STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA CONCRETE AND PRODUCTS ) ASSOCIATION, INC., and FLORIDA ) HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC., )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-7848RP

) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, a formal hearing was held in this proceeding on January 13, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Diane Cleavinger, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire

Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel Smith & Cutler, P.A.

First Florida Bank Bldg., 5th Floor

215 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: Alfred O. Bragg, III

Katherine Castor

Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9B-52 (the Proposed Rules) and the document incorporated into the Proposed Rules by reference, "the Florida Standard for Radon Resistant Building Construction" (the Building Standard), represent an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 15, 1991, Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, Number 46, Proposed Rule 9B-52.001 through 9B-52.004 (the Rules). On December 5, 1991, Petitioners, Florida Concrete and Products Association, Inc., (Concrete Association) and the Florida Home Builders Association, Inc., (Home Builders) filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, a "Petition Challenging Validity of Proposed Rule" alleging that Proposed Rules 9B-52.001 through 9B-

1. were, in whole or in part, invalid exercises of the Department's authority. After consultation with both parties, a final hearing was set in this matter as indicated above.

   
   

   At the hearing, Petitioners, Florida Concrete and Products Association, Inc., and Florida Home Builders Association, Inc., offered the testimony of four witnesses: Jack Haslam, John Christenson, Dr. Ashley Williamson, and Dr. Emmett Bloch, an expert in the field of environmental engineering and radiologic health with a specialty in the area of radon potentials in soil. Petitioners also introduced four exhibits into evidence. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs, offered the testimony of Richard Dixon and Dr. Ashley Williamson, an expert in physical chemistry with an emphasis on the study of radon measurements. Respondent also offered four exhibits into evidence.

   Additionally, the parties jointly offered five joint exhibits into evidence.

   
   

   Petitioners' and Respondent filed Proposed Final Orders on February 14, 1992, and February 13, 1992, respectively. The parties' proposed findings of fact have been considered and utilized in the preparation of this Final Order except where such proposals were irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate. Specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact are contained in the appendix to this Final Order.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Radon is a naturally occurring, chemically inert, radioactive gas. It is part of the uranium-238K series of decay and is a direct decay product of radium-226. The decay of radon occurs through a quantum process which results in its own decay products known as radon progeny or radon daughters.

      
      

   2. Radon is generally found in the soil. As a gas, radon is both colorless and odorless. Prolonged exposure to radon gas is a known cause of lung cancer in humans.

      
      

   3. The problem posed by radon gas is that it will enter a building through cracks or pores in the building's floors and foundation and accumulate inside, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to humans occupying the building. Such radon infiltration is generally caused by lower atmospheric pressure inside a building than outside a building. Put simply, radon gas flows out of the soil in the direction of the lower pressure inside a building. Once inside a building, the radon gas and the radon progeny may remain in the air or may interact with surfaces inside the building. The amount of accumulation or concentration of radon inside a structure is directly affected by several chaotic, nonlinear factors such as weather. Given the public health threat posed by the accumulation of radon in buildings occupied by humans and given the mechanics of radon infiltration, the development of methods of construction to control or mitigate radon infiltration has become a goal in the state and has had a significant impact on the construction industry.

      
      

   4. Petitioners, the Concrete Association and the Home Builders Association, are both trade associations. The Concrete Association has approximately 70 members in the state and the Home Builders has approximately 1,800 members in the state. Both of the Associations' members are involved in the Florida construction industry. One of the purposes of each organization is to forward the interests of its membership, including participation in rulemaking proceedings such as the present proceeding. Given both Associations' members and their interests, there is no question that the Associations' members are impacted by any rule or standard developed by an agency dealing with

      construction. In this case, the evidence demonstrated that both Associations' members will be substantially affected by the Proposed Rules and Building Standard. Therefore, since one purpose of each Association is to forward its members' interests, both Associations' have standing to challenge the Proposed Rules and Building Standard at issue in this case. 1/

      
      

   5. Section 553.98, Florida Statutes (1991), obligates the Department of Community Affairs to promulgate standards for building codes for the prevention of radon in new construction and for the mitigation of radon in existing construction. Section 553.98, Florida Statutes, was adopted as part of a multi- agency radon control program established in Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida (1988). Chapter 88-285, Laws Of Florida, divided responsibility for various aspects of the radon control program between various agencies and co-ordinating councils. Importantly, Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida, by amending Section 404.056, Florida Statutes, gave the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the authority to develop and adopt a radiation standard for buildings. The Department of Community Affairs was not given the authority to adopt a radiation standard for buildings. DCA was however given the authority to develop and adopt standards for building codes for radon-resistant buildings and mitigation of radon infiltration in existing buildings.

      
      

   6. In furtherance of its statutory mandate, the Department, promulgated Proposed Rules 9B-52.001 through 9B-52.004 and created a building standard entitled "the Florida Standard for Radon Resistant Building Construction". According to the Notice of Rulemaking, published on November 15, 1991, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, the Proposed Rules were intended "[t]o initiate a rule which adopts the Florida Standard for building codes for radon-resistant buildings." The actual adoption of a Florida building standard occurred in Proposed Rule 9B-52.004 by incorporating the newly created "Florida Standard for Radon Resistent Building Construction" by reference. Proposed Rules 9B-52.001 through 9B-52.003 generally provide various types of administrative and definitional support for the Building Standard.

      
      

   7. As indicated, the Florida Standard for Radon Resistant Building Construction was promulgated as a building standard for future radon-resistant building codes. In construction usage, a "code" or "building code" is a binding set of building principles imposed by governmental authority to ensure construction is safe and achieves a certain standard. On the other hand, a "standard" or "building standard" is a generally accepted and recognized criteria or building method which attains a specified goal, level of excellence, measure of adequacy or attainment. A standard is more than a consensual guideline, rule of thumb or rough idea. It must have a history of demonstrated effectiveness. Standards in general are classified as "prescriptive" standards, in which the standard specifies the way a building or building system is to be constructed, and "performance" standards, in which the standard quantifies the range of performance of the material or construction technique by reference to limits. A standard is generally recognized as authoritative but does not necessarily have to be incorporated in a building code. However, standards are usually and frequently made part of building codes or underlie a building code's requirements.

      
      

   8. In this case, none of the model building codes codified in Section 553.73(2), Florida Statutes (1991), nor any other local building codes incorporate the Florida Standard for Radon Resistant Building Construction. In fact, Section 553.98(3), Florida Statutes, places a moratorium on local governments enacting or enforcing any building codes dealing with radon. However, under Section 553.98, Florida Statutes, the Department is to provide

      training during the moratorium to those who will presumably be responsible in the future for implementation of the Department's radon-resistant Building Standard and Proposed Rules. Additionally, Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida, makes it clear that any building standard developed by the Department is intended to serve as the technical underpinnings of a future building code or be directly incorporated into a future building code. Clearly, given this statutory scheme and the testimony at the hearing, the Proposed Rules and Building Standard are intended to, either directly or indirectly, become mandatory and will have a significant impact on the construction industry and in turn on both Petitioners and their members.

      
      

   9. Moreover, while technically a standard which is not incorporated in a code is not mandatory, standards, especially those promulgated as agency rules, are frequently the criteria which determines whether a builder has prudently performed his duties if accused of negligence. 2/ In essence standards, whether or not they are incorporated in building codes have the effect of being de facto mandates and as such have significant impact on both Associations' members.

      
      

   10. In this case, the Building Standard itself expressly describes its purpose as follows:

       
       

       The following building standards have been developed in accordance with Section 553.98, Florida Statutes, to decrease the exposure of occupants to indoor radon concentrations in newly constructed buildings. The standard targets the state health standard for exposure to radon indoors established by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in accordance with Section 404.056, Florida Statutes.

       
       

   11. Pursuant to Section 404.056, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), in Rule 10D-91, Florida Administrative Code, established a maximum acceptable radiation exposure concentration in buildings of 0.02 working levels (WL) on an annual average. Clearly, this annual average is not a short term measurement. In fact, in order to accurately measure the average annual radon concentration inside a building, the deployment of reliable testing instruments in a given building for one year is required.

       
       

   12. In developing its indoor radiation standard, HRS used an "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) type of analysis. ALARA takes into account reasonableness, social benefits, the state of technology and economics. See Section 404.056(1), Florida Statutes. In fact, the legislative staff analysis of Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida, indicates that the legislature was well aware of the then proposed HRS standard of as low as reasonably achievable not to exceed 0.02 WL and that HRS recommended that the standard remain the same until better radon mitigation and radon-resistant construction technology was developed.

       
       

   13. As indicated above, the HRS rule measures radon in terms of working levels. A "working level" is the amount of concentration of short-lived radon progeny that results in 130,000 million electron volts of potential alpha particle energy per liter of air. An alpha particle is an electrically charged particle which is emitted by the decay of radon or various subsequent decays.

       As can be seen from the above definition, a working level does not measure the presence of radon itself, but is a measure of the air borne daughter elements or

       radon progeny generated by the decay of radon. Rule 10D-91.1303(16), Florida Administrative Code (1992).

       
       

   14. The Proposed Rules and Building Standard are intended to apply to all new residential buildings and additions or renovations to existing residential buildings. The Building Standard provides two construction options for achieving radon resistant construction. The two construction options are referred to as active mitigation and passive mitigation.

       
       

   15. Active mitigation requires the use of the passive mitigation construction practices contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard in combination with an active mechanical or electrical depressurization system for the removal of radon gas installed sub-slab for slab-on-grade construction, and either sub-membrane or in the crawl space for off-grade construction. Active mitigation is usually considerably more expensive to construct than passive mitigation. However, active mitigation systems have been proven effective in preventing radon infiltration into homes and are generally accepted in the industry as an appropriate method for reducing radon concentrations. Given the proven efficacy and general acceptance of active mitigation systems, such systems may appropriately form the basis of a building standard for the control or mitigation of radon in buildings. Therefore, due to the track record and industry acceptance of active mitigation systems as methods for actually reducing radon concentrations, the Department included active mitigation systems in its Building Standard as a prescriptive standard and did not define the required level of performance for such active mitigation systems. Also since active mitigation systems are proven, generally accepted in the industry and are directly related to the statutory obligation of the Department to develop, publish and adopt standards for building codes for radon-resistant buildings and mitigation of radon in existing buildings, inclusion of such systems in the Department's Proposed Rules and Building Standard was well within the delegated legislative authority of the Department.

       
       

   16. On the other hand, under the Proposed Rules and Building Standard, construction of buildings utilizing passive mitigation involves only the passive mitigation building practices contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard. These passive mitigation building construction practices were derived from what is currently known about the physical factors affecting the infiltration of radon into a building and are based on extrapolations from fundamental engineering principles. In general, passive mitigation controls mitigates the infiltration of radon by increasing the resistance of a building's shell to radon entry through the use of some type of barrier or sealant for cracks and porous materials and limiting building depresurization forces. However, unlike active mitigation construction techniques, there is no reliable evidence that passive mitigation construction techniques, by themselves, are effective as a method of reducing radon infiltration in buildings and such techniques have not been generally accepted by the construction industry as effective controls of radon infiltration into buildings. In fact, the Department is currently engaged in research to determine whether passive mitigation construction techniques actually control the infilatration of radon into buildings and control it to the extent that the HRS maximum acceptable level of radon is met.

       
       

   17. The Department recognizes that it has no authority to create a building standard based on technology which is not generally accepted in the construction industry and does not have a proven history of achieving the purpose for which it is being required. In short, the Department correctly recognizes that it cannot require as a prescriptive building standard or rule, construction methods or techniques for radon control that are not recognized and

       proven as effective controls of radon infiltration. Such unrecognized techniques do not rise to the level of certainty of performance required for a prescriptive building standard or for any type building standard. However, due to the expense of active mitigation construction techniques, the Department felt compelled to provide for the use of stand alone passive mitigation construction techniques in its Proposed Rules and Building Standard even though such techniques are not recognized as effective controls of radon infiltration.

       Therefore, in an attempt to meet the perceived need to provide a Building Standard which contains a cheaper method of radon control than active mitigation, the Department determined that a performence based building standard for buildings constructed solely with the passive mitigation construction techniques contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard should be developed. In essence, under the Proposed Rules and the Building Standard, buildings constructed solely with passive mitigation construction techniques would be required to meet or achieve a certain level of performance before such buildings would be deemed in compliance with the Department's Proposed Rules and Building Standard.

       
       

   18. In this case, the Department determined that the level of performance the Building Standard should incorporate would be defined by the amount of radon in a structure considered safe for human habitation. In this case, the maximum allowable safe level of indoor radon concentration was established by HRS to be a an annual average not exceeding 0.02 WL.

       
       

   19. The immediate problem faced by the Department in regards to requiring passive mitigation to meet the HRS level of performance was that the certificate of occupancy of a given building would be dependent on compliance with the Proposed Rules and Building Standard adopted by the Department. A certificate of occupancy is necessary before any building may be permanently occupied by human beings. Clearly, the longer it takes a certificate of occupancy to be issued the more expense will be incurred by a contractor or home owner during the time the structure cannot be occupied. In short, the cost of housing goes up.

       
       

   20. As indicated earlier, the HRS standard is a long term standard based on an annual average. HRS has not established or developed any short term standard for radon control. HRS does recognize the use of short-term screening tests, but only as a precursor to determining whether a long-term test should be performed. See Rule 10D-91.1317, Florida Administrative Code.

       
       

   21. In order for a builder to demonstrate compliance with the HRS standard, he or she would have to test a building for radon infiltration for one year to determine that structure's annual average. During the year of testing, the Department felt that a certificate of occupancy could not be issued and that such a delay would increase the cost of housing therby eroding the purpose of including passive mitigation as a cheaper alternative to active mitigation in its Proposed Rules and Building Standard. To solve this problem, the Proposed Rules and Building Standard specify the use of post-construction/preoccupancy, short-term testing of houses constructed solely with passive mitigation techniques. The post-construction testing and compliance criteria constitute the performence standard for such passive mitigation. Curiously, even though the Department's stated purpose for the Rule is to "target" the HRS standard, neither the Proposed Rules or the Building Standard provide for compliance with the performance standard when a post-construction long-term test is completed by a builder and demonstrates a long-term radon level of 0.02 WL or 4.0 pCi/L.

   22. The post-construction testing required by the Proposed Rules and Building Standard provide approximately seven different short-term tests from which a builder may choose. The tests vary according to the testing device and period of measurement. Descriptions of the various tests are contained in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard. The tests were intended to determine on a short-term, one time-one test basis whether a home will meet the long-term standard for the annual average radon concentration established by HRS of 0.02 WL.

       
       

   23. Chapter 5 of the Building Standard contains specific compliance criteria for the post-construction test required for houses constructed solely with passive mitigation construction techniques. Table 5.1, states as follows:

       
       

       Device		Measurement Period	Concentration (pCi/L)
       Continuous Radon		5 days to 10 days	3.4
       Monitor		11 days or longer	3.5
       Electret-Ion Chambers		5 days to 10 days	2.7
       (High Sensitivity)		11 days or longer	2.4
       Electret-Ion Chambers		26 days or longer	2.6
       (Low Sensitivity)
       Charcoal (open	Canister face)	47 hr. to 73 hr.	2.5
       Charcoal	Canister	5 days to 10 days	2.7
       (barrier)

       
       

   24. As can be seen from the above table, the Proposed Rules and Building Standard require measurements of radon to be expressed in terms of picocuries per liter (pCi/L). "Picocuries per liter" is a measure of the number of disintegrations per minute of a radioactive material per liter. The measure can be used as a measure of the concentration of radon gas in the air. Rule 10D- 91.1303(11), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Rules and Building Standard assume that a radon progeny concentration of 0.02 WL is equivalent to a radon gas concentration of 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). 3/ The equivalency of 0.02 WL to 4 pCi/L is based upon an assumed equilibrium ratio of 50 percent. In other words, for each unit of radon gas measured at a given time, it is assumed that 50 percent of the radon progeny are lost to surfaces and 50 percent remain in the air available for measurement. Because the equilibrium ratio of

       50 percent is only a handy assumption, the actual equilibrium ratio of radon progeny can be more or less than the assumed 50 percent equilibrium. In fact, the range of ratios measured in Florida has been between 20 percent and 70 percent equilibrium. Such a variation in the equilibrium ratios can result in significant differences in the amount of radon gas present in a building at any given time. However, the assumed equivalency of 50 percent is the scientifically accepted, universal working assumption for computing radon levels in a given location and converting WL to pCi/L. The basis of the assumption is that any variation in the actual equilibrium ratios of radon gas can be presumed to approach 50 percent when radon measurements are taken over a lengthy period of time such as a year. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that an assumed ratio of 50 percent is a valid assumption when measurements of radon are taken over the relatively short periods of time indicated in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard. In short the evidence did not demonstrate that the hills and

       valleys of the actual equilibrium ratios occurring during a short-term measurement of radon gas would offset one another and average out to a 50 percent equilibrium ratio. 4/

       
       

   25. Irrespective of whether the 50 percent equilibrium ratio is an appropriate assumption when short-term measurements are involved, the values contained in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard were developed from Department sponsored research through the Environmental Protection Agency, as contractor for the Department. The research was conducted by the Southern Research Institute to provide technical support for the performance standard required of buildings constructed solely with the passive mitigation construction practices contained in the Proposed Rules and Building Standard. To date, the study represents the most comprehensive examination on the time variation of indoor radon concentrations in a significant number of houses having moderately elevated radon concentrations. In fact, there is only one other study which addresses the time variation of radon concentrations in Florida houses. 5/ The Southern Research study expanded the scope of the Roessler, et. al. study in area studied number of devices deployed, inclusion of candidate samples as a control method, and control for house operational and structural variables.

       
       

   26. The Southern Research study involved 80 homes in four different regions of Florida. All of the study homes had the following characteristics:

       
       

       1. They were all located in geographic areas of elevated radon potential, namely Dade County, Polk County, Alachua County and Leon County;

       2. They all had shown measured radon levels between 2 and 20 pCi/L;

       3. They were all existing, occupied homes 6/ and;

       4. They were all single-story, slab-on-grade construction.

          
          

          Sixty-five of the 80 test houses finished the study. Out of those 65 houses, 26 were closed to outside ventilation all the time, 8 were closed to outside ventilation more than 95 percent of the time, and the remaining 31 were closed to outside ventilation 95 percent of the time or less.

          
          

   27. The study involved comparative sampling using the radon measurement technologies listed in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard. The object of the research was to compare the reading from the screening test instruments used in each house to the actual annual average radon concentration.

       
       

   28. In order to measure the annual average radon concentration in each of the study houses, an alpha track detector was deployed in a house for the entire year. A second alpha track detector was deployed in the same house and exchanged for another alpha track detector at the beginning of each calendar quarter. Simultaneously, with the exception of the continuous radon monitors, which were only deployed in 20 of the study houses, each test device listed in Table 5.1 of the Building Standard was deployed in each of the study houses for the periods specified in Table 5.1 for that type of test instrument. The measurements generally extended over the period of a year but included both short-term (measurements of less than a year) and long-term measurements (measurements of a year or longer). The short-term and long-term measurements were also compared to determine whether short-term measurements were predictive of its associated long-term measurement.

   29. The data obtained from these side by side comparisons yielded more than 8,760 individual measurements, of which 1,431 were discarded as quality assurance samples, 224 were discarded due to instrument malfunction or sample losses and 91 were discarded as being under the lower limits of detection. The remaining 7,014 individual measurements were used to derive the values listed in Table 5.1 of the Standard for each test instrument. These values constitute the short-term measurement in picocuries per liter necessary to achieve an 80 percent level of confidence that the average annual concentration of radon is less than 4.0 picocuries per liter.

       
       

   30. An explanation of the 80 percent level of confidence relationship was provided at hearing by Dr. Ashley Williamson, who directed the research effort which led to the development of Table 5.1. Using the 3.4 pCi/L threshold level established in Table 5.1 for a Continuous Radon Monitor as an example, Dr. Williamson stated that of 100 homes measuring 3.4 pCi/L, one would predict that

       80 of those homes would have an annual average radon concentration less than 4 pCi/L while 20 would have an annual average radon concentration greater than 4 pCi/L. The level of confidence is only valuable for any given group of 100 homes. The level of confidence is not necessarily predictive of the annual average of an individual house. Indeed, a significant percentage of homes which measure above 3.4 pCi/L would be predicted to have annual averages below 4 pCi/L. However, all such houses would fail to comply with Chapter 5 and would not meet the performance standard established in the Proposed Rules and Building Standard. Conversely, the data establishes the prediction that at short-term radon levels lower than 3.4 pCi/L, a certain percentage of the homes, though in compliance with Chapter 5, will have actual annual averages of radon concentrations which violate the HRS standard of 4 pCi/L (0.02 WL). These houses would meet the performance standard contained in the Proposed Rules and Building Standard even though they would be in violation of the HRS standard. Moreover, since Section 502.2 states that only those buildings which measure less than the threshold values in Table 5.1 of the Building Standard will be in compliance, none of the 100 homes which measure 3.4 pCi/L will be in compliance with Chapter 5 even though the homes might meet the HRS annual average of 4 pCi/L. Similar results apply to all the values contained in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard.

       
       

   31. Only a predictive measure with a level of confidence could be developed from the study because short-term levels of radon are highly variable. They vary in accordance with a number of different factors, including environmental factors such as geology, soil moisture, location of the underlying water table, temperature, pressure and other meteorological changes. Short-term levels of radon also vary with construction type; e.g., block, wood, slab-on- grade, basement or crawl space. The variation between different homes can be quite large. Additionally, individual homes also have distinctive diurnal or daily variations in their radon levels, as well as weekly and seasonal variations. Some of the variations within a given structure often are the result of the type of air handler systems in the structure and whether natural ventilation is used for cooling. Variations also occur as a result of sampling locations in different rooms or on different floors.

       
       

   32. As with all predictive measures, a short-term measurement of radon will not establish with absolute certainty what the annual average concentration of radon of a home will be. Short-term measurements of radon can yield results which are either higher or lower than the homes' true annual average radon concentration. Screening tests, which are tests of much shorter duration, are also available, but screening tests are less accurate than tests performed over longer periods of time. Additionally, test instruments used for screening

       measurements are prone to both false negatives, or readings which underestimate the true annual average concentration, and false positives, which overestimate the true annual average concentration.

       
       

   33. Even the EPA testing protocols contained in EPA 520/1-89-009, "Indoor Radon and Radon Decay Product Measurement Protocols" (EPA 1989) and mandated by the Proposed Rules and Building Standard recognize the unreliability and inaccuracy of single short-term measurements. The EPA test protocol document states:

       
       

       [b]ecause of these temporal and spacial variations [in radon concentrations], the EPA does not know of a way to use the result of a single measurement to provide an accurate estimate of health estimates or make a well informed decision on the need for remedial action.

       
       

       The EPA in the same document recommends use of short-term measurements as a screening device only. If a short-term screening test reflects a radon concentration exceeding 4 pCi/L, a longer term, follow-up test should be conducted. Even when a short-term measurement exceeds 4 pCi/L, the EPA test protocol document states that:

       
       

       the screening measurement alone . . . does not provide sufficient information to decide on the need for remedial action.

       . . . [A]ny decision on permanent corrective action to reduce indoor radon concentrations [should] be made only after the completion of follow-up measurements.

       
       

   34. Because all types of testing devices have some variation in their ability to measure radon and routinely measure levels either higher or lower than the actual radon concentration, the coefficient of variation for each screening device in each test house was determined from the variability of the individual readings on that device. The coefficients of variation from all the test houses for that individual screening device were then averaged to determine the degree of variability for each type of screening device listed in Table 5.1.

       
       

   35. In general, the difference between the respective values in Table 5.1 and 4.0 picocuries per liter is an inverse function of the overall variability for that type of screening instrument. In other words, the closer to 4.0 the value specified for a given type of screening instrument, the smaller the overall variability for that type of instrument.

       
       

   36. Analysis of the data revealed that, there was no overall significant increase in variability attributable to the type of slab-on-grade construction used in the test houses. The study also revealed that the overall variability of the measurements in the houses with higher radon concentrations did not exceed the variability in those with lower radon concentrations. Additionally, there was no evidence that the procedures used in the study increased variability of a specific type of testing instrument or within a particular house. Similarly, there was no evidence that the procedures used in the study increased variability between the various testing instruments or among the various houses.

       
       

   37. However, analysis of the data revealed that there were conditions inherent in the nature of radon and radon infiltration which tended to increase the degree of variability in individual test houses. The most significant

       variation and the one causing the most variation involved the seasons along with some meteorological factors. Quarterly averages relative to the annual average increased in the order of spring (82%) < summer (93%) < fall (97%) < winter (123%). The study also revealed that the degree of variation of the short-term measuremnts of radon varies roughly in proportion to the long-term mean consentration, with coefficient of variation within a calendar quarter of approximately 25 percent of the quarterly mean and 35 percent of the annual mean.

       
       

   38. Clearly, given the above facts, the compliance thresholds reflected in Table 5.1 do not establish a reasonably accurate indicator of compliance with the HRS standard. Put simply, the proposed rules attempt to establish a performance standard based on an estimate of an estimate based on an assumption all of which has its roots in highly variable data. Such stacking of estimates and assumptions fails to provide the accuracy required of a standard especially when the variability is as large as the coefficient of variation in this case.

       
       

   39. In short, the compliance criteria contained in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard provide the value for short-term measurements of radon concentrations for a given type test which are only predictive of an annual average radon concentration which is less than the HRS maximum acceptable annual average. The values contained in Chapter 5 are not predictive of whether a structure will have an annual average radon concentration equal to the HRS maximum acceptable annual average. Moreover, under the Proposed Rules and Building Standard, a house constructed solely with passive mitigation techniques complies with the Proposed Rule and Building Standard only if a post- construction screening test utilyzing a specified test instrument yields a short-term measured radon concentration lower than the values contained in Table

       5.1 of the Building Standard Given the level of confidence applicable to the values in Table 5.1 of the Building Standard, such short-term measurements will likely exclude a building which meets the permissable HRS annual average. In essence, the Department, in domino fashion, has established a performance level which is more restrictive than the level determined by HRS to be safe for human habitation. The establishment of such a level has not been delegated to the Department and therefore is outside the Department's delegated statutory authority.

       
       

   40. In addition, the data collected and utilized in the development of Table 5.1 does not specifically address homes which fall outside of the construction type of the test houses. It is unclear, therefore, whether the short-term/long-term relationships reflected in Table 5.1 has any applicability to homes which fall outside of the test house categories and may have a wider range of variability than do concrete slab-on-grade homes. Given the differences in the performance between construction types, the applicability of data and analysis which were derived from research on one type of construction is of questionable value for the other.

       
       

   41. Lastly, the performance standard contained in the Proposed Rules and Building Standard and the compliance criteria contained in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard are based on one study which only partially agrees with or replicates the results of other studies and, in certain respects, does not reproduce the results contained in other studies. Admittedly, the Southern Research study represents a much more detailed study than other studies in the same field. In fact, the Southern Research study is the next logical step in radon research and except for charcoal canisters which were used in the Roessler study, it is the only study which covers the types of radon detection devices contained in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard. However, the development of a

       performance standard from a study which has no follow-up or which has not been reproduced in other studies is a far cry from a building standard based on data that has a proven track record and is generally accepted in the industry. Even the report of the Southern Research study recognizes that the study is in need of reproduction in order to establish the validity of the study's results beyond the immediate conditions of the study. Additionally, EPA in its test protocol document recognizes that research involving measurements of radon should be shown to be reproducible by other studies or research before the results can be used in other settings or for predictive purposes. Put simply, validation of the Southern Research study has not been done or completed and it would be inappropriate to consider the studies results beyond the confines of the study. For the same reason, it would be inappropriate to formulate a building standard on a study which has not been so validated because the results of one study even assuming those results were accurate enough for a building standard, have not been shown to be reflective of the general population of houses; and therefore, no proven track record for the limits in the performance standard have been established.

       
       

   42. In sum, the threshold levels set forth in Table 5.1 of the Building Standard do not establish whether the homes to be tested under the Proposed Rules and Building Standard will meet the HRS standard for radon concentrations. The threshold levels do not establish an accurate relationship between a single short-term measurement and an annual average radon concentration. The data upon which they are based is not universally applicable among construction types and the compliance criteria set forth in Table 5.1 lack the accuracy, proven track record and general acceptance required for a measure of the performance of passive mitigation construction practices. Given these facts, the Department has acted outside the scope of its delegated legislative authority in promulgating the portions of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard involving passive mitigation and post-construction testing. Therefore, the portions of the Proposed Rules and the Building Standard related to passive mitigation and post-construction testing are invalid as rules.

       
       

   43. Finally, Section 102.1 of the Building Standard applies to construction of new residential buildings and additions to or renovations of existing residential buildings throughout the state. However, certain areas of the State have a known low potential for radon, while other areas of the state are known for having a high potential for radon. Radon potential is delineated by near surface geology, with areas predominated by sand having a low potential for radon. In fact, approximately 32 out of the 67 counties in Florida have been identified as having high radon potentials.

       
       

   44. The Department recognizes that there are areas of low radon potential as well as high radon potential in the State and acquiesces that a delineation of these low and high areas can be achieved based upon geography and geology. To date, the only unified statewide mapping project was the one performed in 1986 by GeoMet Technologies. The Geomet project failed to detect a number of locations in the state which have elevated radon potentials. However, since completion of the Geomet project, there has been extensive data developed regarding the potential for radon in specific areas of the State which are in addition to the Geomet project. Given this additional mapping data, it appears possible that geological mapping for radon with an acceptable degree of reliability is feasible.

       
       

   45. Importantly, the short-term testing required by Chapter 5 is not intended to, nor will it, demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the passive mitigation techniques or the effectiveness of the passive mitigation

       construction practices contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard. Therefore, if a home complies with Table 5.1 of the Building Standard, there is no way of knowing whether such compliance is because the home is in a low radon area or, rather, because passive construction has been used and is effective.

       
       

   46. The Department itself has recommended that radon-resistant building standards should minimize unnecessary housing costs in Florida and that application of radon-resistant standards should be indexed to the level of risk in each area of the state. In this case, the evidence showed that active mitigation is considerably more expensive than passive mitigation and that even passive mitigation would add an additional cost to new homes ranging from $506 to $1,950. Clearly, there is no public benefit to requiring radon-resistant construction techniques in areas of low radon potential. Given the Department's goal of minimizing costs and the expense of mitigation, a statewide standard is unwarranted, particularly in the areas of low radon potential where the increased costs of mitigation need not be incurred. At a minimum, the Department's goal of minimizing unnecessary housing costs would require that the Proposed Rules and Building Standard should contain a provision that exempts a house from the Building Standard where low radon potential can be demonstrated by the builder or the owner. Such a provision would address the potential problem of contaminated fill being brought into a low radon area. Without such a limitation, all of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard are arbitrary and therefore are invalid exercises of the Department's authority.

       
       

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   47. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   48. The Proposed Rules and Building Standard at issue in this proceeding were promulgated pursuant to Section 553.98, Florida Statutes. Section 553.98, Florida Statutes, states:

       
       

       1. Not later than one year after receiving the final report from the Board of Regents . . ., the Department of Community Affairs shall develop, publish, and adopt standards for building codes for radon-resistant buildings and construction standards for mitigation of radon in existing buildings. Following adoption of such standards, the department shall provide training on the use of such standards. Within 2 years of the date of adoption of standards for building codes, and at least biennially thereafter, the Department of Community Affairs shall update and adopt standards based on the most current research.

       2. The department shall be provided funds from the Radon Trust Fund, . . ., for activities incidental to the developmnet and implementation of the building codes for radon-resistant buildings. The department is authorized to enter into contracts, spend funds for administration, and promulgate rules incidental to the development of building codes for radon-resistant buildings and construction techniques for mitigation of radon in existing buildings. . . . .

       3. Local jurisdictions shall be precluded from adopting and enforcing ordinances relating

          environmental radiation occurring as a result of or precursor to radon. Within 30 days following receipt of the final report from the Board of Regents . . ., the department shall submit a report and recommendations, for evaluation and consideration, to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, on the implementation of the programs required by this section. The department's recommendation shall include a recommendation as to whether the local government preclusion provided in this subsection should be continued.

          
          

   49. As indicated, Section 553.98, Florida Statutes, was adopted as part of a multi-agency radon control program established in Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida (1988). Chapter 88-285, Laws Of Florida, divided responsibility for various aspects of the radon control program between various agencies and co- ordinating councils. Importantly, Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida, by amending Section 404.056, Florida Statutes, gave the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the authority to develop and adopt a radiation standard for buildings. The Department of Community Affairs was not given the authority to adopt a radiation standard for buildings. The Department was however given the authority to develop and adopt standards for building codes for radon- resistant buildings and mitigation of radon infiltration in existing buildings, as well as, the authority to promulgate reasonable rules incidental to the development and implementation of those building codes.

       
       

   50. Section 404.056, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida, grants HRS the legislative authority to adopt standards for indoor ambient levels of radon. Section 404.056, Florida Statues, states:

       
       

       1. STANDARDS.--To preserve and protect the public health, the department is authorized to establish, by rule, environmental radiation standards for buildings, and to conduct programs designed to reduce human exposure to such harmful environmental radiation. In the establishment of such standards, the department shall consider:

          1. Existing federal standards or guidelines.

          2. The recommendations of nationally recognized bodies which are expert in the field of radiation protection.

          3. The radiation effect of water supplies.

          4. The use made, or to be made, of the land for residential dwellings, public or private schools, health care facilities, or other purposes.

          5. The availability of measures to mitigate the effect of radiation.

          . . . .

       2. RADON RESEARCH.-- . . . . State university- related research conducted under this subsection shall result in specific recommendations for the development of standards for building codes for radon-resistant buildings and shall result in the drafting of a building code for radon-resistant buildings. Such activities shall be carried out in consultation with the Department of Community Affairs. . . . .

          (9) The department shall have the authority to promulgate rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

          
          

   51. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, HRS has promulgated Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-91. Rule 10D-91.1101, Florida Administrative Code, states, in relevant part:

       
       

       Purpose and Scope. This part establishes radiation standards in buildings for the protection of the public from excessive radiation exposure from naturally occurring radioactive materials. . . . .

       
       

   52. Rule 10D-91.1104(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in relevant part:

       
       

       Standards.

       1. Radiation exposure to the public from naturally occurring radioactive materials shall be maintained as low as reasonably achievable. . . . .

       2. . . . the annual average radon decay product concentration shall not exceed 0.02 WL, including background.

          
          

   53. Section 120.52(8) defines "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" as follows:

       
       

       [A]ction which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply:

       . . .

       1. The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by Section 120.54(7);

       2. The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by Section 120.54(7); [or]

       . . .

       (e) The rule is arbitrary and capricious.

       
       

   54. In this case, the authority granted the Department was limited to developing, publishing, and adopting standards for building codes for radon- resistant buildings and construction standards for mitigation of radon in existing buildings and the authority to promulgate rules incidental to the development of such building codes. Section 553.98, Florida Statutes. This authority to develop standards for building codes is the only delegation of rulemaking authority to the Department which relates to radon, and is the only authority offered by the Department as a basis for the Proposed Rule.

   55. However, Proposed Rule 9B-52.001(1) states that the Rules are adopted to implement the Florida Standard for

       Radon-Resistant Building Construction as mandated in

       Part IX, Chapter 553, Florida Statutes, and are intended to provide standards for construction of

       radon-resistant buildings and to provide for the public safety, health and general welfare. (Emphasis supplied.)

       
       

   56. The Department's argument that it has the authority to adopt a building standard establishing an ambient indoor radon concentration different from HRS under its incidental powers cannot stand since the grant of authority to adopt a radon standard for buildings was specifcally mentioned in Chapter 88- 285, Laws of Florida, and was not given to the Department but to another agency. Put simply, the express mention of one thing in a statute implies the exclusion of another. PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Even where there is a need for rules which an agency seeks to promulgate, an agency cannot adopt rules which exceed the scope of its rulemaking authority. Board of Trustees v. Board of Professional Land Surveyors, 566 So.2d 1358, 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therfore, since only HRS is charged with the responsibility of developing ambient standards for radon in buildings, the Department's rulemaking authority is limited to the development of technical construction standards which ensure radon-resistant buildings and the Department has no authority to adopt a performance standard establishing performance limits based on ambient standards for radon in buildings. Moreover, the Department cannot usurp the authority of HRS and in effect substantively amend rules which other agencies have validly promulgated within the scope of their rulemaking authority simply because it perceives a need to do so.

       
       

   57. "Administrative agencies, when empowered to do so, may make and enforce regulations to carry out powers definitely conferred on them, but they are not permitted to do more." State ex rel. Hathaway v. Smith, 35 So.2d 650, 652 (Fla. 1948). By attempting to establish short-term ambient standards for radon, DCA has ventured outside the realm of its rulemaking authority. This they may not do. By adopting a rule which establishes more restrictive standards than those promulgated by HRS, the Department has promulgated a rule which is contrary to law. See State v. Jenkins, 469 So.2d 733, 734 (Fla. 1985); Department of Administration v. Albanese, 445 So.2d 639, 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Board of Trustees v. Board of Professional Land Surveyors, 566 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and State Department of Business Regulation v. Salvation, Ltd., 452 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

       
       

   58. Conversely, other than a standard for radon levels in buildings, the Department clearly has the authority to adopt building standards reasonably related to the control of radon infiltration. In this case, the Department has adopted a standard which does not reflect an accurate method of determining compliance with the HRS radon standard. "A capricious action is one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or despotic." Agrico Chemical Co. v. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 769, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). A standard based on inaccurate compliance criteria has no basis in fact or logic. Therefore, the performance standard which is defined by the compliance criteria contained in Chapter 5 of the Building Standard constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of the Department and the portions of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard related to the performance standard are acts outside the Department's delegated legislative authority.

       
       

   59. Morover, the reliance by the Department on inaccurrate compliance criteria and the use of data which has not been shown to be reproducible causes the performance standard contained in the Proposed Rules and Building Standard to fail to achieve the level of performance required for such a standard. In short, the performance standard in this case does not have a proven track record

       and is not generally accepted in the construction industry. Both a proven track record and general industry acceptance are required in order to constitute a standard for building codes under Section 553.98, Florida Statutes. The Department simply cannot create a standard out of something which is not a standard or is not appropriate for recognition as a standard. To do so clearly is an attempt to modify, enlarge or contravene Section 553.98, Florida Statutes, and clearly exceeds the Department's statutory authority. Therefore, the portions of the Proposed Rules which relate to the performance standard and the compliance criteria are invalid.

       
       

   60. Importantly, one of the effects of failing to provide a standard for buildings built solely with the passive mitigation construction practices contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard is that any passive mitigation provided for in the Proposed Rules and Building Standard is also an invalid exercise of the Department's legislative authority. In this case, the Department has acknowledged that the passive construction techniques incorporated in the Proposed Rules and Building Standard have not been proven effective and are not generally accepted in the construction industry. Without such a proven background and general acceptance, the passive mitigation construction practices contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard as related to passive mitigation under the Proposed Rules and Building Standard do not achieve the level of performance required to be considered a standard for the construction industry. The Department also acknowledges that the passive mitigation construction practices contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard by themselves are insufficient to rise to the level of a standard for the construction industry. Therefore, the portions of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard relating to buildings constructed solely with the passive construction practices contained in Chapter 3 of the Building Standard are invalid.

       
       

   61. Finally, the Proposed Rules' failure to recognize that the risk of radon exposure is not a statewide problem is arbitrary since the requirement that costly building construction techniques, whether passive or active, be included in each and every new home throughout the state is without factual basis and is not supported by reason or logic when radon is not a problem. Consequently, without some limitation of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard to areas of high radon potential, or an option for construction without mitigation when it can be demonstrated that elevated radon concentrations are not a problem, the statewide applicability of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard is arbitrary and capricious since such statewide applicability ignores the fact that not all areas of Florida ave the potential for elevated levels of radon. Therefore all of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard are invalid.

       
       

   62. In conclusion, the portions of the Proposed Rules which are directed to passive mitigation and construction techniques and post construction testing constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority in that the Department's Proposed Rules and Building Standard enlarges upon, modifies, and contravenes the law which is to be implemented, and is arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, all of the Proposed Rules and Building Standard constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority in that the Department's Proposed Rules and Building Standard constitute an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of the Department.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that Proposed Rule 9B-52 and the incorporated Florida Standard For

Radon-Resistant Building Construction are invalid.

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 1st day of June, 1992.

ENDNOTES

1/ See Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982).

2/ See First Oversas Investment Corp. v. Cotton, 491 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Del Risco v. Industrial Affiliates, Ltd., 566 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); and Henry v. Britt, 220 So.2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

3/ The 4 pCi/L annual average standard for radon concentration is utilized by EPA. The standard was a conservative level developed by EPA using an ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) type of analysis.

4/ Apparently, HRS recognizes that 0.02 WL is eqivalent to 4.0 pCi/L. See the legislative staff analysis for Chapter 88-285, Laws of Florida, and Rules 10D- 91.1318, 10D-91.1319(3)(f), 10D-91.1319(6) and 10D-91.1319(9), Florida

Administrative Code. However, it is unclear whether HRS' recognition of such an equivalence is based on the validity of the assumption at short-term measurement time periods or on the fact that its standard is a long-term standard and not a short-term standard. As indicated the length of time involved in measuring radon is significant in assessing whether an assumption of a 50 percent equilibrium ratio is valid.

5/ Roessler, et. al. "Temporal Patterns of Indoor Radon in North Central Florida and Comparison of Short-Term Monitoring to Long-Term Averages." In: Proceeding: The 1990 International Symposium on Radon and Radon Reduction Technology: Vol.1, EPA-600/9-91-026a, July 1990.

6/ The residents were requested to follow their normal routines and were not permitted to handle any of the test instruments or samples.

APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7848RP

The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraph

following paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material,

The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate.

The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22,

23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51,

52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 71 of the

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material,

The facts contained in paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 25, 27, 33, 34, 36, 37,

38, 41, 47, 57, 58, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 88 of

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate.

The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 21, 70, 74, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL,

SMITH & CUTLER, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Alfred O. Bragg, III, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Linda Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee

120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

Liz Cloud, Chief

Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 91-007848RP

Orders for Case No: 91-007848RP