STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JEFFERY HILL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3041

)

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) and ROLAND TARDIF, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to written notice a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on December 8, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner, Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Jeffery Hill: CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL,

SMITH & CUTLER, P.A.

Post Office Box 190

First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent, Keith C. Hetrick

Florida Department Assistant General Counsel

of Environmental Office of the General Counsel Protection: Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

For Respondent, Roland Tardif, pro se Roland Tardif: Route 12, Box 394

Lake City, Florida 32055 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether the Respondent, Roland Tardif, is entitled to a temporary operation permit without the inclusion of Special Condition 18, as modified.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Roland Tardif filed an application for a permit to temporarily operate a wastewater treatment plant in conjunction with a mobile home park Mr. Tardif owns. The Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, issued an Intent to Issue the requested permit on or about May 17, 1993, and Mr. Tardif caused notice of the Intent to Issue to be published.

On or about May 28, 1993, the Petitioner, Jeffery Hill, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection challenging its decision. On June 3, 1993, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed a Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer, and Notice of Preservation of Record with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct this proceeding. The matter was designated case number 93-3041 and was assigned to the undersigned by Order of Assignment entered June 8, 1993.

On October 11, 1993, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed a Notice of Modification of Intended Agency Action. Pursuant to the notice, specific condition 18 of the proposed temporary operation permit was modified. While the modification satisfied the Petitioner, Mr. Tardif made it known to the parties that special condition 18 was not acceptable.

All of the parties agreed that the matter should proceed to final hearing on the issue of whether the proposed temporary operation permit should be issued without special condition 18, as modified. Although not reflected in the style of the case, the modification of the permit and the positions of the parties shifted the burden of proof in this case to Mr. Tardif to prove his entitlement to a temporary operation permit without special condition 18, as modified.

At the final hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Henry Grimes and Kenneth Glenn. The Petitioner offered three exhibits which were accepted into evidence.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection presented the testimony of Jeff Martin and offered six exhibits. All six exhibits were accepted into evidence.

Mr. Tardif testified on his own behalf and offered two exhibits. Both exhibits were accepted into evidence.

A transcript of the final hearing was filed on December 16, 1993. The Petitioner and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed proposed recommended orders. Mr. Tardif did not file a proposed recommended order.

The proposed recommended order of the Petitioner contains proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order or the proposed finding of fact has been accepted or rejected in the Appendix which is attached hereto. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection adopted by reference the proposed findings of fact of the Petitioner.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Parties.

   
   

   1. Respondent, Roland Tardif, is the owner of Pond View Mobile Home Park (hereinafter referred to as "Pond View"). Pond View is located in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida.

      
      

   2. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, regulating wastewater treatment facilities.

      
      

   3. The Petitioner, Jeffrey Hill, is the owner of real property located adjacent to the northern boundary of Pond View.

      
      

   4. Mr. Hill has witnessed fluids flowing from Pond View onto his property. Those fluids, while not identified as to substance or source, came from the direction of a wastewater treatment facility on Pond View. It is possible, therefore, that a discharge from the wastewater treatment facility on Pond View could flow onto Mr. Hill's property.

      
      

   5. Mr. Hill is also the owner of sixty percent of the stock of a corporation which owns real property adjacent to the western boundary of Pond View. The corporation is not, however, a party to this proceeding.

      
      

2. Pond View's Wastewater Treatment Facility.

   
   

   1. Pond View is served by a 0.009 MGD extended aeration (activated sludge) wastewater treatment plant (hereinafter referred to as the "Treatment Facility").

      
      

   2. The Treatment Facility is located on the property at Pond View and is the subject of this proceeding.

      
      

   3. The Treatment Facility includes two percolation ponds where final treatment and disposal of chlorinated wastewater effluent takes place. The percolation ponds, if operating properly, should hold all effluent until it percolates into the groundwater. Viable operation of the Treatment Facility depends, in part, upon proper maintenance of the percolation ponds.

      
      

   4. The Treatment Facility was operated by Mr. Tardif pursuant to a permit issued by the Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Operation Permit"). The Operation Permit expired in 1991.

      
      

   5. Pursuant to the Operation Permit, Mr. Tardif was allowed to discharge effluent to an unnamed ditch and wetland area which connects with Alligator Lake.

      
      

   6. Alligator Lake is a Class III waterbody. Class III waterbodies are designated for use as recreational waters.

      
      

3. Mr. Tardif's Application for Renewal of the Operation Permit.

   
   

   1. In November of 1991, Mr. Tardif applied to the Department for a renewal of the Operation Permit.

   2. Due to modifications in the Department's rules relating to wetlands made since the Operation Permit had been issued, the practice of discharging effluent into wetlands was no longer acceptable. Therefore, the Department denied Mr. Tardif's application for renewal of the Operation Permit.

      
      

4. Mr. Tardif's Application for a Temporary Operation Permit.

   
   

   1. On September 3, 24 and 28, 1992, Department field inspections were conducted of the Treatment Facility. The field inspectors determined that there was excessive vegetation growing on the berms of the two percolation ponds of the Treatment Facility. Excessive vegetation makes it difficult to inspect the ponds to determine if improper discharges are taking place.

      
      

   2. The Department's field inspectors also determined that the distance between the effluent level in the percolation ponds and the top of the berms, which is referred to as "freeboard", was inadequate. Adequate freeboard is required to help insure that the ponds have sufficient volume capacity to contain facility effluent and rainwater without discharging effluent from the ponds.

      
      

   3. One effluent line adjacent to one of the ponds was observed discharging to a ditch. The discharge was considered a discharge to surface waters.

      
      

   4. Because of the condition of the percolation ponds, the Department was concerned about the operation and maintenance of the percolation ponds and their ability to perform properly.

      
      

   5. On or about October 8, 1992, the Department issued a Warning Letter to Mr. Tardif. The Warning Letter informed Mr. Tardif of the problems with the operation of the Treatment Facility found during the September of 1992 inspections. Mr. Tardif was also informed that the Treatment Facility was being operated without a valid permit in violation of Rule 17-4.030, Florida Administrative Code.

      
      

   6. On or about November 19, 1992, Mr. Tardif applied to the Department for a temporary operation permit (hereinafter referred to as a "TOP"), to operate the Treatment Facility.

      
      

   7. On or about May 14, 1993, the Department issued a notice of intent to issue a TOP (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed TOP"). A copy of the Proposed TOP was attached to the notice of intent to issue.

      
      

   8. Specific condition 18 of the Proposed TOP provided as follows:

      
      

      1. This permit is issued to allow time for the facility to demonstrate full compliance with Department rules, demonstrate satisfactory evaporation/percolation pond performance and investigate alternate land application methods if necessary. The submitted schedule for compliance is as follows:

         1. Date when planning is expected to be complete: January 1, 1994.

         2. Date when design will be complete: January 1, 1995.

         3. Date construction permit application will be submitted to upgrade or eliminate the existing discharge: July 1, 1995.

         4. Date construction will begin: October 1, 1995.

         5. Date construction is to be completed: May 1, 1996.

         6. Date that full compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules of the Department will be achieved: May 1, 1997.

         
         

   9. Mr. Tardif did not challenge any part of the Department's decision to issue the Proposed TOP.

      
      

   10. On or about May 28, 1993, Mr. Hill filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Department's decision to issue the Proposed TOP. Mr. Hill alleged that the Proposed TOP would allow the Treatment Facility to discharge treated and untreated wastewater onto his property. Mr. Hill also alleged that Mr. Tardif had failed to demonstrate that the Treatment Facility would comply with all applicable statutes and rules governing its operation.

       
       

5. The Department's Decision to Modify the Proposed TOP.

   
   

   1. Subsequent to the filing of this matter with the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Department caused the Treatment Facility to be inspected. Those inspections took place in August and September of 1993.

      
      

   2. The Department discovered that the berms of the percolation ponds were still covered with excessive vegetation and that the freeboard in the ponds was still inadequate.

      
      

   3. Additionally, the Department discovered during the August and September of 1993 inspections that the ponds were covered with duckweed. Duckweed, if not removed, will die and drop to the bottom of a percolation pond, reducing the ability of water to percolate into the soil. Duckweed also reduces the volume capacity of percolation ponds.

      
      

   4. The Department was already concerned about the adequacy of the soil conditions and the water table where the Treatment Facility is located. In a properly functioning percolation pond, water percolates quickly and the pond dries out. If the soil contains too much clay and/or the water table is high, percolation will occur at a slower rate. Percolation at the Treatment Facility was slow.

      
      

   5. The Department's concern about the inadequacy of the soil conditions and water table in the area where the Treatment Facility is located, coupled with the continued lack of maintenance of the percolation ponds, caused the Department to become more concerned with the potential for surface water discharges from the Treatment Facility.

      
      

   6. The Department's concern became greater as a result of reports of actual discharges from the Treatment Facility it received in September of 1993.

   7. On September 8, 1992, Sergeant Henry Grimes, a wildlife officer with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, inspected property adjacent to the western boundary of Pond View and the percolation ponds in response to a complaint about the Treatment Facility.

      
      

   8. Sergeant Grimes witnessed fluids being discharged from a pipe on Pond View property and an area saturated with a sludge-like substance that almost topped his boots when he stepped in it. The sludge-like substance was also located on property located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of Pond View. Mr. Tardif informed Sergeant Grimes that the discharge would be directed to a retention pond when the pond was completed.

      
      

   9. Discharges from the percolation ponds was a further indication that the percolation ponds are not operating properly. Such discharges may flow directly into wetlands through the ditch running from near Pond View to Alligator Lake. These discharges threaten the quality of the waters of Alligator Lake.

      
      

   10. Potentially harmful constituents in effluent which are of concern include bacteria, chlorine, phosphorus, nitrogen and ammonia. Effluents may also have a negative impact on biological oxygen demand.

       
       

   11. Based upon the foregoing events and concerns, the Department notified Mr. Tardif on or about October 8, 1993, that it intended to modify the Proposed TOP.

       
       

6. The Department's Modification of the Proposed TOP.

   
   

   1. The Department decided to modify specific condition 18 of the Proposed TOP (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified TOP"). Specific condition 18 of the Modified TOP, with the modifications emphasized, provides as follows:

      
      

      1. There shall be no discharge from the ponds. This permit is issued to allow time for the facility to demonstrate full compliance with Department rules, demonstrate satisfactory evaporation/percolation pond performance and provide land application methods if a discharge occurs. The Schedule for providing alternate land application methods is as follows:

         1. Immediately upon the effective date of this Permit, if a discharge occurs, the Permittee shall notify the Department orally within 24 hours, of the discharge and its cause. Oral notification shall be followed by a written report within 72 hours. The report shall describe the nature and cause of the discharge and the steps being taken or planned to be taken to temporarily correct the problem. Upon any discharge, a construction permit application will be submitted to upgrade or eliminate the existing discharge within 45 days of the discharge occurrence in accordance with the following schedule:

            1. The Permittee shall within 45 days of the pond discharge, have a qualified professional engineer, ("Engineer"), registered in the State of Florida, submit to the Department a completed domestic waste application for construction of an approved land application site, which includes Department form No. 17-610.910(1) to meet the current requirements of the Department. If the Department determines that the Permittee's application is incomplete, the Permittee shall have 15 days, or such longer period as provided and approved by the Department, from the date of receiving notice from the Department, to submit the required information to the Department to complete the application. Upon issuance of the Department permit, the Permittee shall comply with all permit conditions.

            2. If the Permittee fails to submit and/or complete the application within the time

               frame specified above in Specific Condition 18(a)(1) of this Permit, the Permittee shall cease all discharges to ground and/or surface water within 20 days of receiving such notice from the Department. The Permittee shall cease all discharges from the facility by either closing the facility and the appurtenant sewage collection lines or by daily removal of effluent from the treatment plant by a licensed hauler and having said effluent taken to a Department approved site until the facility is in compliance with the requirements of the Department Permitting Section and a Department operation permit has been issued for the facility. If the Permittee ceases discharge at any time, the Permittee shall orally notify the Department within 24 hours of the start of the cessation. Within 72 hours of oral notification, the Permittee shall submit to the Department a report describing and certifying compliance with this paragraph.

         2. Date construction will begin: within 4 months of issuance of construction permit.

         3. Date construction is to be completed: within 6 months of issuance of construction permit.

         4. Date that full compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules of the Department will be achieved: within 18 months of the discharge occurrence. If any event occurs which causes delay, or the reasonable likelihood of delay, in achieving full compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules of the Department within

         18 months of the discharge occurrence, the

         Permittee shall have the burden of proving that the delay was, or will be, caused by the circumstances beyond the permittee's reasonable control and could not have been or cannot be overcome by due diligence.

         Economic circumstances shall not be considered circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee, nor shall the failure of a contractor, subcontractor, materialman or other agency (collectively referred to as "contractor") to whom responsibility for performance is delegated to meet contractually imposed deadlines be a cause beyond the control of the Permittee, unless the cause of the contractor's late performance was also beyond the contractor's control. Upon occurrence of an event causing delay, or upon becoming aware of a potential for delay, the Permittee shall notify the Department orally within 24 hours and shall, within seven days of oral notification to the Department, notify the Department in writing of the anticipated length and cause of the delay, the measures taken, or to be taken, to prevent or minimize the delay, and the timetable by which the Permittee intends to implement these measures. If the parties can agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been, or will be, caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee, the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period equal to the agreed delay resulting from such circumstances. Such agreement shall adopt all reasonable measures necessary to avoid or minimize delay. Failure of the Permittee to comply with the notice requirements of this paragraph in a timely manner shall constitute a waiver of the Permittee's right to request an extension of time for compliance with the requirements of this Permit.

         
         

   2. Special condition 18 of the Proposed TOP did not clearly address the Department's concerns about the adequacy of the Treatment Facility. While the Proposed TOP specified that there will be "no discharge to the surface waters" and imposed upon Mr. Tardif the obligation to undertake remedial activities, the Proposed TOP was vague as to what exactly must occur before Mr. Tardif was required to undertake the remedial activities.

      
      

   3. Special condition 18 of the Proposed TOP also provides, in part, that "[t]his permit is issued to allow time for the facility to demonstrate full compliance with Department rules, demonstrate satisfactory evaporation/percolation pond performance and investigate alternative land application methods if necessary. . . ." [Emphasis added]. This requirement is vague and caused uncertainty as to whether Mr. Tardif was required to take any action before it was determined to be "necessary" and, if so, what events would cause such action to be considered "necessary."

   4. Special condition 18 of the Modified TOP identifies a specific event which will require Mr. Tardif to modify the Treatment Facility: any discharge from the percolation ponds. This requirement eliminates the uncertainty of the original special condition 18 and reduces the possibility of a dispute arising between the Department and Mr. Tardif as to whether remedial actions are required.

      
      

   5. Special condition 18 of the Proposed TOP also allowed Mr. Tardif until May 1996 to complete construction of alternative land application methods and until May 1997 to bring the percolation ponds into full compliance regardless of whether a discharge occurred today.

      
      

   6. Special condition 18 of the Modified TOP reduces the time period after a discharge when the percolation ponds must be brought into compliance to 18 months from the date of the discharge.

      
      

   7. The changes to special condition 18 reflect the Department's concern about the adequacy of the percolation ponds. These concerns have, in part, been caused by Mr. Tardif's lack of action to maintain the percolation ponds.

      
      

7. Special Condition 18 of the Modified TOP is Reasonable.

1. Mr. Tardif failed to prove that the percolation ponds can be operated without discharge. Mr. Tardif has failed to prove that the Modified TOP, with the changes to special condition 18, is not reasonable. In fact, the evidence proved that special condition 18, as modified, is reasonable and desirable to protect the quality of surface waters of the State. Mr. Tardif failed to prove that he is entitled to the issuance of the Modified TOP.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

   1. Jurisdiction.

      
      

2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1993).

   
   

   1. Burden of Proof.

      
      

3. The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue of the proceeding. Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d

   249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

   
   

4. In this proceeding it is Mr. Tardif that is asserting the affirmative. Mr. Tardif has argued that he is entitled to a temporary operation permit without special condition 18, as modified. Therefore, the burden of proof was on Mr. Tardif in this proceeding. Mr. Tardif was required to prove that the changes to special condition 18 of the Modified TOP are not necessary.

   1. Standing.

      
      

5. Mr. Hill's ownership of stock of a corporation which owns property adjacent to Pond View does not support Mr. Hill's standing to participate in this proceeding.

   
   

6. Mr. Hill's individual ownership of property located adjacent to Pond View, however, does support his standing to participate in these proceedings. Mr. Hill has witnessed fluids flowing from Pond View onto his property. Those fluids, while not identified as to substance or source, came from the direction of the percolation ponds on Pond View. It is probable, therefore, that a discharge from the wastewater treatment facility on Pond View could flow onto Mr. Hill's property.

   
   

   1. The Appropriateness of Modified Special Condition 18.

   
   

7. Section 403.088, Florida Statutes (1992), governs the issuance of a TOP in this proceeding.

   
   

8. The only issue in this proceeding is whether the Department's decision to include special condition 18, as modified by the Department, in the TOP is consistent with Section 403.088(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1992).

   
   

9. Section 403.088(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1992), provides that a TOP shall:

   
   

   1. Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted;

   2. Require proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of permit;

   3. Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records or reports as the department deems necessary to enforce compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters;

   4. Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and

   5. Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest.

   
   

10. Mr. Tardif failed to prove that special condition 18 of the Modified TOP is not consistent with Section 403.088(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1992). Mr. Tardif failed to prove that the Proposed TOP is consistent with Section 403.088(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1992), without the modifications to special condition 18.

11. Rather than offering evidence to support a finding that special condition 18, as modified, is not necessary or is inconsistent with 403.088(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1992), Mr. Tardif attempted to prove that the problems with the percolation ponds are caused by others. Mr. Tardif offered evidence in an attempt to prove that adjacent landowners are causing excessive rainwater to flow onto Pond View property. Apparently Mr. Tardif believes, although the evidence did not prove, that the excessive rainwater is causing the discharges from the percolation ponds. This evidence is not relevant to this proceeding. What is relevant is that the evidence proved that discharges have and may occur from the percolation ponds. Pursuant to Section 403.088, Florida Statutes (1992), the Department may include conditions in a TOP to protect the waters of the State from such discharges.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final

Order issuing a temporary operation permit with special condition 18, as

modified.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.

LARRY J. SARTIN

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 27th day of January, 1994.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3041

Mr. Hill has submitted proposed findings of fact. The Department has adopted those proposed findings of fact by reference. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Tardif did not file a proposed recommended order.

Mr. Hill's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Accepted in 1 and 6.

2. Accepted in 2, 20 and 34.

3. Accepted in 3 and 5.

4. Accepted in 9-11.

5. Accepted in 12-13.

6. Accepted in 8 and 15.

7. Accepted in 14.

8. Accepted in 15.

9. Accepted in 17.

10. Accepted in 19-20.

11. Accepted in 23.

12. Accepted in 24-26.

13. Accepted in 26.

14. Accepted in 27.

15. Accepted in 27 and hereby accepted.

16. Accepted in 27-29 and 34.

17. Accepted in 30-31.

18. Accepted 31.

19. Although true, the evidence failed to sufficiently identify where the discharge came from and Mr. Tardif did not admit that it was a discharge as he did with Sergeant Grimes.

20. Accepted in 16.

21. Accepted in 4 and hereby accepted. The evidence did not prove, however, where the fluid came from.

22. Accepted in 32.

23. Accepted in 11.

24. Accepted in 33.

25. Accepted in 36.

26. Accepted in 21.

27. Hereby accepted.

28. Accepted in 36-37.

29. Accepted in 37.

30. Accepted in 39.

31. Accepted in 35.

32. Accepted in 38 and 40.

33. Accepted in 41.

34. Hereby accepted. 35-36 Accepted in 42.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jacob D. Varn, Esquire

Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Keith C. Hetrick Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Roland Tardif

Pond View Mobile Home Park Route 12, Box 394

Lake City, Florida 32055

Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 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: 93-003041

Orders for Case No: 93-003041