STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LAKE HICKORY NUT HOMEOWNERS' ) ASSOCIATION, and H. DAVID HOLDER, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-8088

)

SCHOFIELD CORP. OF ORLANDO, ) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on February 14, 25 and 26, 1992 in Orlando, Florida, and on March 19, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Thomas B. Drage, Jr., Esquire

Drage, deBeaubien, Knight & Simmons

120 South Orange Avenue Post Office Box 87 Orlando, Florida 32802

For Respondent, Schofield

Corporation: Irby G. Pugh, Esquire

218 Annie Street Orlando, Florida 32806

For Respondent, Department of Environmental

Regulation: Douglas H. MacLaughlin

Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental

Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Schofield Corporation of Orlando has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct and operate a Class III

trash/yard trash landfill in Orange County, Florida. The issues are whether the applicant is entitled to the permit and, if so, what conditions should attach.

Also at issue is Schofield Corporation's motion for attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(f), F.S.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The application for permit at issue was submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation on June 13, 1991. On or about October 21, 1991, DER issued its notice of intent to grant the permit.

Petitioners filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on November 5, 1991, and filed amended petitions on November 11, 1991 and January 30, 1992.

In their joint prehearing statement, and at the hearing the parties stipulated that the petition was timely filed and that H. David Holder, a resident of Orange County, has standing in this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.412(5), F.S.

At the final hearing, conducted over a period of several days, the applicant presented the following witnesses: Mark James Cosgrove, Charles Emde, William Fogle (qualified as an expert in landfill design), and James Golden (qualified as an expert in hydrogeology). The applicant's exhibits #1-19 were received in evidence.

The Department of Environmental Regulation presented two witnesses, Richard Tedder (qualified as an expert in solid waste management and chemical engineering), and Bret LeRoux (qualified as an expert in hydrogeology); and one exhibit, received in evidence over hearsay objection as DER exhibit #3.

The Petitioners presented the testimony of Douglas Yovaish (qualified as an expert in hydrogeology) and Nicholas Albergo, P.E. (qualified as an expert in water quality). Petitioners' exhibits 5, 7, 9, 10, 12(a) through (f), 34 and 35 were received in evidence.

The transcript of proceedings was filed, and proposed recommended orders were submitted by Petitioners and by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The applicant adopted the agency's proposed recommended order. These have been considered in the preparation of this recommended order, and specific rulings regarding the proposed findings are included in the attached appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The applicant, Schofield Corporation of Orlando (Schofield), owns the proposed landfill site and existing permits for the site.

   
   

   The proposed site is located in West Orange County, southwest of the intersection of State Road 545 and Schofield Road on the west half of the northwest quarter of section 32, township 23 south, range 27 east, comprising approximately sixty acres within a larger eighty-acre parcel.

   
   

   In some undetermined distant past the site was cultivated in citrus. It is currently being excavated as a borrow pit.

2. The materials proposed to be placed in the landfill include trash, yard trash, construction and demolition debris and clean debris, as defined in DER Rule 17-701.020, F.A.C.

   
   

   The northern half of the site is flat and will be used first for the composting operation. The southern excavated portion of the site will receive the permitted fill material until it is flattened. Then, the two functions will alternate; the composting will occur on the south, and the north end will be excavated to receive fill.

   
   

3. The proposed facility will be operated by Chambers Corporation, a nationally recognized waste management company with approximately 20 years of experience in solid waste management.

   
   

   The landfill site will be completely fenced, with a gate entrance mid-site between the landfill and compost area. The gate will be locked when the facility is not in operation, and will be patrolled by security personnel 24 hours a day. "Spotters", or inspectors will be employed to examine incoming waste loads at the gate, from a high gantry, and at the place where the waste is deposited. The loads will be monitored by a television camera, and all haulers will be under contract. The landfill will not accept loads from trucks coming off the road looking for a place to dump.

   
   

   Receptacles will be maintained on site to receive errant non-permitted waste that is found in a load, and that waste will be properly disposed of elsewhere.

   
   

4. Schofield has several permits related to its proposed operation. These include a type III landfill permit from Orange County, a compost facility permit from DER, a general construction and demolition debris landfill permit from DER, a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District, and a permit to excavate or mine from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Schofield also has a contract to receive yard waste from Orange County. The initial term of contract requires at least ten percent of the yard waste to be composted or recycled, with the percentage amount to be renegotiated in subsequent contract renewals.

   
   

5. In the hierarchy of landfills, DER considers Class III the least environmentally sensitive. Problems with unauthorized waste and with water quality occur more frequently with Class I landfills, defined as accommodating more than twenty tons a day of residential garbage.

   
   

   In this case DER has proposed to grant Schofield its Class III permit without the requirement of a bottom liner or a leachate or gas control system because of the nature of the waste that will be accepted and because of the rigorous controls, described above, to avoid receiving unauthorized or hazardous waste.

   
   

6. The Petitioners are an individual and a homeowners' association representing a residential area approximately a half mile south of the proposed site.

   
   

   Petitioners contend that the applicant's data is insufficient to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated.

   Petitioners contend that the landfill, if approved, should be required to have a liner to prevent leachate from polluting the groundwater. They further contend that the groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant is inadequate to

   detect vertical movement of contaminated leachate into the Floridan aquifer, a major source of water supply in Orange County.

   
   

   Hydrogeology

   
   

7. The site of the proposed landfill is within a high recharge area. Water percolates rapidly though the soil, moving downward into the aquifer, and laterally off site.

   
   

   The site is considered Karst terrain, underlined with limerock. There is evidence of relic sinkholes, thousands of years old, but there is a low probability of future open sinkhole development. The geology in the area of the site provides adequate structural support for the proposed facility.

   
   

8. An aquifer is generally defined as a unit of material which contains water and can give up a sufficient amount of yield to provide some productive flow for pumpage. Below the site there are two aquifers: the shallow water table, or surficial aquifer, containing clean well-drained fine sands, about 70 feet down; and the Floridan, primarily limestone, encountered at a depth of approximately 115 feet. The two are separated by a confining layer of less permeable sands and clay.

   
   

9. Flow in the Floridan at the site is primarily from the west to east. Flow in the surficial is also generally from west to east, but the Petitioners theorize, and have presented competent supporting evidence, that there are fissures in the confining layer, allowing some internal drainage within the site, causing surficial water to flow vertically into the Floridan, rather than laterally off-site in an eastward direction. Based on recent data taken from two piezometers installed near the middle of the site, the applicant's hydrogeologist, James Golden, concedes that "mounding" exists along the eastern boundary of the site, reflecting some flow westerly back into the interior of the site.

   
   

10. Petitioners' theory regarding internal draining of the site is based in part on data as to groundwater elevation. Groundwater elevation or high groundwater table is the elevation at which water stands on a continuous surface under the site.

    
    

    Jammal and Associates is a consultant firm which has done field studies of this and neighboring sites in the past, for various purposes. Some open bore readings taken by Jammal and Associates in a 1983 study for the Orange County Rapid Infiltration Basin project indicate groundwater table levels on site up to

    126 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Data (NGVD). Open bore readings are less reliable than cased hole readings; due to collapses within the hole, artificially high readings are sometimes obtained.

    
    

    Data from the applicant's consultants reveals groundwater tables at 96-98 NGVD. This data was most recently obtained in December 1991 from sealed and surveyed piezometer casings, but not from the area of the site where Jammal's higher readings were obtained.

    
    

    Although it may be conjectured that Jammal's high readings are anomalous, additional sealed borings need to be obtained before the anomaly is confirmed.

    
    

11. Groundwater elevations are significant also to determine the depth to which the landfill may be excavated. Based on its December 1991 readings, obtained after the application for permit was filed, the applicant agreed to

    raise the proposed bottom of the landfill to approximately five feet above the level of the estimated high (wet weather) groundwater table in the area.

    
    

    Water Quality and Monitoring

    
    

12. Specific conditions of the proposed permit include DER's requirements that Class GII water quality standards be met at the boundary of the zone of discharge, in accordance with Rule 17-3, F.A.C. The zone of discharge for this facility is a three-dimensional volume defined in the vertical plane as the top of the ground to the base of the most surficial aquifer, and horizontally 100 feet from the edge of the waste-filled area, or the property boundary, whichever is less.

    
    

13. The groundwater monitoring plan proposed by the applicant includes one upstream monitoring well on the west side of the site and five wells along the east side of the site, with an additional well at the south, between the project and the Petitioners' residential area. The wells extend down into the upper zone of the surficial aquifer, but not into the deeper limestone Floridan.

    
    

    The downstream wells should detect any contamination in the surficial aquifer flowing from west to east at the zone of discharge. However, they will not pick up contamination draining internally within the site and into the Floridan.

    
    

14. Such contamination is possible, even though leachate from Class III- type wastes is expected to be relatively benign.

    
    

    Volatile organic carbons (VOCs) have not typically been a problem in Class III landfills, unless those landfills were previously operated as Class I sites. Secondary drinking water standards for certain metals have been violated at some Class III sites, but such violations are often related to the problem of sampling newly-installed wells.

    
    

    From DER records, Petitioners presented evidence of consistent drinking water quality standard violations in Class III landfills. That such violations can occur in Class III landfills is clearly established. It is not so clear that such violations will occur in this facility, given the proposed controls on load content.

    
    

15. However, even acceptable materials will not avoid the production of leachate or gas. Within demolition waste there are chemically bound components which are inseparable, for example, creosote and other preservatives, glues, paints, resins, varnishes and stains.

    
    

    The lignin, tannins and volatile organic acids which are produced when wood decomposes alter the pH of the groundwater. As the water becomes more acidic, heavy metals that were typically bound up in the waste or in the soil, are released in soluble form and travel with the water.

    
    

    The decomposition process occurring in the construction and demolition waste is enhanced by the addition of yard trash which becomes the food source for the biodegradation.

    Summary of Findings and Proposed Permit

    Conditions

16. If, as applicant suggests, all groundwater moves primarily from west to east within the site, given the proposed operational controls and the proposed monitoring plan, reasonable assurances have been provided that water quality standards will not be violated beyond the zone of discharge. That is, any contamination likely to occur will be contained within the surficial aquifer and within the 100 feet or property line horizontal boundary. Transmissivity of the surficial aquifer is low enough to allow mixing of the leachate before it reaches the zone of discharge.

    
    

    The Petitioners, however, have presented credible evidence sufficient to question the groundwater flow premise and sufficient to require additional conditions on the permit. If leachate reaches the Floridan through fissures in the confining layer, it will move rapidly off site.

    
    

17. In its proposed recommended order DER has suggested additional permit conditions and in its adoption of the proposed recommended order, the applicant has accepted those additional permit conditions.

    
    

    Those permit conditions recognize the fact that data presently provided by the applicant is insufficient to overcome the evidence by Petitioners as to the hydrogeological characteristics of the site with the possibility of internal drainage and vertical intrusion of contaminated water into the Floridan aquifer. The proposed recommended order provides this finding:

    
    

    ...that the ground water monitoring plan as proposed in this proceeding is adequate, provided that there be added to the permit conditions that the permittee conduct appropriate water table testing with cased piezometers during the next wet season to determine whether ground water flow is internal within the site and therefore not intercepted by the present ground water monitoring wells. The permittee shall consult with DER and get approval for the location

    and construction of these wells prior to their installation. The results shall be immediately submitted to the DER. The ground water monitoring requirements should be modified if necessary at that time pursuant

    to Rule 17-28.700(5) to assure proper monitoring at this site.

    (DER proposed Recommended Order, p. 17)

    
    

    The ground water monitoring plan modification suggested by DER is that deeper monitoring wells, into the Floridan aquifer, be required if the additional testing reveals the likelihood of internal on-site ground water drainage.

    
    

18. These conditions are still inadequate since they lack specificity with regard to the extent of testing, the location and construction of the wells, and the amendments to the monitoring program to be required if internal drainage is confirmed.

    
    

    Moreover, the proposed conditions fail to address the possibility that the permit should require a liner for the landfill if the data to be obtained

    reveals the likelihood that contaminates will penetrate into the groundwater of the Floridan.

    
    

19. Monitoring programs, however effective, only predict or detect problems; they do not remediate them.

    
    

    Groundwater contamination by landfills is not quickly and easily reversed. Unlike discharges from other facilities such as spray application or deep well injection, the leachate from a landfill is not "turned off".

    
    

20. Without the additional data which all parties agree is needed, it is impossible to determine what additional conditions, if any, should be required or what amendments, if any, need to be made to the applicant's proposed monitoring plan.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

21. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S.

    
    

22. Although no specific proof was addressed at hearing as to the standing of either the association or individual petitioner, the parties have stipulated that Petitioner, H. David Holder, has standing pursuant to Section 403.412(5), F.S.

    
    

23. As applicant, Schofield has the burden of proving entitlement to the permit it seeks. Florida Department of Transportation v. JWC Co., Inc., and DER, 396 So2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Rule 17-103.130(1), F.A.C.

    
    

    Rule 17-4.070(1), F.A.C. requires that the applicant affirmatively provide the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of equipment or other information that the construction, operation or activity of the installation will not discharge or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules.

    
    

24. The proposed facility is a "solid waste management facility" as defined in Section 403.703(10), F.S., and as such requires a permit pursuant to Section 403.707(1), F.S.

    
    

    Section 403.707 (6), F.S., provides, in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. The department may issue a construction permit pursuant to this part only to a solid waste management facility which provides the conditions necessary to control the safe movement of wastes or waste constituents into surface or ground waters or the atmosphere

       and which will be operated, maintained, and closed by qualified and properly trained personnel. Such facility shall, if necessary:

       1. Use natural or artificial barriers which are capable of controlling lateral or vertical movement of wastes or waste constituents into surface or ground waters.

       2. Have a foundation or base which is capable of providing support for structures and waste deposits and capable of preventing

          foundation or base failure due to settlement, compression, or uplife.

       3. Provide for the most economically feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally safe control of leachate, gas stormwater, and disease vectors and prevent the endangerment of public health and the environment.

          * * * Section 403.708(15)(c), F.S., provides:

          (15) In accordance with the following schedule, no person who knows or who should know of the nature of such solid waste shall dispose of such solid waste in landfills:

          * * *

          (c) Yard trash, after January 1, 1992, except in unlined landfills classified by department rule. Yard trash that is source separated from solid waste may be accepted at a solid waste disposal area where the area provides and maintains separate yard trash composting facilities.

          
          

25. DER's rules governing landfills are generally found in Chapter 17-701, F.A.C., and those specific rules applicable to Class III landfills are at 17- 701.040, F.A.C. (Prohibitions) and at 17-701.050, F.A.C. (Sanitary Landfill criteria).

    
    

    Class III landfills are those which receive only trash or yard trash. Rule 17-701.050(2)(c), F.A.C.

    
    

    "Trash" is a combination of yard trash and construction and demolition debris along with other debris such as paper, cardboard, cloth, glass, street sweepings and other like matter. Rule 17-701.020(68), F.A.C. "Construction and demolition debris" is defined to include materials generally considered to be not water soluble and nonhazardous in nature, including materials from the construction or destruction of a structure, and rocks, soils, tree remains, trees and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing for a construction project. Rule 17-701.020(16), F.A.C. "Yard trash" is vegetative matter resulting from landscape maintenance or land clearing operations and includes tree and shrub trimmings, grass clippings, palm fronds, trees and stumps. Rule 17-701.020(75), F.A.C.

    
    

26. Rule 17-701.050(2)(c), F.A.C. provides that based on site specific information DER may exempt Class III sites from the liner and leachate and gas controls required in rule 17-701.050(5) and (6), F.A.C.

    
    

    In deciding whether a Class III landfill qualifies for the exemption, the Department is required to consider the hydrogeology, types of waste and methods used to control types of waste received for disposal.

    
    

    In this case DER's draft permit attached to the notice of intent to issue states that the landfill "...is designed without a bottom liner, leachate and gas control system because of the nature of the waste accepted". (Schofield Ex. #6, emphasis added).

    The waste to be accepted at this facility is no more nor less than the waste which is accepted at any Class III facility, as defined above.

    
    

    While the evidence established that DER properly considered the detailed and rigorous controls proposed by the applicant, the hydrogeology of the site was not adequately considered. If DER had intended that all Class III landfills should be exempt from liners, the rule should have clearly provided for that.

    
    

27. When the application was first submitted and during initial review the applicant claimed that groundwater flow was consistently from west to east and that the confining layer between the surficial and Floridan aquifers would facilitate that flow to the zone of discharge and off site.

    
    

    By the close of the hearing, after obtaining some additional data, the applicant candidly conceded that there is some indication of a reversal of that flow along the eastern boundary of the site.

    
    

    Petitioners' evidence effectively raises the possibility that the hydrogeology of this site would require additional monitoring or even the deletion of the liner exemption.

    
    

    As discussed in Findings of Fact 17, above, all parties agree that additional data is needed to rule out the possibility of internal drainage and direct connection to the Floridan through fissures in the confining layer. The applicant has not met its burden of providing reasonable assurance that it is entitled to the liner exemption. See, J.T. McCormick, et al v. The City of Jacksonville and DER, 12 FALR 960, 976 (Final Order entered 1/22/90)

    
    

28. The facts in this case are similar to those in Booker Creek Preservation v. Mobil Chemical, 481 So2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), wherein the court reversed the Department's permit for a phosphate mine when the applicant failed to test for anomalous conditions in slime ponds or a sand tailings area after determining that Karst features, including fissures, might exist. The court held that the limited data could not as a matter of law provide reasonable assurances that the proposed facility would not cause violations of established water quality standards beyond the applicable zone of discharge.

    
    

    This case is distinguished from the facts in Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) involving a dredge and fill permit, where it was proven that pollutants would not be discharged and the application would enhance water quality.

    
    

29. Rule 17-701.050(5), F.A.C. provides that an applicant meeting the design or performance standards of that rule be presumed to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards and criteria of Rule 17-3, F.A.C. will be met. The design and performance standards include the standards for liners and leachate and gas controls. The applicant seeks exemption from those standards and is not entitled to the presumption.

    
    

    Moreover, the weight of evidence here established that, even with effective controls on the waste received, contaminated leachate will be produced from permitted types of Class III waste. If that leachate substantially reaches the Floridan beneath the site, pollutants could penetrate the boundary of the zone of discharge at quantities exceeding the water quality standards.

30. The applicant's proposed groundwater monitoring program will not detect any contamination of the Floridan aquifer, as its proposed wells are intended to test the upper surficial aquifer only.

    
    

    Rule 17-28.700(6)(a), F.A.C. provides:

    
    

    (6) Monitoring Requirements and Exemptions.

    (a) Statement of intent. The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that the permitting

    of zones of discharge, or exemptions therefrom, will not cause a violation of ground water standards. Monitoring is intended to allow a predictive evaluation of the movement and composition of the discharge plume. Efforts shall be made in all cases to minimize the number and cost of monitoring wells consistent with the ability to obtain reliable information.

    
    

    After additional data is obtained, if it is determined that the Floridan will not be affected, monitoring into the Floridan may not be necessary.

    However, this data is not yet available, nor has it been subjected to scrutiny. For that reason, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that its monitoring program is adequate.

    
    

31. Rule 17-4.070(3), F.A.C. provides that "The Department may issue any permit with specific conditions necessary to provide reasonable assurance that Department rules can be met". (emphasis added)

    
    

    To remedy the insufficient hydrogeologic data, the department and applicant have suggested additional permit conditions discussed in finding of fact #17, above.

    
    

    These conditions lack necessary specificity, which specificity cannot be provided until the data is obtained. Additional data may reveal that the applicant's theory regarding groundwater flow is correct. Or it may reveal that the Petitioner's theory is correct and that additional monitoring and a liner are required. At this point it is impossible to anticipate the results of further testing and to effectively devise appropriate permit conditions.

    
    

32. On February 24, 1992, Schofield filed its motion for attorney's fees and costs, citing as its only authority, Section 403.412(2)(f), F.S. It is apparent from the face of that subsection that even if this party had prevailed, the cited subsection relates to a civil injunctive action and not to an administrative proceeding. Authority for attorney's fees in administrative actions is found elsewhere, for example in Chapter 120, F.S., or Section 57.111, F.S.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue its Final Order denying the application for Class III land fill permit.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

MARY CLARK

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 17th day of June, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Adopted in paragraph 1.

   
   

2. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10.

3.-11. Rejected as unnecessary.

12.-23. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact.

24. Rejected as unnecessary.

25.-30. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact.

31. Rejected as unnecessary.

32.-41. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact.

1. Rejected as unnecessary.

   
   

2. Adopted in substance throughout the recommended findings.

44.-50. Adopted in Preliminary Statement and paragraph 4.

51. Rejected as unnecessary.

52.-53. Adopted in paragraph 2.

54.-55. Rejected as statement of testimony rather than finding of fact.

1. Adopted in paragraph 3.

2. Rejected as unnecessary.

58.-97. Rejected as argument or statement of testimony, rather than findings of fact.

1. Subparts a), b), c) and e) are rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. The evidence suggests that violations might occur and that insufficient data has been produced. Subpart d) is adopted, by implication in paragraph 18.

   
   

   99.-101. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20.

   
   

   Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

   
   

   1. Addressed in Preliminary Statement.

      
      

   2. Adopted in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5.

3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 4.

1. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11.

   
   

2. Adopted in paragraph 13.

   
   

3. Rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant, given the stipulation related to Section 403.412, F.S. standing.

   
   

4. Rejected as cumulative.

   
   

5. Adopted in paragraph 10.

   
   

6. Adopted in paragraph 9.

   
   

7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9.

12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 13.

1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16.

   
   

2. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. If internal drainage is shown to exist, conditions other than additional monitoring wells may be required.

   
   

3. Adopted in paragraph 17.

17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19.-21. Rejected as unnecessary.

1. Adopted in paragraph 4.

   
   

2. Adopted in paragraph 12.

24.-26. Adopted in general in paragraph 14.

27. The unlikelihood that unauthorized waste will be dumped is adopted in paragraph 3. Whether there will be a violation of ground water quality

standards at the zone of discharge was not established, given the need for additional data on internal draining.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas B. Drage, Jr., Esquire

P.O. Box 87 Orlando, FL 32802

Irby G. Pugh, Esquire

218 Annie Street Orlando, FL 32806

Douglas H. MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel

DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Carol Browner, Secretary

DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel

DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-008088

Orders for Case No: 91-008088