountered. This description of the strata is by appearance and texture. The clayey sand and sandy clay found in the borings retard discharge of the leachate to the ground water in the Floridan Aquifer based upon the permeability in those soils. Generally stated, the tan sands described have a co-efficient for permeability of 10-1 to 10-4. These sands are highly permeable, presenting an easy opportunity to convey the leachate contained in the infiltrating rainwater. Anomalous findings concerning soil permeability are shown at B-4, an off-site location, which portrays only sand in the boring. Also, B-9, which was drilled four to five feet east of a known sinkhole at the site is noteworthy in that the boring log describes tan and orange sandy clay, with trace limerock below 30 feet. This is in contrast to the field notation by the driller of the "p" for push and drilling rod "free fall" from 38 feet BLS to 42.5 feet BLS before encountering limerock, connoting a possible cavity in the 38-foot BLS to 42.5-foot BLS region. The karst feature that is located in the area where boring B-9 was conducted will be surveyed and marked with fence posts prior to excavation. No excavation will be conducted within 200 feet of that site. In addition to the phenomenon at the B-9 boring area, sinkholes at the surface were observed one-half to three-quarters of a mile northeast of the site. Sinkholes can occur when the placement of fill changes the hydraulics and loading in a karst environment. Finally, at B-6, limerock was encountered above the 46.9 feet MSL regional piezometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer. That limerock is considered part of the aquifer system. The head pressure at that location was not sufficient to force the ground water from the Floridan Aquifer. The more typical experience was as shown in B-5, where the surface of the limerock was lower than the regional piezometric surface. In B-5, ground water was not encountered until the clayey layer was breached and water rose in the drill hole. On occasions, such as the experience in B-5, there was an indication that Artesian conditions existed at those places. At the locations where the Artesian conditions were experienced, the Floridan Aquifer is confined. At B-6, where the limestone rises higher than the regional piezometric surface, the Floridan Aquifer is not confined. The bore hole at B-2 was terminated before breaching the clayey layer, and ground water was not encountered. Watson's consultant Hill considered that the ground-water table was found within the Floridan Aquifer at the site whose regional potentiometric surface was 46.9 MSL. He perceived that the findings showed ground water at 45 feet MSL constituting the average for the site. Watson estimated that the "seasonal high" ground-water table at the site was 48 feet MSL. The term "seasonal high" is equated to maximum high. Watson claims that the fluctuation in the ground-water table would be only a few feet. This would mean that the 45 feet MSL from bore hole data would represent not only the average across the site but the average value at the site at any point in time during the year. Watson makes this assertion notwithstanding that the borings were made over two years during different seasons. The basis for the estimate of maximum high ground-water table is not evident. In Dr. Patton's remarks in the application, there is a reference to the fact that the lowest encountered elevation for the Floridan Aquifer was 45 feet MSL and the highest was 55 feet MSL, making the average 50 feet MSL. This runs contrary to the remarks by Hill in which Hill said the elevation in the region was 46.9, the elevation detected was 45, and that the seasonal high would be 48. The only borings that were made in which the log reflects the MSL elevation and the boring depth are borings that were conducted in April 1994. On that date, the boring depth at which ground water was encountered varied from 37-43 feet and the MSL depth varied from 39-47 feet. If only the information for B-5 and B-6 on the site proper is used, those two data points associated with the borings on April 1994 reveal ground water at an excavation depth of 37 feet and between 45-47 feet MSL, respectively. Overall, without reference to MSL, the depths at which the ground water was encountered in the borings varied from 19-44 feet, if encountered. Although it is not shown in the boring log what the relationship is to MSL, at B-9, water was found at a drilling depth of 38 feet; at B-10, at a depth of 36 and one-half feet; at B-2, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 50 feet; at B-14, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 35 feet; at B-1, water was encountered at a level of 44 feet; at B-3, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-4, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-11, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 31 and one-half feet; at B-12, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 19 feet; at B-13, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 21 and one-half feet. Where elevations were measured for the water table in the bore holes, the holes were left open until the drillings had been concluded. Then the measurements were made. In this project, the consultant did not equilibrate the ground-water table by the traditional method of leaving a piezometer in the bore hole to maintain its integrity for a day before making the measurement. Watson has not provided sufficient information and explanation to determine a proper estimate of the average and maximum high ground-water table across the site. Returning to the ER investigation, it involved 39 soundings, which is roughly equivalent to drilling bore holes. The sounding profiles were determined through Wenner-Array Sounding and Lee-Directional Equipment. This technique involves the passing of an electrical current underground and measuring its resistance to flow. The expectation is that earth materials, for example, clay, sand, limestone, and cavities will resist the flow of electrical current differently. Substantially greater contrast in the degree of resistance, anomalies, is used to identify and locate earth materials, as well as the presence and shape of cavities. The sounding measurements reveal two- dimensional detail below the surface at progressively-greater depths. Lee- Directional measurements determine the direction of higher or lower resistivity along the survey line. While in the field, electrodes are placed in the ground at equal distances from one another. After a measurement, this distance is increased in an orderly fashion. The greater distance between the electrodes, the greater the depth of penetration. The ER equipment's electrical current has the capacity to penetrate through clay and into lower features in the subsurface. Subsurface from depths five to 100 feet were examined in this study. Within the 39 groundings surveyed, various soils were encountered. Generally, a thick cover of unconsolidated sand was found overlying clayey sand, with a clay layer varying in thickness and limestone found in some soundings, but not others. Where limestone was detected, it was at deeper levels in the southwestern part of the site. Because ER cannot distinguish between clayey sand and sandy clay, the area where those soils are found is referred to in the report as a thinner clayey sand layer. Also, in some places the upper surface of limestone has suffered weathering or deterioration and may appear as the lower part of the clay unit in terms of its electrical properties. The general portrayal in the ER study concerning the soil stratigraphy, wherein reference is made to dry sand up to 30 feet in thickness overlying a thinner clayey sand layer, approximately 10 feet in thickness, overlying a relatively thick clay layer from 10-60 feet and then limestone, does not coincide with the complexity in the stratigraphy found in the soil borings. In the ER study, at stations 8 and 10, voids were encountered. The nature of those voids is unexplained by this investigative process. At station 8, the void was found at approximately 100 feet deep. At station 10, the voids were at 50 feet and 100 feet deep. At station 14, anomalous findings were explained as the placement of fill and organic material during land-clearing operations. The suggestion in the written report, which summarizes the findings in the ER investigation, that a water table was encountered at approximately 40 feet deep, coinciding with the top of the clay layer, is contrary to the findings in the soil borings. To the extent that finding is intended to suggest that there is a perched water table or surficial aquifer above the clay layer, that view is contrary to other evidence adduced at hearing and is rejected. Like the soil borings, the ER soundings examined very discreet areas, but revealed less discreet information. This investigative process is not designed by itself to resolve disputes concerning the character of the subsurface, taking into account statutory and rule requirements for issuing a general permit. To portray the subsurface conditions, in June 1995, Petitioners undertook another basic study by employing ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to reveal the subsurface conditions. Again, GPR, like ER, affords limited insight into the conditions in the subsurface. More precise information than is revealed in the results from the GPR study would be needed to understand the subsurface conditions. GPR is comprised of several pieces of equipment that are connected with cables and a power source. This equipment is mobile. It uses a transmitter and receiver antenna that essentially glides along the ground surface. A signal is emitted through the transmitter. It perpetrates into the ground. It is reflected off materials of different electrical properties back to the receiving antenna and charted. The record that is made is continuous. Unlike ER, GPR is capable of detecting small anomalies in the subsurface. In employing the equipment in this investigation, Petitioners' consultant was looking for either stratigraphic or water-table reflectors and anomalous conditions. The experience at this site was comparable to the experience at other sites in gaining an understanding of how geologic materials are deposited. The GPR investigation covered approximately 10 percent of the site. Four lines were traversed east to west. Two lines were traversed north to south, and two other lines were traversed on a diagonal. GPR will not significantly penetrate clay. Its ability to penetrate is dependent in some measure upon the nature of the clay unit encountered. However, GPR reveals contrasts in the conductivity of clay, when compared to the overlying sand. The greater the contrast, the greater the reflection event. In this connection, the presence of moisture can slow or prohibit the electromagnetic energy generated by GPR. The GPR study revealed a substantial number of subsurface anomalies that might be indicative of possible access for leachate generated by the placement of fill to enter the Floridan Aquifer. These anomalies might represent sand columns and cover subsidence sinkholes. Any sinkholes on the site would be expected to be "cover subsidence"- type sinkholes. Those sinkholes occur through a process in which overlying strata slowly subsides into the sub-adjacent karst feature, rather than suddenly collapsing. Sinkholes develop rarely, but pose more risk of development in areas where sinkholes have occurred previously. Sinkholes are not always seen at the land surface. Sinkholes can present a risk to ground water in the aquifer in view of solution cavities found in the limestone which is part of the aquifer, thus allowing leachate to flow through the cavities into the ground water. Some anomalies found in the GPR study were more significant. One that was observed in the third traverse was 100 feet wide by 80-90 feet deep. There is an indication that this area might be filled with sands, creating a more ready access to the lower subsurface than would be expected with other soils. Another anomaly discovered was 200-300 feet long and 400-500 feet wide, approximately 50 feet below the surface. Overall subsurface conditions are not readily understood. Watson, through its consultant, suggests that the site is part of the Newberry Sand Hills region of the Brooksville Ridge system. As such, karst activity has proceeded in a slower manner than other places in Alachua County, with no presently active karst conditions. In opposition, Petitioners assert that the site is part of the Brooksville Ridge System, which is an internally-drained area of karst-dominated highly fractured terrain, according to its consultants. If Petitioners are correct, those circumstances lead to solutioning of the limestone and are not indicative of area of continuous impermeable clay layers found at the site as part of the Hawthorne formation that Watson's consultant surmises. The exact nature of the site concerning factors that must be considered in this permit application have not been adequately resolved in this record. While it is sufficiently evident that the Floridan Aquifer is not confined, it is unclear whether the circumstances at the site present unacceptable risks to the ground water, in view of existing subsurface conditions. From the record, the proper manner to resolve the issue would be to perform more soil borings on the site proper to identify the subsurface conditions concerning soil stratigraphy and ground-water location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Watson the use of a general permit to operate the proposed C&D facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 7th day of August, 1996.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner (complainant) is entitled to recover $10,134.72 or any part thereof against Respondents dealer and surety company.
Findings Of Fact This cause is governed by the four corners of the November 2, 1993 complaint. It involves only two loads out of twenty loads of potatoes. Petitioners are growers of potatoes and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent A.F. Business Brokerage is a broker-shipper of potatoes and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. A.F. Business Brokerage, Inc. is a corporation engaged in the business of brokering (purchasing and re-selling) potatoes and operates under one or more of the following names: A.F. Business Brokerage, Inc., Washburn Corp., and/or Ben Albert Farms. The contract at issue herein listed the name of the broker as "Albert Farms d/b/a Washburn Corporation." Payments made by the Respondent broker to Petitioner for potatoes received under the terms of the contract were in the form of checks drawn on the account of A.F. Business Brokerage, Inc. For purposes of this litigation, "Albert Farms d/b/a Washburn Corporation," and "A.F. Business Brokerage, Inc." will be considered as describing the same party. Although Titan Indemnity Company received notice of the filing of Petitioner's Complaint and failed to request a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S., no evidence or admission was presented at formal hearing which would permit a finding that Titan Indemnity Company was surety for Respondent A.F. Business Brokerage at all times material. That is not to say that Titan Indemnity is found not to be the surety for Respondent A.F. Business Brokerage. The foregoing finding only means that this case in the administrative forum cannot resolve the issue of indemnity as between Respondents because insufficient evidence on that issue has been presented, and it may be necessary for that issue to be litigated in Circuit Court pursuant to the surety contract/bond, if any. On or about December 28, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent broker confirmed in writing the terms of a telephoned agreement, whereby Petitioner agreed to sell and the broker agreed to purchase twenty truckloads of potatoes. The agreement/contract, prepared by Respondent broker was titled "Standard Confirmation of Sale". It specified in pertinent parts: "Unless the seller or buyer makes immediate objection upon receipt of his copy of this Standard Confirmation of Sale, showing that contract was made contrary to authority given the Broker, he shall be conclusively presumed to agree that the terms of sale as set forth herein are fully and correctly stated. Sale made (F.O.B. or Delivered): F.O.B. Special Agreement, if any: Potatoes shipped are for potato chipping and must cook on arrival to be subject to this agreement. This confirmation is issued and accepted in agreement with, and subject to the rules and regulations and definitions of terms as recognized and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture under the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act. *4 Truckloads chipping potatoes, April $7.75 FOB 16 Truckloads chipping potatoes, May, June $7.00 FOB *Loads not shipped by seller in April apply to May, June portions of agreement." (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Under Section 672.319 F.S., The Uniform Commercial Code, the abbreviation "F.O.B." means "free on board" and is interpreted differently, dependent upon what words follow the abbreviation. Regardless of what words follow the abbreviation, the term "F.O.B." places shipping responsibility and shipping costs upon a "seller" as opposed to the one accepting delivery, the ultimate buyer. Testimony and arguments by the parties at formal hearing and in their respective proposals suggest that if "F.O.B." had been used by itself, in place of the word "delivered," and without more, the contract would have signified that sale herein occurred at the time of pickup in the field by the broker/shipper, and that title to the produce would have transferred from the producer to the broker/shipper at that point in time as opposed to title transferring at the time the broker/shipper delivered the produce to its ultimate destination. However, here, the Respondent broker elected the term "F.O.B." and rejected the term "Delivered," and also added the requirement that the potatoes cook to chips at their destination. Petitioner made potatoes available for pick up by the broker at Petitioner's fields beginning in May, 1993 in accord with the contract and the price specified therein. Without incident, the broker picked up and accepted the first eighteen loads of potatoes which it had agreed to purchase. All arrangements for shipment of the potatoes at issue were controlled and paid for by the Respondent broker. These arrangements made and controlled by the Respondent broker included the method of transportation, the exact date when the potatoes would be picked-up from Petitioner's fields, the place to which the potatoes ultimately would be transported, and the time during which the potatoes would remain "in transit". This unilateral control by the broker suggests that the parties were treating the potatoes as if title thereto had passed to Respondent broker when it picked them up in Petitioner's field and clearly shows that the broker had control over what condition the potatoes were in when they reached the retailer at their ultimate destination. As of the time Petitioner began to honor the contract by making potatoes available for pick up by the broker, Petitioner could have sold potatoes on the "open market" for $25.00 per hundred-weight instead of the $7.00 per hundred-weight called for under the terms of the contract. Nonetheless, Petitioner honored its contract with Respondent broker by making potatoes available to the Respondent broker and by reserving a sufficient amount of Petitioner's crop so as to fulfill the entire contract with Respondent broker. As of the time the Respondent broker made arrangements for pick up of the last two loads of potatoes, potatoes on the open market were selling for $1.75 per hundred-weight, meaning that the broker was paying Petitioner more for potatoes under the terms of their contract than the broker would have had to pay to purchase similar potatoes on the "open market". Respondent broker contacted Petitioner immediately prior to June 17, 1993 and asked that Petitioner cancel the contract between them because of the reduced price potatoes were yielding on the open market. Petitioner rejected the proposal. This strongly suggests that the Respondent broker felt bound by the contract to pay Petitioner at the rate agreed under the contract regardless of what rate the broker sold the potatoes for upon delivery and also suggests that the parties were treating the potatoes as if title to the potatoes passed to the Respondent broker when the broker picked up the potatoes in Petitioner's field. The date selected by the Respondent broker for pick up of the last two loads of potatoes was unusual. The broker picked up the last two loads of potatoes on Thursday, June 17, 1993. However, the Respondent broker's standard practice was not to pick up potatoes in St. Johns County, Florida on Thursdays because of the increased risk that potatoes loaded in the fields on Thursdays would reach the ultimate retail destination assigned by this particular broker at a time when processing plants in that locale would be closed for the weekend, thereby increasing the time the loaded potatoes would remain enclosed in the transport truck and accordingly increasing the risk of spoilage. The method of transport selected by the Respondent broker for the potatoes loaded June 17, 1993 was also unusual and destined to increase the risk of spoilage. On that occasion, the broker sent "pigs" a/k/a "piggy-back rail cars" rather than conventional trucks or refrigerated trucks. On June 17, 1993, Petitioner also loaded two trucks for H.C. Schmieding Produce, a broker not involved in this litigation. Petitioner's potatoes loaded upon Schmieding's trucks and the potatoes loaded on Respondent broker's trucks came from the same fields and "lot" of potatoes. One of Schmieding's trucks was loaded before Respondent broker's trucks, and one of Schmieding's trucks was loaded after Respondent broker's trucks. The potatoes purchased and loaded by Schmieding on June 17, 1993 were received in good condition in Illinois and Tennessee, respectively, and Petitioner received full payment for them. Respondent broker's loads were ultimately refused in Massachusetts. June 21-23, 1993 were all weekdays, and presumably "work days." The best date that can be reconstructed for the date that the potatoes in question were dumped by the Respondent broker is June 22 or 23, 1993, so their "arrival" in Massachusetts must have preceded dumping. By undated letter postmarked June 28, 1994, the Respondent broker notified Petitioner of the rejection of the two loads of potatoes picked up by the Respondent broker from Petitioner on June 17, 1993. The letter also informed Petitioner of the broker's intent to assess charges for inspection and dumping of the potatoes and of the broker's intention not to pay Petitioner for the potatoes. This letter was the first notice received by Petitioner advising of the rejection of the two loads of potatoes in question, 1/ and contained a copy of a U. S. Department of Agriculture Inspection Report dated June 22, 1993 showing 60-100 percent soft rot. 2/ Petitioner's principal had left his home and place of business on June 24, 1993, a date clearly 24 to 48 hours after dumping had already occurred and probably much longer after arrival of the potatoes in Massachusetts. Petitioner did not learn of the Respondent broker's June 28, 1993 letter or the Inspection until July 4, 1993. By July 4, 1993 Petitioner had terminated all harvest operations and was not able to tender two replacement loads of potatoes to the broker. As of the time that Petitioner received the June 28, 1994 notice that the two loads in question were being rejected, the Respondent broker had already disposed of the potatoes. Consequently, Petitioner had no opportunity to avail itself of any alternative or other option regarding disposition of the potatoes. Prompt notification of the broker's rejection of the two loads of potatoes might have allowed Petitioner to negate its losses by marketing the potatoes at a reduced price to other processing plants in Massachusetts or to tender two replacement loads of potatoes to the Respondent broker. After all deductions and calculations, the rejected two loads of potatoes resulted in damages of $10,135.47 to Petitioner producer.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture enter a final order that: Awards Petitioners $10,134.42 and binds A.F. Business Brokerage Inc. d/b/a Albert Farms d/b/a Washburn Corporation to pay the full amount to Petitioner. Sets out any administrative recourse Petitioner or Respondent broker may have against Titan Indeminity Co. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 19th day of July, 1994.
Findings Of Fact On October 30, 1985, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) received bids on State Project 30010-3528 (Project) which is not a federal aid project. The Project was posted for award to White Construction Company, Inc. (White) on December 9, 1985 and formally awarded to White on December 12, 1985. The Project was a typical resurfacing job that consisted of improvement to drainage structures; resurfacing of U.S. Highway 19 in Dixie County from the south city limits of Cross City northerly for approximately 8 miles, including the milling of the existing asphalt and replacing it with recycled asphalt; placing new pavement markings, placing new guardrails; and placing sod strips. At the time bids were received for the Project, Columbia Paving was resurfacing U.S. 19 adjacent to the Project. Because Columbia Paving already had an asphalt plant set up adjacent to this Project, White knew it would have to submit a conservative bid in order to be the low bidder on the Project. The contract required the Project to be completed within 205 calendar days. The bidders know the contract time limitations at the time bids are received. The number of calendar days established in the contract are calculated by multiplying the number of estimated work days by a factor of 1.825, which represents an allowance for one day per week for weather, weekends and holidays. The bid documents also give the contractor the time frame for award and execution of the contract, issuance of the notice to proceed, and the initiation of charged contract time. White executed the contract on December 23, 1985, and FDOT executed the contract on January 2, 1986. Under the terms of the contract, a preconstruction conference was to be held soon after award of the contract, and the notice to proceed was to be issued within 30 days after execution of the contract by FDOT. The preconstruction conference was held on January 2, 1986, at the FDOT Construction Office in Chiefland, Florida. None of White's subcontractors attended the conference. Judd Gilmer of White stated that White would not start work before April 1, 1986. At the preconstruction conference, there was no mention of any problem with obtaining an asphalt site. The notice to proceed was issued on January 31, 1986, which stated that contract time would start 61 days from date of the notice. The 60 day time period is allowed for the contractor to secure materials, secure aggregate, and to secure and set up an asphalt plant site. Although the contractor's progress schedule was required to be submitted within 30 days of the preconstruction conference, White did not prepare a progress schedule until June 4, 1986, some 65 days after the work was to commence on April 1, 1986, and approximately 5 months after the preconstruction conference. By letter of January 2, 1986, White submitted its Sequence of Operations proposal which called for erection of concrete barriers, signs, and barricades necessary for construction of the southbound lane, with construction of the drainage structures to follow. The letter also stated White would obtain all permits necessary for operation of the asphalt plant. A Quality Control Plan, dated February 4, 1986, was submitted by White for the asphalt plant operations. The Plan stated an Aztec Drum Mix Asphalt Plant would be used for the project. A revised Quality Assurance Plan was later approved in July for the Chiefland batch plant. The contract places responsibility for locating an asphalt plant site and obtaining all appropriate permits on the contractor. White took no action to look for or obtain an asphalt plant site prior to award of the contract. At the time of submitting bids on the project, and on the date contract time began to run, White had an asphalt plant set up in Chiefland which could have been used to build the project. White made a conscious business decision not to use the Chiefland plant site and decided on finding a closer plant site for the Project and bid accordingly. White made little effort to secure a plant site between the award of the bid on December 12, 1985, and March 14, 1986, except for some oral agreement with a Mr. Crapps for the use of his property. Although White requested a zoning change on this property from the Dixie County Board of County Commissioners, which was approved on April 3, 1986, White never pursued a building permit for the asphalt plant on the Crapps property. White entered into an asphalt plant site lease with Anderson Contracting Company on April 17, 1986, but as early as March 18, 1986, White had requested approval from the Department of Environmental Regulation to relocate its Chiefland plant to the site leased on April 17, 1986, from Anderson. The request was approved on May 9, 1986, but the plant site did not become available until May 16, 1986. White's initial Quality Control Plan had called for the use of an Aztec drum plant, which is a portable plant which can be set up easier than the batch plant White had in Chiefland. At some point in time, White decided not to use the Aztec plant and chose to move the Chiefland plant to the job site and convert it to a recycling plant. The Aztec plant was then moved for use on another project. The normal time frame is 2-3 weeks to set up a plant and 3-6 weeks to get materials. Materials can be delivered to the site once the layout of the plant is established. It took White from May 16 to July 8 for White to get set up, a total of over 7 weeks. White did not begin any asphalt work until July 8, 1986, contract day 99. Any delay in White's performance under the contract before or after May 16, 1986, other than the 46 days for which FDOT granted an extension, that resulted from White being unable to secure an asphalt plant site was within White's control. Therefore, White is not entitled to any further extension of time due to the delay in securing an asphalt plant and bringing the plant into operation. Contract time began April 1, 1986. White's survey crews were present on the job site on June 10, 11, and 12, 1986, and signs were placed on June 17, 1986, but no actual work was done until July 2, 1986, calendar day 93. The first construction operation was milling performed by J.E. Hill Milling. Milling had to be done first to produce material for recycling into asphalt. The asphalt work was completed on November 5, 1986, contract day 219, but a 30- day curing period is required before the pavement markings and striping can be done. Paving markers were completed on January 7, 1987, contract day 282. Time was not suspended after completion of the asphalt work because drainage safety improvements were not finished. Traffic was impeded during concrete pours, with traffic restricted to one lane. There was insufficient evidence to prove that the contract time should have been suspended after the asphalt was finished and drainage work was in progress. The bid document, which later comprised the contract, required White to subcontract at least 10% of the total contract work to a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) certified by FDOT as meeting DBE requirements. FDOT listed the area of work they performed but did represent that the DBE was qualified to perform the work. White obtained several quotations from DBEs to perform drainage work on the Project but selected Hardan Construction Company (Hardan) who gave the lowest quote. White was neither familiar with Hardan, nor did White discuss Hardan's work with other contractors before using Hardan in the bid. White had no contract with Hardan prior to time beginning to run on the contract. White had attempted unsuccessfully to contact Hardan by phone in March, 1986, and then in early April mailed a set of subcontract documents to be executed. White did not receive a response, so they once again tried to contact Hardan by telephone and after repeated attempts did reach someone who said the executed documents had been returned. After the documents were not received and unsatisfactory responses were made by Hardan, White sent a second set of contract documents on May 7, 1986. This was over a month after contract time began to run. At one point White was told that Hardan was going out of business, but the next day was told Hardan would do the work. This went on for several weeks. Mr. Hardan came in person to White's offices on May 29, 1986, and signed the contract. A request to sublet was sent to DOT for approval. Hardan gave a date it would go to work, so construction signs were erected, but Hardan failed to show. Hardan was ultimately given a deadline to report to work, but once again failed to show. On June 26, Nancy Bennett, Vice President of White, contacted Ronald Layfield, FDOT's Resident Engineer, concerning Hardan and was told to contact the FDOT's Minority Affairs Office in Tallahassee. Upon contacting the Minority Office that day was told how to terminate the DBE and how White must make good faith attempts to fulfill the DBE goal. On June 26, Hardan was notified by telegram that the contract was terminated. After defaulting Hardan, White contacted a number of DBEs for quotes for the drainage work. White was familiar with the quality of work of these DBEs, but rejected their prices as being too high. One quote was received from J.E. Hill, which was already working on the project. White then contacted Carpio- Walker (C-W), who was being used by White as a DBE on a Broward County job. Negotiations went on for about a month before a contract was finally executed between White and C-W on July 24, 1986. The prices in C-W's contract were basically the same as in Hardan's, except White had to furnish certain equipment and material at no cost. C-W was unable to assure completion within the contract time, so a provision was put in the contract that C-W was not responsible for liquidated damages. There was nothing in the contract telling C-W to do the work within the contract time or on a priority basis, nothing about minimum manpower, nothing about additional crews, and nothing about when to come to work. The contract did provide for White to assist in paying for overtime work, but there was no evidence any overtime was ever paid. Some time after August 6, 1986, White submitted a Request to Sublet form to FDOT to approve C-W. White was told it needed a revised Form 1, so on August 29th, White submitted the revised Form 1 to Tallahassee FDOT for approval. It was approved on September 8, 1986. White never requested approval from FDOT for C-W to start work before all forms were approved. FDOT did nothing to delay the substitution of DBE subcontractors. There was no more delay than normal mobilization time before C-W went to work. C-W came on the job when they said they would be there. C-W first moved onto the project on September 15, 1986. The DOT Resident Engineer encouraged White to do the drainage work early on in the project. There was sufficient good weather to complete the job within the original contract time. The job was especially dry during the initial months of the contract. However, once C-W moved onto the job, there were times that wet weather had an effect on the drainage work because the water had to be pumped down to work on the footings. The high water did not prevent the drainage work. C-W normally had only one crew working on the drainage and they would not work on more than two culverts at a time. Nothing in White's contract prohibited work by a subcontractor with multiple crews. C-W's work was delayed by equipment breakdowns and manpower deficiencies some 20 days between September 15, 1986 and March 27, 1987, when the job was completed. Although White gave Hardan the maximum opportunity to compete for, and perform on, the subcontract, and made a good faith effort to replace Hardan so as to fulfill the DBE goals, any delay suffered by White in fulfilling its performance under the contract that resulted from White being unable to secure Hardan's performance, and subsequently any delays that resulted from C-W's inability to perform due to rain, inadequate equipment or personnel or otherwise was within White's control which White failed to properly exercise. Therefore, White is not entitled to any extension of time on the contract for the problems encountered with Hardan or C-W. FDOT issued a preliminary notice of delinquency on June 5, 1986. June 5, 1986 was the 66th of 205 contract days, which meant 32% of the contract time had expired, and at that point O% of the work had been done. On June 23, 1986, White requested a time extension of 158 days. The request sought additional contract time for the alleged delay of Dixie County in approving the plant site and for the failure of Hardan to go to work. White represented that Dixie County had taken no action on the plant site approval. June 23, 1986, was the 84th contract day. On June 26, 1986, Mr. Layfield requested further documentation on the time request and the search for the asphalt plant site. No response was received from White, so FDOT issued a final delinquency notice on July 24, 1986. Since on July 24, 1986, 56% of the contract time had expired with only 17% of the work completed, the percentage of dollar value of completed work was not within 20% of the percentage of contract time expired. Although the extension subsequently granted by FDOT would have changed the percentage of contract time expired, this change would not have brought the percentage of dollar value of completed work within 20% of the percentage of contract time expired. On January 5, 1987, White submitted a response to Mr. Layfield's June 26, 1986 letter. White requested a time extension of 103 days for difficulty in obtaining a suitable asphalt plant site; 55 days for problems with DBE subcontractors; 39 days for rainfall and wet conditions; and 37 days for additional work, for a total of 234 calendar days. The original contract time expired on October 22, 1986, which was the 205th contract day. On April 16, 1987, FDOT granted a time extension of 59 days. Forty- six days were allowed for the permit problem and was the contract time from April 1, 1986, contract day 1 to May 16, 1986, contract day 46, the date the site was made available to White. This gave White 106 days for setting up a plant; the 60 days built into the contract, plus the additional 46 days extension. Five days were granted for additional work. Eight days were granted for rain. Rain days were calculated by taking the total number of rain days beginning on day 1 of the contract time through the 251st day (205 plus 46) and subtracting the rain days occurring on weekends and 1 day per week for rain already built into the calendar day formula. There was no adjustment by FDOT to bring the 8 work days lost to calendar days. Converting work days to calendar days is accomplished by multiplying work days by a coefficient of 1.4. Using the coefficient of 1.4 takes into consideration the weekends (365 - 102 = 261. 365 divided by 261 = 1.4). Subsequent to the hearing, the parties agreed that an additional extension of 6 days should be added to the 59 days already granted for a total of 65 days. The extension granted by FDOT does not provide for rain days beyond the 46 days extension for locating the asphalt plant site. Since essentially White was not on the job until the 93rd day and no work was lost due to rain or conditions caused by rain, the more accurate method of calculating any loss of time due to rain that is beyond White's control would be to start on the 93rd day. Starting on the 93rd day and ending on the 262nd day (205 plus 46, 5 and 6) there were 41 days of work lost due to rain, not counting rain on weekends. Subtracting 25 days for the days already built into the formula (25 weeks - 1 day per week) from 41 days lost, equal 16 days which when multiplied by the coefficient of 1.4 equals 22 days and should extend the contract 22 days. This 22 day extension, up to day 284, had 6 days of rain, minus 3 days for days already built into the formula equals 3 days. When the 3 days are multiplied by the coefficient of 1.4, it equals 4 days more than the contract should be extended. These 4 days produce no additional time for rain days. Since this extension fell on January 13, 1987, the 288th day, White should be granted an additional 6 days for days White did not work during Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years and was not given an extension for. This would bring the total contract time to 294 days. The adjusted contract time expired on January 19, 1987. The project was recommended for final acceptance on April 8, 1987, contract day 373, for a difference of 79 days. There was insufficient evidence to show that White did not have sufficient equipment, personnel, or finances to timely complete the Project. A Final Order was entered by the Florida Department of Transportation on April 4, 1988, in the case of White Construction Company, Inc. v. Florida Department of Transportation, Case No. 87-3811, finding the White Construction Company, Inc., delinquent on Project Nos. 61989-3522 and 61080- 3523 and suspended White's Certificate of Qualification for 4 days.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding White Construction Company, Inc., delinquent in the prosecution of its work on State Project No. 30010-3528 for 79 days and that its Certificate of Qualification be suspended for 79 days, plus an additional three (3) months at the expiration of the 79 day suspension. Respectfully entered and submitted this 2nd day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-3302 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1.- 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2, respectively. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. 5.- 22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 26.-29. Rejected as being an argument rather than a finding of fact. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 5, respectively. 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 4.-5 Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding. 6.-7. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding particularly in light of the asphalt being completed within the contract time plus the 46 day extension. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The date the milling process began and the asphalt was completed is adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not being relevant or material because there was a lack of substantial competent evidence in the record to show that the delays were not within White's control and thereby thru no fault of White. 11-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 23, respectively. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding since White's efforts in the early stages of the contract were "too little, too late". Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but clarified. 17-18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20 but clarified. The first sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 21. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. The first sentence is rejected as being an admission a witness and not necessarily a finding of fact and is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The second sentence, although a statement of what a witness agreed to, is supported by the record and adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24 and 25. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24 but clarified. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding. Rejected as being an argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as being an argument rather than a finding of fact. White's problems with obtaining performance by Hardan and White's responses to those problems are set out in Findings of Fact 14, 15, and 16 and do not reflect White's "extraordinary effort". The last 2 sentences are rejected in that there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support the position that delays on the drainage portion were due to factors beyond White's control and therefore rejected. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 with the exception that White did work on the day of Thanksgiving. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding because without specific days of rain no determination of days loss can be calculated. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26 with the exception of the coefficient of 1.825 which is rejected for reasons set out in Finding of Fact 26. 36.-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28 and 29 but clarified to use the correct coefficient and the correct work days loss due to rain or conditions caused by rain. There is no numbered paragraph number 38. Rejected as not Supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attention: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Samantha Boge Cummings, Esquire Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Robert I. Scanlan Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact 9. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit C”, and “Exhibit D”, respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from Brandon Mezzaro, Mike Bodree, Pete Parker, d/b/a World Asphalt (hereinafter “World Asphalt”), the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On November 9, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to World Asphalt in Case No. 10-458-1A. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein World Asphalt was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On November 9, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on World Asphalt. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On November 18, 2010, World Asphalt filed with the Department a request for an administrative hearing (“Petition”) pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-10929. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”. 4. On December 2, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to World Asphalt. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $70,088.22 against World Asphalt. 5. On December 6, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on World Asphalt by certified mail. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On March 10, 2011, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to World Asphalt. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,000.00 against World Asphalt. 7. On March 10, 2011, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On March 15, 2011, the Department and World Asphalt filed a Notice of Settlement with the Division of Administrative Hearings. On March 17, 2011, Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins entered an Order Closing File, which relinquished jurisdiction of the matter to the Department.
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed award of contracts for innovative recycling projects pursuant to a Request for Proposal, solicitation number 9002C, is proper?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Ramco is a sole proprietorship owned by Joe Dean Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey is engaged in the business of recycling roofing materials. Ramco currently operates three sites in Florida which accept roofing debris: Manatee, Lee and Duval Counties. Ramco operates two machines which grind roofing debris for use as road and base material. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida assigned responsibility for regulating solid waste management. The Request for Proposal. Pursuant to Section 83(12), of Chapter 88-130, Laws of Florida, the Department was appropriated $750,000.00 to be used "for grants to private persons for innovative recycling projects which will demonstrate applications and products from recyclable materials." On November 3, 1989, the Department issued a Request for Proposal, solicitation number 9002C (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP"), seeking proposals for awards of the $750,000.00. The RFP proposed to award grants of "up to $75,000.00" to the winning proposals. Therefore, the RFP required at least ten winning proposals be selected by the Department. The Department also decided to designate the eleventh through fifteenth best proposals as alternates. Section A.10 of Attachment B of the RFP provides, in part, the following "Description of Work Being Procured": The 1988 Solid Waste Act Appropriated $750,000 from the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund to be used by DER for grants to private persons for innovative recycling projects. . . . The ultimate goal of the Innovative Recycling Grants is to help manage the state's solid waste and to foster the expansion of markets for recyclable materials. Eligible projects, therefore, must demonstrate applications and products derived from recyclable materials which have the potential for significantly reducing the amount of waste that requires disposal in Florida's landfills. [Emphasis added]. "Innovative recycling projects" are defined in the RFP as follows: "Innovative recycling projects" means recycling processes and techniques which have not been fully proven under the circumstances of their contemplated use and which represent a significant advancement over the state of the art, when compared to an appropriate conventional technology in terms of the following: significant waste reduction; cost reduction; environmental quality; and increased energy conservation or recovery Innovative recycling projects can also mean an unusual application of an existing technology. The Description of Work Being Procured section of the RFP also provided that "[p]rojects received should be considered commercially available recycling technology not presently in widespread use. Research and development should be substantially completed." [Emphasis added]. The terms "commercially available" are defined in the RFP as follows: "Commercially available" means a recycling process or technique in which research and development are substantially completed and the process or technique has been shown to be technically feasible. Finally, Section A.10 of Attachment B of the RFP provided that "[o]ther projects will be considered, if the proposals fully explain how the project will be innovative and meet the criteria in this request for proposal." The RFP was not challenged by Ramco or any other substantially affected party. The parties included the following stipulated fact concerning the issuance of the RFP in their Prehearing Stipulation: The procedures followed by the Department in developing and promulgating the RFP, including all notices to all bidders, were consistent with Chapter 287, F.S., and all rules promulgated thereunder. In pertinent part, the RFP provided that proposals received in response to the RFP were to be ranked as follows: Each RFP will be reviewed by a technical committee of at least three persons with technical knowledge about the Solid Waste Program. Each of the reviewers will work independently using the outline shown in Attachment C. Each reviewer will use the total point scores to rank the responders and a mean rank for each responder will be calculated. The mean rank scores, without accompanying responders names, will be presented to the chairman of the selection committee who will determine the final rank of the proposals. . . . . The technical committee required by the RFP was comprised of William Kahn, Julie Gissendanner and Barry A. Swihart. The committee members have experience and technical knowledge about the Department's Solid Waste Program. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the technical committee was not properly constituted and consistent with the RFP. Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP provided the following evaluation criteria which were required to be used by the technical committee in evaluating proposals: Introduction Scope and Schedule Qualifications Level of innovation Scientific/Technical Quality Commercialization Potential Applicability to Florida's Specific Solid Waste Needs Technology Transfer Cost effectiveness of the Project Anticipated Benefits of the Project Minority Business Utilization The parties stipulated to the following fact concerning the evaluation criteria in their Prehearing Stipulation: The criteria contained in the RFP, by which the Department rated the bidders, were in accordance with Chapter 403, F.S., and were appropriate for determining which projects should be awarded Innovative Recycling Projects grants, subject to 7.d. below. Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP and Attachment C of the RFP explained the evaluation criteria listed in Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP. The information concerning each of the evaluation criteria sought by the Department in its RFP was explained. Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP also set a limitation on the number of pages explaining how a proposal would meet each criterion could be submitted. Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP provided the following with regard to nonresponsive proposals: Nonresponsive RFP's include, but are not limited to, those that: (a) are irregular or not in conformance with the solicitation requirements and instructions; (b) fail to utilize or complete prescribed forms; (c) are conditional, incomplete, indefinite or ambiguous; (d) are intended to accomplish only a portion or portions of the overall work; or (e) have improper or undated signatures. A NONRESPONSIVE RFP WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The FDER may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the RFP's received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which ARE NOT PREJUDICIAL to other responders. Responses to the RFP. A total of 39 responses to the RFP, including one from Ramco, were received by the Department. Responses to the RFP were sealed when received. The responses were evaluated individually by each member of the technical committee by application of the criteria to each proposal. The proposals were not rated comparatively or even discussed by the members of the technical committee. The members of the technical committee were not familiar with any of the proposals. The members of the technical committee were not biased against Ramco nor in favor of any proposal. The evidence failed to prove that the technical committee acted improperly in evaluating the proposals. Two of the 39 responses to the RFP were rejected by the Department as nonresponsive pursuant to Section A.25 of Attachment B of the RFP. One of the nonresponsive proposals was rejected because it was a project involving incineration. On page 4 of Attachment B of the RFP it was provided that incineration technologies would not be considered. Therefore, the Department's action in rejecting this proposal before evaluation was consistent with the RFP. The other nonresponsive proposal was rejected because it contained no information. The Department's action in rejecting this proposal before evaluation was consistent with page 8 of Attachment B of the RFP. The RFP did not require that a determination be made as to whether proposals were "commercially available" and "innovative recycling projects" before the proposal was evaluated. These factors were not specific criteria. Instead, the RFP contemplated a determination of whether proposals were commercially available and innovative recycling projects by application of all of the evaluation criteria. The RFP required the Department to take into account innovativeness of proposals and their commercial availability in ranking the proposals. It would have been improper for the Department to reject a proposal solely because it determined that the proposal was not commercially available or innovative. As used in the RFP, "commercially available" did not require that a product be available. In fact, the RFP, by defining commercially available to mean a process or technique in which research and development are substantially completed contemplated projects which did not yet have a product. "Commercially available" was properly interpreted by the technical committee to allow projects that had the potential for commercialization. Projects which were somewhere between merely completing a feasibility study and a finished project in their development were acceptable under the RFP. The evidence failed to prove that the Department's determination that all of the 37 proposals that were evaluated had some commercial availability and innovativeness was improper. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the proposals submitted by the other bidders should have been rejected as nonresponsive because they lacked an available product or lacked innovativeness. The Evaluation of Ramco's Proposal. Ramco proposed to develop its roofing debris recycling process throughout Florida. Ramco represented that it recycles roofing debris for use as road and base material. Ramco requested $335,000.00 to implement its proposal; $5,000.00 per County. Ramco's proposal was ranked 34th out of the 37 proposals evaluated by the technical committee. Evaluator A, Barry A. Swihart, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 27th. Evaluator B, Julie Gissendanner, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 34.5. Evaluator D, William Kahn, gave Ramco's proposal a rank of 37. Based upon the rankings of Ramco's proposal and the testimony of the members of the technical committee, Ramco's rank was reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Swihart's lower ranking of the proposal was the result of his stricter application of the evaluation criteria. Mr. Swihart's lower ranking was offset by Mr. Kahn's more generous approach. Several times during Mr. Kahn's testimony he indicated that he had given the Ramco proposal "the benefit of the doubt." Ms. Gissendanner's application of the evaluation criteria was the most reasonable. During her testimony, Ms. Gissendanner consistently and accurately referred to the evaluation criteria. It was apparent that Ms. Gissendanner reasonably and accurately evaluated the Ramco proposal consistent with the specific requirements of the RFP. The overall ranking of Ramco by the entire technical committee was consistent with Ms. Gissendanner's reasonable ranking of Ramco. Mr. Ramsey testified during the formal administrative hearing that the Ramco proposal should have received the maximum score for all of the evaluation criteria except minority business utilization. Mr. Ramsey's testimony, however, consisted primarily of self-serving conclusions unsupported by any backup data which could be appropriately considered. While it is true that Ramco presented an exhibit (exhibit 1) containing photographs, contracts and other documentation concerning the operation of Ramco, most of the evidence included in the exhibit was not part of the proposal submitted by Ramco to the Department. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to consider those portions of the exhibit in this proceeding. To do so would have the effect of allowing an inappropriate amendment to the Ramco proposal. The Ramco proposal, like Mr. Ramsey's testimony, contained in large part self-serving and unsupported conclusions. Details concerning how Ramco has actually recycled roofing debris (how much material has actually been used for roads or as base and who in particular has used the recycled material), and the nature of the machine used by Ramco to recycle roofing material (how is it fueled and how efficiently), were not provided in Ramco's proposal. The scores awarded Ramco's proposal properly reflect the lack of detailed explanation of the proposal. The following findings of fact concern the application of the evaluation criteria to Ramco's proposal. Although the explanations of the evaluation criteria contained in Section A.24C. of Attachment B of the RFP and Attachment C of the RFP have not been quoted, these explanations are hereby adopted as facts and have been considered in making the following findings of fact. Scope and Schedule Criterion. Ramco received scores of 2, 1 and 3 points of a possible of 7. The scores were based upon the lack of detailed work plans, milestone charts or quarterly due dates. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Qualifications. Ramco received scores of 6, 7 and 2 points of a possible 7. Mr. Ramsey was given credit by Mr. Kahn and Ms. Gissendanner for his experience since 1985 in the roofing recycling business of Ramco. The low score awarded by Mr. Swihart was based upon Mr. Ramsey's lack of formal education. Mr. Swihart's score was not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. The evidence failed to prove, however, that a modification of Mr. Swihart's score would have affected the Department's decision not to award Ramco a contract. The evidence also failed to prove that the other scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Level of Innovation. Ramco received scores of 7, 4 and 7 points of a possible 14. The Ramco proposal lacked a sufficiently detailed description of the project's innovation. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Scientific ("Significant" in Attachment C)/Technical Quality. Ramco received scores of 2, 0 and 4 points of a possible 10. Again, Ramco provided very little information requested as part of this criterion. Although proposals could include as many as 6 pages to describe the information required for this criteria, Ramco barely used a half page. The response to this criteria is representative of the problem with Ramco's proposal: We will cost evaluate and design roofing recycling facilities for all 67 Counties in Florida. To remove roofing debris from Florida's wolid [sic] waste stream and recycle it into an excellent road and base material to be purchased and used by counties road works department [sic]. We have collected, recycled, sold, transported, and applied thousands of tons of these recycled materials. There are no negatives, only positives to recycling roofing debris. We can have a LARGE impact on Florida's landfill needs by removing and recycling roofing debris. Approx 900,000 tons per year. This response does not address the criterion as required by the RFP. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Commercialization Potential. Ramco received scores of 8, 5 and 4 points of a possible 10. Again, supporting information was not provided by Ramco. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Applicability to Florida's Specific Solid Waste Needs. Ramco received scores of 10, 10 and 2 points of a possible 10. The lower score was awarded because the Ramco proposal will impact only a part of the construction and demolition debris waste in Florida. This conclusion is consistent with the RFP. If anything, Ramco could have received fewer points for this criterion. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Technology Transfer. Ramco received scores of 6, 2 and 3 points of a possible 7. Again, lack of specific information concerning this matter was provided. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Cost Effectiveness of the Project. Ramco received scores of 7, 5 and 2 points of a possible 10. The specific information requested concerning this criterion was not provided. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Anticipated Benefits of the Project. This criterion was worth a total of 15 points, Five points were available for each of three subparts: (a) technical/market barriers to the project; (b) proposed results impact on reducing waste needed to be disposed of; and (c) potential for significant commercialization and technology transfer. Ramco's proposal was awarded 1, 0 and 0 points for the first subpart (it was not addressed), 4, 5 and 3 points for the second subpart and 3, 3 and 0 for the last subpart. The evidence failed to prove that the scores for this criterion were not reasonable or consistent with the RFP. Minority Business Utilization. Ramco received no points. Ten points were available. Ramco did not question the scoring of this criterion. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the scores awarded to Ramco, with one minor exception, were unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP. Although Ramco should have received a higher score from one evaluator for Mr. Ramsey's qualifications, the evidence failed to prove that the additional points would significantly affect the proposed award winners. The Department's Proposed Action and Ramco's Challenge. On January 17, 1990, the Department posted a list of the ten proposed contract winners and the five alternates. The winners consisted of the ten proposals which received the highest scores from the technical committee. Ramco was not selected as one of the ten contract winners or one of the five alternates. On January 18, 1990, Ramco filed a letter indicating its intent to protest the Department's proposed action. On January 29, 1990, Ramco filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department. On February 7, 1990, the Department filed Ramco's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Conclusion. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's ranking of Ramco's proposal or any other proposal was unreasonable or inconsistent with the requirements of the RFP. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's proposed ten contract award winners or the five alternates were unreasonably determined by the Department or were inconsistent with the RFP Department Costs. The costs incurred by the Department in this proceeding have been set out in four Affidavits of Cost filed by the Department with its proposed recommended order.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing Ramco's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ramco's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Although general true, this is not the crucial issue in this case. 32. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4-5 Hereby accepted. 6-7 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Generally true. The proposed facts concerning scope and schedule are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact concerning qualifications are generally accepted in finding of fact 40. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 41. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 42. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 43. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 44. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 45. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 46. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 47. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed findings are not relevant to this proceeding. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or based upon evidence not included with Ramco's proposal. 20-28 See 15. Most of these proposed findings of fact are summaries of testimony taken out of context, are not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant to this proceeding. See 8-10 and 16. "Innovative recycling projects" and "commercially available" were not precisely speaking "criteria." Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31-58 Although the nature of the proposals discussed in these proposed findings of fact are correct the conclusions concerning alleged deficiencies with the proposals were not supported by the weight of the evidence or were not relevant to this proceeding. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3. 2 1. 3 4-5. 4 6-7, 12-13 and 50. 5 16-17. 21 and hereby accepted. 15 and hereby accepted. 8 22-23. 9 7-10. 10 9 and 11. 11-12 Hereby accepted. 13-14 27-30. 15 Hereby accepted. 16 27-30. 17 19. 18 24-26. 19 27-28. 20 27-30. 21 See 32. 22-23 See 31. 24 32 and 34. 25-26 36. 27 37. 28 39. 29 40. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 30 41. 31 42. 32 43. 33 44. 34 45. 35 46. 36 47. 37 48. 49 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 40 57-58. Copies Furnished To: Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017-C Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Chris D. McGuire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32299-2400 Leonard J. Shore, Esquire 515 Route 111 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
