STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THOMAS E. FORTSON, ET AL., )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-3087

) KINGSLEY SERVICE COMPANY ) AND STATE OF FLORIDA, ) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) REGULATION, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in the above-styled cause by Stephen F. Dean, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, at the Council Chambers, Orange Park Town Hall, Orange Park, Florida, on September 19, 1991.

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONERS: David B. Lee, Jr., Esquire

Post Office Box 400

Orange Park, Florida 32067-0400

FOR RESPONDENT: John Kopelousos, Esquire Kingsley Service Post Office Box 855

Company Orange Park, Florida 32067-0855

FOR RESPONDENT: William H. Congdon, Esquire Department of 2600 Blair Stone Road Environmental Twin Towers Office Building Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue is whether the Respondent, Kingsley Service Company, should be granted an operating permit to increase the capacity of its Fleming Oaks Waste Water Treatment Plant from .490 MGD to .720 MGD.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 17, 1991, the applicant, Kingsley Service Company, ("Kingsley") applied to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation ("Department"), for a permit to operate a sewage treatment plant in Clay County, Florida. On April 22, 1991, the Department issued its Notice of Permit Issuance and a draft permit for the proposed project.

On May 6, 1991, the Department received from Thomas Fortson a Petition challenging the proposed project. The Petition appeared to be a joint petition on behalf of Thomas E. Fortson, Don M. Loop, Samuel D. Rowley, M.D., Ronald L. Rish, M.D., Gerald R. Agresti, David B. Lee, Scott D. Ritchie, Nancy K. Longhardt, Damon C. Loop, and Dale B. Purcell. However, on May 13, 1991, the Department received a letter from Mr. Agresti indicating that he did not wish to be a Petitioner. On May 15, 1991, the Petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 91-3087.

The Petitioners, by Petition dated May 6, 1991, requested an administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

Pursuant to the Petitioners' request, a hearing was held on September 19, 1991.

At the hearing, the Respondents offered testimony by the following:

1. Jimmie R. Rodgers, President of Kingsley Service Company. (R 22-44).

   
   

2. Alan W. Potter, Jr., Professional Engineer, as an expert witness (R 120), as rebuttal witness. (R 299-303).

   
   

3. Jerry M. Owen, Professional Engineer with the Department, as an expert witness (R 120-143) as rebuttal witness. (R 306-312).

   
   

4. Alan W. Potter, Sr., Professional Engineer with the Department, as an expert witness. (R 144-151).

   
   

5. Mikell McCarty, Operations and Maintenance Manager, holder of an A Operations License, employed by Kingsley. (R 280-296).

The Petitioners offered the following witnesses in opposition to the issuance of the permit:

1. Donald M. Loop, a Petitioner and resident. (R 152-197) and (R 238- 264).

   
   

2. Thomas E. Fortson, a Petitioner and resident. (R 265-280).

   
   

3. Saxton Wier, resident. (R 198-219).

   
   

4. James Fowden, resident. (R 220-226).

   
   

5. Donald M. Loop, Petitioner and resident. (R 227-237).

A record of the proceeding was made and filed with the Hearing Officer.

Proposed findings of facts were submitted, which were read and considered. The attached Appendix states which of the findings were adopted and which were rejected and why.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Fleming Oaks Waste Water Treatment facility is located on Fleming Island, at the south end of Bahia Road. (T 25). It includes three units, a

   .180 MGD, a .150 MGD and a .490 MGD plant. (T 49). The facility is owned and operated by Kingsley Service Company, the largest utility in Clay County. (T

   24) Kingsley has operated in Clay County for more than 26 years and presently services the equivalent of over 17,000 homes. (T 23).

   
   

2. Fleming Island is a relatively large piece of land bounded on the east by the St. Johns River, on the south by Black Creek, and on the north by Doctors Lake. On the west, Black Creek and Doctors Lake are connected by Swimming Pen Creek and a swampy marsh area. (T 25-26).

   
   

3. In 1982, a .080 MGD sewage treatment plant was built at the present Fleming Oaks location. In 1984, a .0150 MGD plant was added, bringing the total facility capacity to .230 MGD. Effluent from those plants was discharged through a pipe to the St. Johns River.

   
   

4. On February 25, 1986, Kingsley received permit No. D010-115962 authorizing continued operation at the Fleming Oaks facility of the 0.080 MGD and 0.150 MGD sewage treatment plants. This operation permit expired on February 25, 1991. (RE #1).

   
   

5. On October 8, 1987, the Department issued permit No. DC10-139744 to Kingsley to expand "the existing 0.230 MGD...Sewage treatment plant by constructing a separate 0.490 MGD extended aeration sewage treatment plant with a total design capacity of 0.720 MGD." (RE #2).

   
   

6. On January 25, 1990, the Department issued permit No. D01-104228 to Kingsley, "[t]o operate a 0.490 MGD extended aeration sewage treatment plant." This permit required Kingsley to apply for an operation permit for the full capacity of the plant, 0.720 MGD, when the new plant, 0.490 MGD reaches a load of approximately 90% of its capacity. The operation permit for the .490 MGD expires on January 25, 1995. (RE #3).

   
   

7. Pursuant to the permit requirement referenced in the preceding paragraph, Kingsley applied to the Department on January 17, 1991 for an operation permit to "[p]lace [the] existing 0.230 MGD WWTP into service raising treatment capacity to 0.720." (RE #5).

   
   

8. After reviewing that application, the Department executed a notice of permit issuance, authorizing Kingsley to operate a parallel 0.490 MGD extended aeration waste water treatment plant ("WWTP"), a 0.150 MGD contact stabilization WWTP and a 0.080 MGD contact stabilization WWTP having a combined design capacity of 0.720 MGD serving Fleming Island and authorizing discharge of the treated effluent into the St. Johns River, via an existing 500-foot pipe, 8 inches in diameter. (RE #7). This permit allowed the previously-constructed

   0.230 MGD plant to be placed back in service. It is this permit which the Petitioners challenge.

   
   

9. The system in question was designed by a qualified engineering firm with substantial experience in the design of waste water treatment plants (R 46,

   47 & 48) and in compliance with Department regulations. (R 63-64).

   
   

10. The system, as designed and constructed, is being operated by qualified personnel and consistent with Department regulations. (R 280, R 124, 131, 132).

    
    

11. The 0.490 MGD plant consists of an aeration tank, a digester, and a clarifier. (RE #8; T 51). Raw sewage is pumped from lift stations into a "surge tank," where it falls through a bar screen and grid chamber which take out large items and sand which accumulate in the sewage system. (T 55-56). Raw

    sewage is then pumped from the surge tank to the aeration portion of the plant. (T 56).

    
    

12. In the aeration tank, solids and liquids, called "mixed liquor," are evenly distributed throughout the depth of the liquid in the aeration tank, where the breakdown process occurs. (T 65).

    
    

13. A control box is located between the aeration tank and clarifier which allows waste water from the aeration tank to flow into the clarifier once it reaches a certain level in the aeration tank. (T 56-57). The flow moves through the control box and into the portion of the clarifier called an "annular weir." The annular weir is approximately 18 inches from the outside wall of the clarifier and looks like the outer ring of a bull's-eye target from above. The purpose of the annular weir is to distribute flow evenly into the clarifier. At the center of the circular clarifier is a rectangular-shaped structure called an "effluent weir." (T 57).

    
    

14. In the part of the clarifier outside the rectangular effluent weir, undigested solid material settles out onto the bottom. The liquid portion which remains after the solids settle out flow over the top of the effluent weir into the interior of the rectangular structure. The interior of the effluent weir can only be reached from the top. There are no entry points at the bottom, where the solids are. (T 66). The clear liquid that flows over the effluent weir and the sludge that settles to the bottom of the clarifier undergo further, separate treatments.

    
    

15. The clarified effluent that flows over the top of the effluent weir is piped to the chlorine contact chamber for disinfection. (T 52). Chlorine is fed into the effluent to destroy pathogens which may be present. (T 81). The final 2-1/2 feet of the chlorine contact chamber is where dechlorination takes place. (T 62). Dechlorination is required so that the chlorine level in the effluent is reduced. (T 54). Dechlorination occurs when sulfur dioxide is mixed with the chlorinated effluent. Discharge monitoring takes place in the chlorine contact chamber. (T 62).

    
    

16. The treated and dechlorinated effluent is pumped to the St. Johns River through an outfall which is 500 feet from shore. (T 53, 63).

    
    

17. The sludge which settled to the bottom of the clarifier is drawn off at the bottom of the clarifier and directed into the "digester" where, under aerobic conditions and without additional food, bacteria die-off occurs. (T 59). The sludge is actually a liquid substance, approximately 97% water and 3% solids. (T 98-99). The digester is an ancillary process separate from the treatment of waste water. (T 57). The digester stabilizes and further reduces the organic content of the sludge. (T 51).

    
    

18. Tanker trucks regularly remove the sludge from the digester and transport it to dairy farms where it is applied to the land. (T 98-101; RE #11 for invoices).

    
    

19. The 0.490 MGD plant "has been designed and constructed to meet all the requirements currently posted or regulated by the State of Florida." (T 64). The construction and operation of the Fleming Oaks plant, when compared with the other 600 in the Department's Northeast District, is "very good." (T 131).

20. Although the BOD and TSS limits are 20, the Fleming Oaks plant consistently gets better than 10 and many times less than 5 for these parameters. (T 131).

    
    

21. Sampling of the St. Johns River at the end of the outfall pipe has shown that the water quality standards have been met for each sample. (T 141). The Monthly Operating Reports show that required parameters are almost always met. (RE #11).

    
    

22. On June 7th, a machine sampled sewage coming into the plant and sewage that was leaving the plant. Two samples were taken, one where raw sewage comes in and one the final effluent. The raw sewage had a BOD of 205 and the treated effluent had a BOD of 1. (T 283-286). TSS was run the same way. Raw sewage had a TSS of 182 while the treated sewage had a TSS of 1. (T 287).

    
    

23. Petitioners' concerns about the permitting of the 0.230 MGD capacity center around the buildup of "muck" in the river in the vicinity of the existing outfall. Petitioners assert that Kingsley pumped sludge through the outfall which "polluted" their waterfront as "muck."

    
    

24. Donald Loop, who lives 4,000-5,000 feet to the south of the outfall, described the muck buildup as starting 18 months ago "at two to three inches and over a period of time increas[ing] to 18 inches in some places and other places over 24 inches." In conjunction with the muck buildup was "extreme devastation of all greenery, starting with cattails and many other green plants that grew out there." (T 153-154). During this time frame, the rainfall was 25% below the annual average and "the river flows were much less than normal." (T 153, 270).

    
    

25. Damon Loop, Donald Loop's brother, lives on a canal, 350-400 feet off the St. Johns River. The canal is approximately 1,000 feet north of the outfall of the Fleming Oaks facility. (T 233). He noticed a muck buildup "when Kingsley Service Company first started putting the effluent into the river." (T 228). At that time, the end of the canal area started filling up with muck.

    The muck now covers almost 4-1/2 feet and has been there for six or seven years. (T 228). Two or three hundred feet out in the St. Johns River, where it is 10 feet deep, there is a black silt one foot to 15 inches deep. (T 229).

    
    

26. Other witnesses also described the muck. Saxton Weir, who lives approximately one-half mile to the north of the outfall, described the muck as being 43 or 44 inches thick. (T 200, 204). The muck extended along his shoreline "over 500 feet" and extended out into the water "from 5 feet to over

    100 feet." (T 212-213). Mr. Weir actually saw muck extending as far out as "485 feet from the shoreline." (T 214). The accumulated muck was blown away after three days of rain and a storm. (T 205).

    
    

27. A video tape of the conditions caused by the muck was received and viewed. There are tons and tons of muck in this area. Petitioners believe that the muck was actually sludge or TSS illegally discharged from the Fleming Oaks facility. This belief was based upon the mistaken conclusion that the 0.430 MGD treatment process was requiring an inappropriately large amount of chlorine.

    
    

28. Petitioners concluded that there was excessive chlorine in the water because of the death of barnacles on pilings in the area. Chlorine kills bacteria and oxidizes other organic materials. (T 116). Small amounts of organic matter which have not been completely digested by the treatment process

    can be oxidized by chlorine. (T 102). Chlorine is increased to treat unoxidized organic material. (T 83).

    
    

29. The MOP/11 operation waste water manual, characterized by Mr. Loop as the "Bible of waste water treatment," indicates that about three parts per million chlorine is appropriate. (T 176).

    
    

30. For June of 1990, the average chlorine feed was actually 3.3 parts per million. (T 297-298). The chlorine levels were within normal limits. The barnacles were killed by some other factor, perhaps the drought which occurred at about this time.

    
    

31. Because of the muck-related complaints, a sample of sludge was taken by a Department employee from an unknown location in the area and analyzed at the Department laboratory, where it was microscopically determined that the sample was decaying vegetation. (T 138).

    
    

32. Without intentionally discharging large amounts of sludge over a period of time, the chance of even noticing any buildup along the shoreline is very, very small. The particles left in the effluent are very small and very light. The ability of this material to settle in a water flowing at even low velocity is difficult. The velocity of the current at the outfall is sufficient to prevent any particles from settling out. (T 96).

    
    

33. The "muck" in the river in front of the houses of the Petitioners was not shown to be sludge from the Fleming Oaks Waste Water Treatment Plant after testing by the Petitioners. (R 252).

    
    

34. The capacity at issue in this proceeding, 0.230 MGD capacity, consists of 0.080 MGD plant, composed of two tanks, and a 0.150 MGD plant that is composed of three tanks. (T 49-50). Both of these plants are contact stabilization plants. ( T 67). Although permitted until February of 1991, these two plants ceased operating in April of 1989. (T 37).

    
    

35. The St. Johns River is Class III waters of the State of Florida. Secondary treatment, which is required for these plants, is sufficient to maintain the water quality standards for the St. Johns River. (T 124-125, 130).

    
    

36. When the 0.080 and 0.150 MGD plants were operational, they operated within the limits of the permit at issue here. (T 67). They will meet the requirements for issuance of the permit. (T 124).

    
    

37. When the .230 MGD capacity is brought on line, raw sewage entering the surge tank will be routed to each of the three plants rather than just to the aeration plant alone, as it is at present. (T 88). Waste water will be pumped proportionately to the separate plants through variable speed pumps. (T 89).

    
    

38. After appropriate treatment in the 0.80 MGD and 0.150 contact stabilization plants, clear liquid effluent will be transferred from them to the chlorine contact chamber where it will be chlorinated, dechlorinated and then pumped to the St. Johns River through the existing outfall. (T 90).

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

39. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

40. The Department has permitting jurisdiction over the proposed project, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 17, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

41. In a Section 120.57 proceeding, the applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, a petitioner has the burden,

    
    

    to go forward with evidence to prove the truth of the facts asserted in his petition. If the Petitioner fails to present evidence, or fails to carry the burden of proof as to the controverted facts asserted . . . then the permit must be approved."

    
    

    Id. at 789.

    
    

42. Rule 17-4.240, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Operation Permits for Water Pollution Sources", in Subsection (2), states: "an operation permit shall be issued only if all Department requirements are met, including the provisions of Section 17-3.041 and Section 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code." 1/ Rule 17-4.242(1)(a) states: "Permits shall be issued when consistent with the anti-degradation policy set forth in Section 17-3.041."

    
    

43. Rule 17-302.300 (formerly Rule 17-3.041), Florida Administrative Code, contains the Department's anti-degradation policy for surface waters. It states, in pertinent part:

    
    

    (7) If the Department finds that a proposed new discharge or expansion of an existing discharge will not reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for the, it shall permit the discharge if such degradation is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest, and if all other Department requirements are met. Projects permitted under Part VIII of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, shall be considered in compliance with this subsection if those projects comply with the requirements of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

44. The term "existing discharge" is interpreted by the Department to mean a discharge permitted, either through an operation or a construction permit, prior to October 4, 1989. The anti-degradation rule was not intended to impact those facilities which had already planned for and expended monies to meet the permitting requirements in effect prior to October 4, 1989.

    
    

45. In this case, the discharge from the 0.080 MGD and 0.150 MGD plants was previously permitted by both a construction and operation permit. The last operation permit for this discharge was issued on February 25, 1986, well before the adoption of the anti-degradation policy. This case involves an existing discharge, not the expansion of an existing discharge. Therefore, the discharge is "grandfathered" and not subject to the Department's anti-degradation policy.

46. Rule 17-600.510, Florida Administrative Code, "Discharge to Surface Waters (Excluding Ocean Outfall)", sets forth the Department's specific permitting requirements applicable to the Fleming Oaks facility. It states, in subsection (1):

    
    

    Outfalls for all facilities shall not discharge reclaimed waters or effluents which do not meet, at a minimum, applicable secondary treatment, basic disinfection and pH levels contained in Part II of Chapter

    17-600, Florida Administrative Code, prior to discharge to the receiving surface waters.

    
    

    (emphasis added). The three underscored phrases detail the permitting requirements for discharges from the 0.230 MGD plants to the St. Johns River.

    
    

47. Secondary treatment is defined as "waste water treatment to a level that will achieve the effluent limitations specified in Rule 17-600.420(1), Florida Administrative Code." Rule 17-600.200(70) and Rule 17-600.420(1), Florida Administrative Code, in pertinent part, states:

    
    

    1. Surface water disposal (excluding ocean outfalls). All domestic wastewater facilities are required, at a minimum, to provide secondary treatment of wastewater. New facilities and modifications of existing facilities shall be designed to achieve an effluent after disinfection containing not more than 29 mg/L CBOD and 20 mg/L TSS, or

       90% removal of each of these pollutants from the wastewater influent, whichever is more stringent. All facilities shall be operated to achieve, at a minimum, the specified effluent limitations (20 mg/L).

       
       

48. Basic disinfection, the level required for a surface water outfall, is described in Rule 17-600.440(4), Florida Administrative Code, as:

    
    

    (4) Basic Disinfection

    1. Facilities to provide basic disinfection shall be designed to result in not more than

       200 fecal coliform values per 100 mL of reclaimed water or effluent sample.

    2. Where chlorine is used for disinfection, the design shall include provisions for rapid and uniform mixing; and a total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 milligram per liter shall be maintained after at least 15 minutes contact time at the peak hourly flow. Higher residuals or longer contact times may be needed to meet the operational criteria for basic disinfection. The chlorine residual and contact time selected for design shall be justified in the preliminary design report.

49. Effluent from the facility must maintain a pH range of 6.0 to 8.5. Rule 17-600.445, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

50. Competent substantial evidence was presented that adequate secondary treatment, basic disinfection, and appropriate pH standards would be achieved by the 0.230 MGD plants. Petitioners offered no expert testimony to the contrary on this issue. Therefore, the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the discharge from the plants previously permitted, as described in paragraph 4 above, will meet the requirements contained in Rule 17-600.510, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

51. Rule 17-4.070(5), Florida Administrative Code, is relevant to this proceeding in light of Petitioners' claims of an illegal discharge. This rule states:

    
    

    The Department shall take into consideration a permit application's violation of any Department's at any installation when determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that Department standards will be met.

    
    

52. The burden of proof with regard to this claim is upon the party asserting that an applicant has violated Department rules, whether that assertion is made by the Department, or by a third party. The Petitioners allege violations of the TSS requirement contained in Rule 17-600.420(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which resulted in a "sludge" buildup on their property. It is their burden to show that such violations have occurred.

    
    

53. The Petitioners offered anecdotal evidence and a videotape of the offending "muck," explaining that this was a "new" problem, and it "smelled like sewage." Respondents' Exhibit 11 also includes five different analytical laboratory analyses of sludge from the 0.490 MGD plant. These analyses were performed by Southeastern Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Although alluding to another chemical laboratory analysis during testimony, Petitioners did not offer that analysis into evidence or otherwise allow Respondents' experts to testify concerning it. At any rate, that analysis was described by one of the Petitioners as "not conclusive." (T 252).

    
    

54. In addition, Petitioners asserted that the facility utilized chlorine at an excessive rate. However, calculations show that the rate of chlorine used by the facility is consistent with the standard rate. (T 176).

    
    

55. A preponderance of the evidence discloses that the muck is decayed vegetative matter. The Department's laboratory analysis, by microscope, confirms this. A review of Monthly Operating Reports ("MOR's"), contained in Respondents' Exhibit 11, includes TSS results. Those results show TSS discharges that one of the Petitioners characterized as "just excellent, in fact, outstanding." (T 162).

    
    

56. The MOR's are certified to contain accurate information, making their falsification a criminal first degree misdemeanor. See Section 387.012, Florida Statutes. Respondents' Exhibit 11 also includes various sludge hauling invoices from Duval Septic Tank Company. These facts, taken together, make it highly improbable that sludge is being illegally discharged into the St. Johns River, in violation of the TSS requirements.

57. Finally "a sewage type odor" is not proof of the source of the problem. Such smelly muck has been reported to the Department in locations where there are no sewage treatment plants. The Petitioners introduced no credible evidence that the muck was discharged from this plant. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Kingsley has violated the Department's regulations.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is

RECOMMENDED that the application of the Kingsley Service Company for the waste water treatment operating permit at issue be granted, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Department's Draft Permit, in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit 7.

DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1992.

ENDNOTES

1/ Rule 17-4.240, Florida Administrative Code, erroneously references Rule 17- 3.041, supra, which was renumbered Rule 17-302.300, supra.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact

A. Video commented upon.

B-D. True but inconclusive as stated in E.

1. Adopted.

   
   

2. Irrelevant.

G-I. True but irrelevant to whether Kingsley produced muck.

J. True, and a possible cause of the conditions observed was drought conditions in St. Johns River drainage basin prevailing during the period in question.

K-L. See G, etc. above.

M-N. Contrary to more credible evidence. O-P. See G above.

Q-R. See M above.

S. See G above; 26 tons was periodic complete cleaning.

T-U. See G above.

V. See M above.

W-Y. See G above.

Z. See M above.

AA. See G above.

BB. See G above.

CC. First sentence is not substantiated by reference to record. DD. See G above.

Kingsley's Proposed Findings of Fact

1-10. True, and adopted or Department's alternative wording was adopted.

Department's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-20. Adopted and renumbered.

COPIES FURNISHED:

David B. Lee, Jr., Esquire

P.O. Box 400

Orange Park, FL 32067-0400

John Kopelousos, Esquire

P.O. Box 855

Orange Park, FL 32067-0855

William H. Congdon, Esquire Department of Environmental

Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road

Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Environmental Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road

Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental

Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road

Twin Towers Office Building 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. 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: 91-003087

Orders for Case No: 91-003087