vs. ) CASE NO. 90-2146RX
Respondent. )
) BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF ) FLORIDA, INC., )
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-2148RX
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in these cases on May 7, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling.
FOR PETITIONER William D. Preston WASTE MANAGEMENT, Thomas M. DeRose INC., OF FLORIDA: Attorneys at Law
FOR PETITIONER Lawrence D. Sellers, Jr.
Whether the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER's) inclusion in Rule 17701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, of the sentence, "The bottom of the liner shall be constructed above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level" (the challenged sentence), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and whether the economic impact statement accompanying this rule is inadequate.
This is a rule challenge brought under the provisions of Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. At hearing Petitioner Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF) presented the testimony of four witnesses, and its exhibits 1-25 were admitted in evidence. WMIF presented the testimony of Harvey Bush; Joseph E. Fluet, Jr., who was accepted as an expert in the areas of civil engineering and landfill and liner system design; John K. Gentry, Jr., accepted as an expert in civil engineering; and John A. Reese, accepted as an expert in engineering concepts and landfill design and permitting. Petitioner Browning-Ferris Industries of Florida, Inc. (BFI) called no witnesses and offered no exhibits. DER called no witnesses and offered no exhibits.
The transcript of the proceeding was filed on May 10, 1990. WMIF and DER filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 18, 1990, which have been considered. BFI filed no proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact is made in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part of-this Final Order.
All parties stipulated and agreed to Finding of Fact No. 1 in their Prehearing Stipulation and it is adopted herein. WMIF and DER stipulated and agreed to other operative facts in their Prehearing Stipulation and those stipulated facts are adopted herein. All stipulations were included in the Prehearing Stipulation of the parties.
BFI is engaged in Florida and elsewhere in the business of solid waste collection and disposal. BFI owns and operates solid waste management facilities throughout the state. BFI has obtained, and will seek to renew, permits authorizing the construction and operation of these facilities. BFI also is in the process of seeking permits that would authorize construction of new solid waste management and disposal facilities in Florida. The proposed rule, if adopted, will apply to BFI and its applications for these various permits. Accordingly, BFI will be substantially affected by the adoption of the proposed rule.
WMIF is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of solid waste collection, disposal, treatment, and management in the state of Florida. The proposed rule will have a substantial effect on owners and operators of solid waste management facilities, like WMIF. WMIF currently owns and operates several solid waste management facilities in this state and plans to construct and operate new facilities in the future.
WMIF has investigated the possibility and feasibility of designing a landfill in Florida which calls for placement of a bottom liner below the groundwater level. WMIF would propose to utilize this option in designing some of its future facilities in Florida, if this option is available. The challenged portion of the rule would prohibit use of this option. DER's proposed revision of Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, substantially affects the interests of WMIF.
DER followed the procedures in Chapter 17-102, Florida Administrative Code, in adopting its revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code.
In late 1989, DER developed draft revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, primarily addressing liner requirements for landfills subject to the rule. On January 31, 1990, DER held a public workshop on its draft revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code. At that workshop DER distributed to the public its workshop draft of its proposed revisions (hereinafter "the January draft"). On page 34 of the January draft, DER proposed new rule provisions at Rule 17-701.050(4)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, (subsequently renumbered), including the following language:
The bottom of the composite or double liner shall be above the most recent ten-year historic seasonal high ground water level, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the landfill design will provide equivalent protection for the environment from the infiltration of leachate even when the bottom of the liner is in contact with groundwater.
On February 6, 1990, WMIF submitted written comments to DER on the proposed rule revisions. In its written comments, WMIF suggested that the language of the January draft quoted above be stricken because "there are circumstances where the desirable landfill design could result in the base of the bottom liner being installed below an existing water table."
On March 9, 1990, DER published a Notice of Rulemaking (hereinafter "hearing draft") presenting its proposed revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 16, No. 10, in preparation for an adoption hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC).
The hearing draft contained numerous revisions from the January draft. The above-quoted language from the January draft was deleted in the hearing draft.
In response to DER's publication of the hearing draft, WMIF filed the instant rule challenge contesting, among other things, Rule 17-701.050, Florida Administrative Code, and the adequacy of the Economic Impact Statement.
The ERC held a public meeting on April 12, 1990, at which time it considered the rule revisions recommended by DER. At that meeting, DER distributed to those in attendance a Notice of Change which set forth changes DER then recommended to its published hearing draft. During the course of the ERC meeting, the challenged rule provision was drafted by DER in response to a request by ERC members, and the provision subsequently was adopted by the ERC.
The amendment to Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, which was adopted by the ERC is as follows:
The bottom of the liner shall be constructed above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level.
The challenged sentence was not included in the published hearing draft of the rule or in DER's April 12, 1990, Notice of Change.
During the course of the ERC meeting on April 12, 1990, the ERC adopted Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, including the challenged sentence. Subsequent to the ERC hearing on April 12, 1990, DER prepared a second Notice of Change, incorporating the challenged sentence.
Landfills are large, concentrated piles of chemical-containing materials of widely varied description. When precipitation occurs, moisture percolates down through the waste, dissolving chemicals in the waste and forming leachate. The goal of DER's landfill liner design criteria is to contain that leachate, to prevent it from contacting groundwater, and, while it is contained, to remove it and treat it. Leachate is contained by a properly designed and constructed liner and it is removed by a leachate collection and removal system.
Landfill liners are imperfect and therefore they leak. Engineering principles are employed to design liner systems to compensate for the fact that liners leak. A properly engineered system will maximize groundwater protection.
There are at least four factors which affect leakage through liner systems: hydraulic head, interface conditions, residence time, and gradient direction.
With regard to hydraulic head, the operative principle is that the greater the pressure (the greater the hydraulic head on the liner), the greater the leakage rate through the liner.
With regard to interface conditions, the operative principle is that the lower the permeability of the material underlying the liner, the less leakage will occur through the liner.
With regard to residence time, the operative principle is that the faster the flow rate through the leachate collection system, the shorter will be the period of time that the leachate is in contact with the liner and therefore the lesser will be the amount of leakage through the liner system.
With regard to the concept of gradient direction, there are two types of gradient: outward g and inward gradient.
In utilizing an outward gradient design concept, the landfill liner system is constructed above the groundwater table. If a leak develops through the liner system in such a landfill, the greatest driving force, or gradient, acting on the leachate is gravity: Whatever leachate comes out of the bottom of the liner will fall by gravity into the subsurface and the groundwater.
In utilizing an inward gradient design concept, the liner system is placed below the groundwater surface after the design engineer determines, though calculations, how deep to put the landfill in relation to the groundwater level. The groundwater then actually creates a positive pressure on the outside of the liner system. Because that positive pressure is greater than the pull of gravity out of the liner, the pressure exerted by the groundwater allows some of that groundwater to move through any hole in the liner into the liner system where it can be collected and removed by the leachate collection and removal system.
In the event of a leak through a liner system at a landfill which utilizes the inward gradient design, instead of the leachate escaping the landfill, groundwater flows into the liner system because the pressure of the water flowing into the landfill is greater than the pressure of fluid leaving the landfill. This results in there being present more liquid in the liner system than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, the liner system must be designed to collect and treat that increased volume of leachate.
The inward gradient concept may be used to prevent groundwater pollution because, with ground water flowing into the liner system, leachate does not escape from the landfill and never gets into groundwater.
Initially, in order to construct an inward gradient design landfill, it is necessary to artificially and temporarily depress the groundwater level at the landfill site, using a dewatering system. Several technologies are available for constructing an effective dewatering system.
At an inward gradient landfill, it is necessary to continue to dewater to depress the groundwater level until enough waste has been placed in the landfill to counteract the force of the groundwater pushing up on the landfill liner system. When enough waste has been placed in the landfill, dewatering will no longer be necessary and the goundwater level will be restored, creating a true inward gradient.
In an inward gradient landfill, the waste in the landfill does not come in contact with groundwater; rather, groundwater enters into the liner system where it is contained, collected and removed. The waste in the landfill does not escape from the liner nor does the leachate collected in the liner system escape into the environment.
In an inward gradient landfill, the leachate in the liner system is more concentrated in terms of its chemical constituents than the groundwater below the liner system. This creates a concentration gradient, a ground force which tends to push the leachate from inside the liner system out through the liner and into the lower concentration side, the groundwater. However, in a properly designed inward gradient landfill, the design takes that concentration gradient factor into account and employs the upward gradient of the groundwater to counteract the concentration gradient in the leachate, since the upward gradient of the groundwater will be greater the deeper the landfill liner system is placed below the groundwater level.
Inward gradient landfills have been designed, constructed, and operated in many places in the United States and in Canada. In several states, inward gradient landfills are required as the preferred design of first choice. Expert witnesses for both WMIF and DER agreed that the inward gradient design concept is a well established technology and is not new or innovative technology.
Slurry walls are a containment design concept used in some landfill construction which employs the inward gradient design concept. A slurry wall consists of a trench-cut into the ground down to the depth at which is encountered a continuous layer of low permeability material underlying the site. This trench is backfilled with a low permeability mixture of materials. The trench is constructed on all four sides of the landfill to create a low permeability barrier around all sides and connected to the bottom of the landfill. The groundwater is pumped out of the area enclosed by the slurry walls so that the surface of the groundwater is artificially depressed within them.
In a landfill design employing the slurry wall concept, the groundwater level is lower inside the slurry wall than it is outside, thereby creating an inward gradient and causing leakage of groundwater into the landfill instead of leakage of leachate from the landfill into the environment. The slurry wall system is an effective design, which is in use in the state of Florida.
Not all sites are appropriate locations for an inward gradient design landfill. Hydrogeologic and soil conditions vary greatly around and across the state of Florida. In many areas, soils are sandy and provide little attenuation of contaminants. Also, in many areas, groundwater levels are close to land surface. In determining whether an inward gradient design is appropriate at a given site, an would consider the type of subgrade soils, the terrain, the degree of fluctuation in groundwater levels over time, the type of groundwater involved, and the financial capability of the landfill owner/operator to build and operate the inward gradient design landfill.
The use of the inward gradient design concept in landfill construction would be inappropriate in southern portions of Florida, particularly in the Biscayne aquifer area. However, in many other areas of Florida it would be appropriate to consider utilizing the inward gradient design concept.
One of the primary purposes of Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, is the protection of groundwater by establishing design criteria for landfills, which criteria are protective of that resource.
Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, both as proposed and as adopted by the ERC, provides design criteria which must be met in the case of each proposed new landfill; however, there is no single standard, uniform design mandated by DER's rules. A variety of designs could be used to satisfy the design criteria of Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code.
The challenged sentence was added to Chapter 17- 701, Florida Administrative Code, because some members of the ERC expressed their opinion during the rule adoption hearing, based on their "gut" reaction, that there should be some language in the rule which prohibited the construction of landfills within groundwater. Those ERC members asked DER staff to propose language for insertion into the rule that would prohibit such construction. In response to that request Department staff proposed the challenged sentence for inclusion in the rule.
The language which the Department had proposed in the January draft of the rule contained qualifiers which would have enabled a permittee to establish that its design of a landfill was capable of groundwater protection to an equivalent degree in relation to other criteria in the rule. However, the Department did not include that qualifying language in the sentence that it proposed to the ERC for inclusion in the rule because the ERC did not want any exceptions to the prohibition.
The sentence added to Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, and which is ohallenged in this proceeding, forecloses at least one possible landfill design concept. The challenged sentence precludes the use of the inward gradient design concept which, at least at some bites and as agreed upon by both WMIF and DER experts, is the landfill design that would result in maximum groundwater protection.
In the proper hydrogeologic setting, it can be demonstrated that an inward gradient design landfill provides not only equal but greater protection for the' environment than an outward gradient design landfill built above the groundwater level.
There are no engineering papers, reports, studies, or data which would support a prohibition of the use of the inward gradient design concept at a landfill from an engineering standpoint. Instead, there is a large volume of technical information which would support the use of the inward gradient design from an engineering standpoint.
The challenged sentence is not indicative of good environmental engineering and will not serve to meet DER's goals or the goals of the State in maximizing groundwater protection.
DER has not conducted, prepared, or obtained any studies, data, reports, or other research in order to assess the validity or justification of the challenged sentence, and its employees conceded that there is no technical justification behind the challenged sentence.
Both of the Department's employees testified that in their opinion, it was possible for a landfill Lo be designed with the bottom of the liner below the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level and for groundwater to be qualify protected from infiltration of leachate into the groundwater at that site, because of the operation of the inward gradient design principle, and that they were not aware of and did not consider any studies or scientific data that would contradict that opinion.
The Department has never made a determination that the inward gradient design concept is not viable or that a landfill designed in that manner would be incapable of protecting groundwater to an equivalent extent in regard to other criteria in Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code. In fact, both of the Department's representatives testified that they believed that the inward gradient concept is viable and that prohibiting use of this design option is illogical.
Moreover, at the ERC meeting, Department representatives attempted to convince members of the ERC that the inward gradient design concept was viable' and that perhaps a greater degree of flexibility in the rule would be appropriate.
The Department had no data and no studies on which to base a determination as to the specific high groundwater level which should be incorporated into the prohibition requested by the ERC. The selection of "the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level" as referenced in the challenged sentence was based on a spur of the moment decision or a "gut" feeling. The 10- year standard was selected arbitrarily because it wasn't too short or too long.
At any given site, it will be very difficult to determine the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level. DER does not maintain data on the 10-year seasonal groundwater level at locations around the state, and insufficient information is available from other sources to accurately determine the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level at most locations around the state. At best, broad approximations of the seasonal high groundwater level at a particular site can e extrapolated from data available in the region in which the site lies. DER's representative acknowledges that the best approximation extrapolated from the scanty data could be considerably off from actual groundwater level.
If the challenged sentence is deleted, Chapter 17- 701, Florida Administrative Code, still would require that a new landfill and its liner system be designed to maximize the integrity of the liner system and minimize the potential for infiltration of leachate into groundwater.
Nothing in the rules adopted by the ERC would prevent the groundwater level from rising above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level and coming into contact with a liner system constructed above that level since id-he challenged sentence does not specify a distance that the bottom of the liner would have to be constructed above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level.
Because at specific locations and times and under some conditions the actual groundwater level will exceed the 10- year seasonal high groundwater level, it is likely that the bottom of the liner will come in contact with groundwater on some occasions since the inclusion of the challenged sentence allows landfill liners to be designed and constructed in a zone which will be intermittently wetted. When that happens, the groundwater will put pressure on the liner system. Since the liner system would not be designed to contend with the force exerted by the groundwater, as is the case in an inward gradient design, over time, that stress on the liner would tend to weaken the liner.
Despite the challenged sentence in Rule 17- 701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, the Department theoretically could consider approving the use of the inward gradient design concept for a landfill at a particular site under the alternate design procedures set forth in Rule 17-701.078, Florida Administrative Code. However, approval of an inward gradient design for a particular landfill using the alternate design procedure in the rule, would
required the Department to approve a design specifically prohibited by the rule. As a practical matter, in reviewing an inward gradient design at a specific site, the Department will be faced with a proposal that flies directly in the face of its rule. Even if approved, that alternate design would be very difficult to defend in an administrative proceeding challenging the issuance of the permit and the approval of that alternate design.
In order to obtain approval of an alternate design, an owner/operator of a landfill would have to demonstrate that it would suffer a hardship if the alternative design was not approved. Primarily, the type of hardship which would have to be demonstrated is an economic hardship. In many cases it would be difficult for the owner/operator to demonstrate an economic hardship if it is prohibited from using the inward gradient design concept.
Both of the Department's employees testified that in their opinion, the very fact that the ERC expressed an intent to prohibit construction of landfills below groundwater level, and included the challenged sentence in the rule to accomplish that intent, would make it very difficult for a permittee to obtain approval of an inward gradient design concept as an alternate procedure under the rule. In fact, given that every landfill permit proposed for issuance by the Department in recent memory has been challenged in administrative proceedings, and that each of those proceedings has been a fairly arduous process for both the Department and the permittee, it would be especially difficult to defend a permit approving an alternate design which was specifically prohibited in the rule.
Both of the Department's witnesses agreed that if the challenged sentence was not in the rule, both the permittee and the Department would have an easier time approving an inward gradient design at a particular landfill.
Prior to the ERC meeting on April 12, 1990, DER prepared an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) regarding its proposed revisions to Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code.
The EIS did not provide a cost/benefit analysis of the challenged sentence, as required by Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, because that provision was drafted after the EIS was prepared.
It is uncontroverted that a permittee would incur an economic impact because of the challenged sentence in the rule, prohibiting the use of the inward gradient design concept, because that would result in a diminution of landfill capacity available at a given site.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this cause. Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes.
Petitioners WMIF and BFI have demonstrated the requisite standing to challenge the proposed rules.
Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, defines and specifies that an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature." It further provides that if any one or more of the following applies, an agency's proposed rule is invalid.
The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in S. 120.54;
* * *
The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or
The rule is arbitrary or capricious.
In this case, WMIF contends that the challenged sentence of the DER proposed rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for an agency decision, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency, or that it is arbitrary or capricious. A rule is vague or fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions when its terms are so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. State
v. Cumming, 365 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1978). A rule vests unbridled discretion in an agency when it fails to establish adequate standards and reserves to the agency the arbitrary power to determine private rights. Barrow v. Holland, 125 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1960). Arbitrary and capricious actions are defined in Agrico Chemical Co. v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 760, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), as follows:
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.
See, Adam Smith Enterprises v. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 553 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Applying the foregoing standards to the facts in this case it is clear that the challenged sentence cannot be upheld. The record establishes that a determination of the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level will be extremely difficult to accomplish. Indeed, DER neither compiles nor maintains data on the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level within the state of Florida, and the information available from other sources is inadequate to make a precise or reliable determination in most cases. At best, the available data will enable only broad approximations of the seasonal high groundwater level at a particular site. Moreover, the challenged sentence fails to establish how far above the
10-year seasonal high groundwater level the liner system must be constructed. Due to normal calculations, groundwater level wells will at times rise above the 10-year high groundwater level. The rule provides no basis or method for determining how far above the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level the bottom of the landfill liner needs to be. Clearly, the data upon which enforcement of the rule depends is so lacking that persons charged with applying the rule would inevitably question its meaning and differ with regard to its application. The record establishes that even if the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level is accurately determined at a given site, the groundwater will exceed that level at some time, and put dangerous stress on the liner. If the 10-year seasonal high groundwater level cannot be accurately determined, this threat is magnified. By its utter failure to establish an adequate basis or method for determining the
10-year seasonal high groundwater level, the rule is impermissibly vague and fails to establish adequate standards for agency decision making. See, State v. Cumming, 365 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1978).
The record further establishes that DER has neither conducted nor obtained studies, data, reports, or other research assessing the validity or justification of the challenged sentence. Nor is the Department aware of any technical studies or reports which would support a prohibition of the use of the inward gradient design concept. However, there is a large volume of data to support the use of that design option. Indeed, the Department has never made a factual determination that the inward gradient design is deficient or defective or that a landfill constructed using that concept would be less capable than other designs of protecting groundwater. On the contrary, both of the Department's representatives affirmed that the inward gradient design is viable concept and even a preferable option in many cases. The record clearly establishes that in some hydrogeologic settings in Florida, the inward gradient design would provide even greater protection for the environment than would a landfill built above the groundwater. Both of the Department's witnesses testified that the ERC's prohibition of the use of the inward gradient design option is illogical.
These things being true, it is apparent that the proposed rule is not supported by facts, reason, or logic. Indeed, the testimony established that the challenged language was adopted in a spur of the moment decision which was based on nothing more substantial than a "gut" feeling. As such, the rule is clearly arbitrary and capricious. The Department has based its entire defense of the validity of the challenged sentence in the rule on the availability of an alternative procedure for approval of an inward gradient design on a case-by- case basis, under Rule 17- 701.078, Florida Administrative Code. However, the existence of a procedure for approval of an alternative design which may let the prohibition created by the challenged sentence be sidestepped is legally insufficient to save an otherwise invalid rule. Moreover, the evidence clearly demonstrates that use of the inward gradient design concept is not only viable, but in some cases preferable to the design criteria in the rule. The evidence also clearly establishes that use of the alternative procedure for approval of a design would be more burdensome, more subject to attack through administrative proceedings, and more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to defend, than would be the case with a proposal for an inward gradient design under the rule absent the challenged sentence.
ERC's decision to add the challenged sentence to the proposed rule. It is undisputed that the addition of the challenged sentence by the ERC will have an economic impact on WMIF. That impact or cost is not included in the EIS. The failure to include consideration of this cost in the EIS prior to adoption of the challenged sentence is material. It also constitutes a failure to follow applicable rulemaking procedures. The EIS is inadequate and the challenged sentence is also invalid for this reason. The only mechanism by which ERC could adopt a rule which has a cost not considered in the EIS is for ERC to withdraw the rule at the adoption hearing and return it to DER for republication and recalculation of the EIS. Failure to take these measures renders the proposed rule invalid.
Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the sentence, "The bottom of the liner shall be constructed above the 10- year seasonal high groundwater level contained within proposed DER Rule 17- 701.050(5)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE K. KIESLING
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1990.
IN CASE NOS. 90-2146RX AND 90-2148RX
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in these cases. Some proposed findings of fact are rejected for more than one reason and accordingly are listed under multiple reasons for rejection.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Waste Management, Inc. of Florida
1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-56(1-56).
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation
William D. Preston Thomas M. DeRose Attorneys at Law
Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr. Attorney at Law
Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental
Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
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 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 THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
