vs. ) CASE NO. 89-6751
Respondent. )
The final hearing in this case was held on April 3 and 4, 1990, in Tampa, Florida, before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
For Respondents: Robert L. Rhodes, Jr., Esquire
Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (IMC Fertilizer, Inc.)
Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 (Department of Environmental Regulation)
The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should issue permit number 1C53-154132 to the applicant, IMC Fertilizer, Inc. (IMCF), for the modification of an existing industrial wastewater management system by constructing additional phosphogypsum storage capacity, or whether the permit should be denied as maintained by Manasota- 88 (Petitioner).
At the hearing, IMCF called 4 witnesses and introduced exhibits numbered 1 through 63; the Department called 5 witnesses and introduced exhibits numbered 1 and 4; and Petitioner called one witness and introduced exhibits numbered 1 through 7. Two Hearing Officer exhibits were also received.
The transcript of the final hearing was filed on April 17, 1990, and the parties were allowed ten days thereafter within which to file proposed recommended orders. A ruling on each timely filed proposed finding of fact included in the parties' proposed recommended orders is included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
IMCF is a Delaware Corporation properly registered to conduct business in the State of Florida, which owns real property known as the New Wales Chemical Complex located in western Polk County, Florida, approximately 5 miles southwest of Mulberry, l mile south of State Road 640, and east of the Hillsborough-Polk County line. The New Wales Chemical Complex began operations in April, 1975, and consists of approximately 1600 acres which are located within a 17,000 acre tract owned by IMCF known as the "Kingsford Mine". Generally, the distance from the New Wales Complex boundary to the Kings ford Mine property boundary is from one to two miles. IMCF produces phosphoric acid and other phosphate-related products, including animal feed ingredients, and stores the by-product called phosphogypsum within a gypsum stack or pile.
The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Department has the authority to consider and act upon the permit application at issue in this case.
Petitioner is a public interest environmental protection organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation, is headquartered in Palmetto, Florida, and is a citizen of the State of Florida for purposes of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has standing to maintain this action.
The Application Process
On or about August 31, 1988, IMCF filed with the Department an application for a permit to modify its industrial wastewater management system at the New Wales Complex by constructing additional phosphogypsum storage capacity. This permit application was assigned file number 1C53-154132.
The Department requested additional information from IMCF concerning this initial application on or about September 29, 1988 and December 16, 1988, and IMCF timely responded on each occasion.
On or about July 3, 1989, IMCF submitted an application supplement to the Department which substantially changed the nature and scope of its original application. The project proposed by IMCF for which it has sought the permit at issue in this proceeding is described and set forth in this supplement to IMCF's original application.
The Department requested additional information concerning this application supplement on or about August 2, 1989, to which IMCF timely responded.
On or about November 6, 1989, the Department filed its Intent to Issue permit number 1C53-154132, and thereafter, Petitioner timely instituted this action to challenge the issuance of this permit to IMCF.
The Existing Operation
At its New Wales Chemical Complex, IMCF operates sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid plants, granulated triple superphosphate and granulated ammonium phosphate plants, and a uranium recovery plant. The primary raw materials used at the New Wales Complex are sulfur and phosphate rock. Sulfur is used to produce sulfuric acid, which is then used to react with phosphate rock that has been mined by IMCF. This reaction produces phosphoric acid which is then further processed into fertilizer products and animal feed ingredients.
Phosphogypsum or gypsum is a byproduct from the production of phosphoric acid. Approximately five tons of gypsum are produced for every ton of phosphoric acid which is produced. Gypsum is slurried and transported to an existing gypsum stack where it is allowed to settle in settling compartments.
IMCF's existing gypsum stack is approximately 132 feet high, and it is reasonably estimated that it will reach its maximum useful height of 200 feet by May, 1992, at IMCF's current phosphoric acid production rate of 1.7 million tons per year, which results in approximately 8.5 million tons of gypsum per year.
As the gypsum stack grows in height, the surface area on top of the stack that is available for gypsum deposition and management decreases, and at approximately 200 feet above ground surface there will be insufficient retention time for the slurried gypsum to settle out and to be used in continued construction of the stack. Therefore, when IMCF's existing stack reaches 200 feet in height, operations at the New Wales Complex will have to cease unless an alternative gypsum storage location is authorized through the issuance of the permit sought in this proceeding. The existing gypsum stack is unlined.
In addition to the storage and management of gypsum, the existing gypsum stack at the New Wales Complex is also used to store rainfall that may fall on the stack and cooling pond. This storage capability allows IMCF to avoid discharging pond water to the surface waters of the State during heavy or extended rainfalls. During low rainfall periods, stored rainwater can be used to supplement pond water, and thereby reduce IMCF's need to pump fresh water from the aquifer to meet its cooling and scrubbing needs. Additionally, during the hot summer months, the area on top of the stack is also used for cooling purposes.
A cooling pond approximately 247 acres in size is located to the immediate south of the existing stack, with additional cooling channels encircling the stack on its remaining three sides. This existing, unlined cooling system encompasses a total of approximately 281 acres, and recirculates approximately 150,000 to 170,000 gallons of water per minute through this entire cooling system and back to IMCF's production plants for reuse. Approximately twelve uncapped recharge wells, each eight inches in diameter, were drilled in the area under the cooling pond during mining operations. These recharge wells were broken off during mining operations, and it is estimated that these wells have been filled to the top of the confining layer above the Floridan aquifer by
sand and debris. The production of fertilizers generates heat which must be dissipated through cooling, and gasses which must be cleaned by "scrubbing" them with water. IMCF's cooling system at the New Wales Complex carries out these cooling and scrubbing functions. Pond water is used to transport gypsum in slurry from the phosphoric acid plant to the top of the gypsum stack, where it is directed to one of three settling compartments on the top of the stack.
Settled gypsum is periodically dredged out, and used to build up the diked area around the edges of the stack. The slurry water is then decanted to the perimeter ditch and returned to circulation.
Waters collected at the New Wales Complex which do not come in contact with fertilizer products or raw materials are collected on the site and directed to an impoundment area referred to as "A-11" for recirculation and reuse in the plant. Excess noncontact water may be periodically released to the Kings ford Mine recirculating system during heavy or extended rainfall, and is managed separately from pond water.
A 90 acre emergency holding pond is located to the west of the cooling pond and to the south of the production facility. However, IMCF has never had to discharge excess pond water into this emergency area. This emergency holding pond is unlined.
IMCF's existing facility is a zero discharge to surface water facility. Other phosphate companies discharge pond waters to surface waters after treatment with calcium oxide or calcium carbonate. This existing facility can also store, without surface water discharge, rainfall and other waters in excess of Departmental and federal effluent guidelines
Because IMCF's existing, unlined gypsum stack and cooling pond system release some seepage to the ground water, on or about September 8, 1989, IMCF and the Department executed a Consent Agreement in OGC Case Number 89-0657 pertaining to the operation of the existing gypsum stack and cooling pond, which states in pertinent part:
Cooling pond water on the Site contains concen- trations of various constituents in excess of primary drinking water standards. (Finding 4) Contaminant concentrations in groundwater samples collected from the surficial aquifer and the uppermost segment of the intermediate aquifer system at certain locations on the Site are elevated with respect to unaffected groundwater quality. Monitoring well SA-4 . . . is located approximately 400 feet from the cooling pond channel and has indicated concentration levels
of certain constituents in excess of primary and secondary drinking water standards . . . Analyses from monitoring well SA-6, located 1600 feet downgradient from well SA-4, have recently indicated sulfate and TDS concentra- tion levels slightly exceeding secondary drinking water standards. Therefore, the vertical and horizontal extent of groundwater contamination and the rate and direction of contaminant transport in groundwater require additional evaluation. (Finding 5)
Some evidence indicates elevated contaminant
concentrations above background levels in groundwater samples collected from one of seven monitoring wells that draw water from the
lower segment of the intermediate aquifer system in a location adjacent to and down- gradient from the cooling pond. Therefore, additional evaluation of the potential impact of abandoned recharge wells underlying the cooling pond is required. (Finding 6)
IMCF has collected ground water quality data pursuant to the requirements of Ground Water Monitoring Plan Permit No. MP53-75181, currently in effect, as well as data in connection with this expansion project. This data indicates that two monitoring wells have been impacted by seepage from the existing gypsum stack. Well No. NWC-2-S2A, located approximately 400 feet to the west of the edge of the gypsum stack, contains ground water with elevated levels of sodium in excess of concentrations set forth in applicable ground water quality rules, and has recorded sulfate levels which exceed standards. Well No. SA-4, located approximately 700 feet west of the existing stack, reflects concentrations of sodium, gross alpha, and radium-226 in excess of concentration limits set forth in applicable rules, and has also recorded exceedences for sulfate, total dissolved solids and iron. These two wells are located within the New Wales Complex, and draw water from the upper portion of the intermediate aquifer, probably being impacted by seepage from the stack westward through this zone.
In addition, data collected from IMCF monitoring well NWC-5-I4A, located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the cooling pond, show elevated levels of temporary dissolved solids, arsenic, sulfate and sodium above background levels, although the sodium concentrations do not exceed the maximum concentration limits set forth in applicable Departmental ground water quality standards. This well draws water from the major producing zone of the intermediate aquifer system.
Finally, water quality impacts are shown as a result of analysis of ground water samples taken from three other wells at the New Wales Complex, wells NWC-2-S1 and NWC-2-SIA which draw water from the surficial aquifer, and well SA-6 which draws water from the uppermost portion of the intermediate aquifer system. However, based upon the evidence and analysis presented by Dr. John Garlanger, who was accepted as an expert in ground water quality impact assessment, and notwithstanding the contrary opinion expressed by Steven R. Boyes, who was accepted as an expert in hydrogeology, it is likely that these impacts come from a source other than the gypsum stack.
Based in part upon the findings set forth above, the Consent Agreement provides that IMCF will implement a series of stated corrective actions, including additional monitoring activities, and that IMCF will evaluate pertinent primary and secondary drinking water standard constituents in all potentially affected aquifers within, and/or beyond, its zone of discharge. Once this is done, IMCF may be required to evaluate various remedial action alternatives, and to ultimately implement a remedial action plan. The Consent Agreement also authorizes IMCF to install a slurry wall to the north and northeast of the existing stack to limit any seepage in that area. IMCF has committed to the Department that if ground water quality monitoring indicates significant contamination is approaching the limits of the IMCF production
plant, it will also install a slurry wall along the western edge of the plant in order to intercept any such contamination in the surficial and upper intermediate aquifer systems and contain it within IMCF's property.
Dr. Garlanger performed a modeling analysis concerning the impact of the existing cooling pond and stack upon the water quality of the major producing zone of the intermediate or Floridan aquifer, given that these existing facilities will not be closed, but will remain in use in connection with the new stack for an additional twenty years beyond 1992. Based upon that analysis, it is found that any seepage through the upper confining unit from either the existing stack or pond would not cause a violation of primary or secondary drinking water quality standards. In addition, even if the twelve recharge wells underlying the cooling pond area were each leaking at the rate of one gallon per minute, which was shown to be an overestimate of any reasonable leakage rate, Dr. Garlanger concluded that insignificant impacts would result in the major producing zone of the intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems.
The precise vertical or downward extent of the zone of discharge has not yet been determined for the New Wales Complex, although a zone of discharge horizontally to the IMCF property line has been established. However, the Department has reasonably concluded that the water quality impacts at the site resulting from the existing stack and cooling pond, referred to above, are not violations of IMCF's current permit, or of applicable rules and standards. The Department does not currently have sufficient information to determine what, if any, remedial action would be appropriate for impacts resulting from the existing stack and cooling pond, but this information will be developed pursuant to the Consent Agreement. The Department has not ruled out any eventual remedial action alternative, including closure of the existing gypsum stack.
The Proposed Project
IMCF proposes to construct an additional 415 acres of gypsum storage capacity, including permimeter ditching, in a total project area of 520 acres which will be located immediately south of, and adjacent to, the existing cooling pond that is used in connection with the existing gypsum stack or pile. It is reasonably estimated that this new stack will be in operation for twenty years.
A 60-mil high density polyethylene liner is to be installed over the entire base area, and the upstream slope of the perimeter dikes. The proposed liner will be chemically and physically compatible with conditions that will be encountered in the expanded gypsum stack area, and will be of sufficient strength to prevent failure during installation and operation. Textured liner material will be used around the outer edges of the stack area underlying the projected stack slope, while smooth material will be used under the remainder of the stack. The textured material provides an additional safety factor to prevent slope stability failure. IMCF's proposed gypsum stack is designed with a factor of safety significantly greater than that which is provided in other stack projects.
The liner material will be delivered to the site in sheets which will be rolled out on site, overlapped, and bonded with adjacent sheets using an extrusion-fusion welding process. IMCF will follow an extensive quality assurance and control program to insure that the contractor installing the liner follows all required procedures, including inspections and evaluations, random destructive testing, and vacuum testing of every inch of liner welds.
Three concentric rings of perimeter gravel drains with polyethyline collector pipes will be installed over the liner and beneath the projected slope of the gypsum stack in order to reduce the hydraulic head on the liner and improve the stability of the stack. The materials used in the drain system will be compatible with the environment which they will encounter in the gypsum stack.
IMCF proposes to separate the existing cooling pond and the proposed new gypsum stack with a 2.5 foot thick soil-bentonite slurry wall constructed along and within the entire length of the northern perimeter dike of the expansion area, and keyed approximately 30 feet into the underlying bedrock- bedclay complex. This slurry wall will provide a barrier to lateral seepage from the existing cooling pond into the expansion area, and will effectively function as a vertical liner. Materials used to construct the slurry wall will not be adversely impacted by seepage from the cooling pond.
Two culverts for routing the seepage, runoff and decant water from the gypsum stack perimeter collection ditch into the existing cooling pond are to be installed. An additional syphon spillway is to be constructed at the southwest corner of the existing cooling pond and directed into the emergency holding pond. There is no proposal to cap the twelve uncapped recharge wells located under the existing cooling pond. The existing cooling and emergency holding pond will remain in operation with the new proposed gypsum stack.
Gypsum will be slurried by pipeline from the phosphoric acid plant to the proposed new stack after its completion, where it will be managed in a manner similar to that practiced on the currently operating stack. The transport water will be returned to the cooling pond system for recirculation. IMCF proposes to use the top of the existing stack for the storage of rainfall and for cooling purposes during times of excessive heat.
The geology of the gypsum stack expansion project site is appropriate and suitable for this proposed use, as established through an evaluation of regional and site-specific information, including prospecting data collected by IMCF prior to mining this area and geophysical logging information from wells that have been installed in the area. Site-specific geological tests performed by IMCF included the drilling and evaluation of five core holes around the area of the expansion project, and evaluation of the geological conditions encountered during the drilling of thirty-one ground water monitoring-wells installed in the vicinity of the proposed project area, and an evaluation of soil borings taken from within the project site. Surface depressions and lineaments shown on pre-mining aerial photographs of the area were also evaluated. The physical evaluation and examination of the former locations of surface depressions was conducted, as was a sinkhole probability assessment.
The hydrogeology underlying the site of the proposed expansion area does not contain any features which would adversely affect the siting of the expanded stack in this proposed location. There are three major aquifer systems underlying the proposed project area, including the surficial, intermediate and Floridan aquifer system. The surficial aquifer, extending from the top of the water table to a depth of approximately 60 feet, contains overburden and sands that have replaced the original "matrix" formation of phosphate ore which has been mined. The intermediate aquifer system underlies the surficial aquifer, with its upper portion having very low permeability, extending approximately 125 feet in thickness, and containing some water bearing zones which are not laterally continuous in the project area. The major producing zone, consisting of sandy limestone material, is located in the lower portion of the intermediate
aquifer. There is a confining unit approximately ten feet in thickness, known as the "Tampa clay", at the very bottom of the intermediate aquifer, separating it from the Floridan aquifer. The Floridan aquifer system is a highly productive limestone aquifer, several hundred feet in thickness, that is the primary source of municipal drinking water and industrial water supplies in the area.
The preparation of the site will begin with the removal of various materials deposited in the area during mining operations which have already taken place, and the diversion of surface water from the area. The site will be dewatered by allowing water to flow from the site into other mined-out portions of the Kingsford Mine further to the south. This dewatering process will not discharge any water to the waters of the State. After dewatering, the site will be graded to remove any materials that could potentially puncture the liner.
The presence of existing wells in the project site will also be addressed by IMCF as part of its site preparation activities. Thirty-eight wells were previously installed in the project area, thirty-three of which were recharge wells that were used to drain water from the surficial aquifer system down to lower aquifer systems prior to mining. Twenty of these wells have been physically located, and IMCF will insure that these wells are abandoned and plugged in accordance with currently applicable regulatory requirements. The remaining eighteen wells in the project area cannot be physically located and plugged because they have been destroyed or otherwise impacted by mining operations. IMCF will install circular concrete caps, three feet in thickness and of varying diameters, over the former locations of these wells which have been determined using an analysis and evaluation of historical surveys and aerial photography, as well as computer modeling. It was established through the testimony of Richard Fountain and Dr. Nadim Fuleihan, who were accepted as experts in geological evaluation and consultation, and civil and geotechnical engineering, respectively, that these caps will reliably encompass the locations of these eighteen former wells, and will, further, maintain the structural integrity and stability of the lined gypsum stack.
IMCF has provided reasonable assurances to the Department that the construction and operation of the proposed additional gypsum stack will not result in discharges that will cause pollution in violation of statutory provisions or Departmental rules or standards designed to protect surface and ground water quality. As discussed elsewhere herein, IMCF will include an extensive groundwater quality containment/protection system in this project, the essential elements of which include the slurry wall, synthetic liner and underdrain system. Surface waters will not be adversely affected by dewatering of the project area prior to construction, nor by rainfall that strikes disturbed areas during construction due to the diversion of such waters into the Kings ford Mine water recirculation system, thereby preventing direct discharge to surface waters of the State. Construction of the new gypsum stack will increase the area at the New Wales Complex that will catch rainfall and direct it towards the pond water recirculation system. However, based on the evidence presented by Dr. Fuleihan, even under extreme rainfall conditions there is a very low probability that IMCF would have to discharge pond water from the emergency holding pond, and even under this unlikely condition, IMCF has the capability of implementing a program to treat and reuse pond water in its production processes, and will not have to discharge pond water to surface waters of the State.
The proposed one layer synthetic liner which IMCF will install with the new stack can reasonably be expected to prevent pollution of the ground water which would violate applicable statutory provisions, rules or standards. It was established through the testimony and evidence presented on behalf of IMCF, and particularly the evidence presented by Dr. Fuleihan, that the proposed liner to be used by IMCF is at least five times more protective (less permeable) than clay liners, and eight times more protective (less permeable) than the design liner which would be required by the Department's policy statement concerning the lining of gypsum stack expansion projects. This project will essentially involve zero discharge to ground water due to the extremely low permeability of the liner material. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Garlanger, any impacts reasonably expected to occur through liner seepage and defects would not result in an exceedence of applicable primary drinking water quality standards at the base of the surficial aquifer underlying the gypsum stack expansion area. No impacts at all were projected at any point lateral to the edge of the gypsum stack expansion area. In accordance with the terms of the permit the Department proposes to issue, IMCF will be required to monitor ground water quality in order to demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards.
IMCF has provided reasonable assurance that it can locate and cap all uncapped recharge wells in the project area, and has proposed a method for capping such wells which is appropriate, and which can reasonably be expected to be effective in preventing the intrusion of pollutants into the ground water through these presently uncapped recharge wells.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties, and the subject matter in this cause. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has the requisite standing to maintain this proceeding. Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes.
The Department has permitting jurisdiction in this matter under Sections 403.061(14) and 403.087, Florida Statutes. Since this is a case in which IMCF is seeking to obtain a permit from the Department, IMCF has the burden to establish their entitlement to this permit by competent substantial evidence. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
As a matter of law, the project at issue in this case, the contiguous expansion of a gypsum disposal area at IMCF's existing New Wales Complex, is an "existing installation". Rule 17-28.700(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the project may not cause a violation of primary drinking water quality standards outside of an authorized zone of discharge, or a violation of certain "minimum criteria" within the zone. Rules 17-28.700(2)(a), 17-3.402(2) and 17-3.404. Existing installations do not have to comply with secondary drinking water quality standards, unless the Department determines such compliance is necessary to protect ground water used, or reasonably likely to be used, for potable purposes. An existing installation may not cause a violation of secondary standards in a private or public potable water supply well located outside the zone of discharge. Rules 17-28.700(8)(a) and (f).
Based upon review and consideration of the evidence presented, IMCF has provided reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the proposed gypsum stack expansion project at the New Wales Complex will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable surface water quality standard or rule, and would not result in a discharge to ground water in violation of
applicable Departmental rules. It was shown that the expanded stack will not result in any wastewater discharge to surface waters of the State. The proposed liner and quality assurance program provide reasonable assurance that liner leakage, if any, will be minimal, and will not have any sigificant impact on ground water quality. IMCF has also provided reasonable assurance that all uncapped wells in the project site can be located, either actually or by reasonable estimates, and that they will be reliably capped in a manner appropriate for each well location.
Petitioner's case in opposition to the issuance of this permit rests almost exclusively upon its opposition to the continued use of the existing cooling pond and stack, and to the fact that the Department's proposed permit does not include a condition requiring the closing of the existing stack. Petitioner argues that the "secondary impact" doctrine set forth in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) should be applied in this case since the existing stack and cooling pond would have to be closed in 1992 "but for" the construction and operation of this expanded gypsum stack.
However, IMCF and the Department established that the continued use of the existing cooling pond and stack, for the purposes specified in IMCF's application, will not be a source of pollution, as defined in Rule 17-3.021(24), Florida Administrative Code. Competent substantial evidence was presented by IMCF and the Department to establish that the existing stack and cooling pond have not caused violations of primary drinking water standards outside the applicable horizontal zone of discharge, which for this existing installation extends to the property boundary of the facility where this existing installation is located. Rules 17-550.310 and 17-28.700(4)(b). The Consent Agreement entered into by IMCF and the Department reasonably and fully sets forth a procedure for determining what degree of contamination has been caused by the existing stack and cooling pond, and for prescribing what, if any, remedial action may be necessary. Additionally, the Agreement will result in the collection of data necessary for the Department to establish a vertical zone of discharge for this existing installation.
IMCF has provided reasonable assurance that its proposed gypsum stack expansion project will not cause, discharge or emit pollution in contravention of Departmental standards or rules, within the meaning of Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Department enter a Final Order approving IMCF's permit application and issuing permit number 1C53-154132.
DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD D. CONN
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1990.
1-5 Preliminary matters which are not proposed findings.
unnecessary and immaterial.
22-23 Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 34, 37.
24-31 Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 18-20, and otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary.
32 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 33-34 Adopted in Finding 23, but otherwise Rejected in
Finding 22 and as not based on competent substantial evidence.
52-53 Rejected as immaterial since the circumstances of the Gardinier permit differ significantly from the facts in this case.
54 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and as immaterial. There was no explication of any nonrule policy which requires closure of an existing stack.
55-56 Rejected as immaterial.
57-58 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and as a conclusion of law.
59-60 Rejected as a conclusion of law and without citation to the record.
64-68 Rejected as immaterial, not based on competent substantial evidence, and without citation to the record.
20-22 Adopted in Finding 36.
30 Adopted in Finding 22. 31-32 Adopted in Finding 23.
Thomas W. Reese, Esquire
123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Richard T. Donelan, Jr., Esquire Twin Towers Office Building
Robert L. Rhodes, Jr., Esquire Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel
Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
