03-002180EF Department Of Environmental Protection vs. Daddy Does Dirt, Inc., And William H. Stanton, Jr. Status: Closed Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Friday, March 18, 2005.

Summary: Concrete formulated wallboard constitutes uncontaminated concrete, is not a solid waste, and is exempt from Department of Environmental Protection solid waste permitting requirements.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 03 - 2180EF

)

DADDY DOES DIRT, INC., and )

WILLIAM H. STANTON, JR., )

)

Respondents. )

______________________________)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, t his matter was heard before the

Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned

Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on October 2,

2003, in Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Lisa G. London, Esquire

Depart ment of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

For Respondents: Thomas S. Hogan, Jr., Esquire

The Hogan Law Firm

Post Office Box 485

Brooksville, Florida 34605 - 0485

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondents should have an

administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay

i nvestigative costs for allegedly maintaining a solid waste

management facility without a permit and disposing of solid

waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 10, 2002, Petitioner, Department of

Environ mental Protection (Department), filed a Notice of

Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Civil Penalty

Assessment (Notice) under Section 403.121(2), Florida Statutes

(2002), 1 alleging that in 2001 Respondents, Daddy Does Dirt,

Inc. (DDD) and its owne r, William H. Stanton, Jr. (Stanton), had

operated a solid waste management facility in Polk County,

Florida, without a permit and had stored and disposed of solid

waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding,

without taking adequate flood pro tection measures, in violation

of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62 - 701.300(1)(a), 62 -

701.300(2)(d), and 62 - 701.320(1), and Section 403.161, Florida

Statutes. For violating the statute and rules, the Department

seeks to impose administrative penalties in the amount of

$8,000.00, require Respondents to take corrective action, and

recover reasonable costs and expenses incurred while

investigating this matter. On September 18, 2003, the

Department filed a Notice of Scrivener's Error in which it

amended th e statutory references in paragraphs 12 and 14 of its

Notice to reflect the correct citations.

On October 29, 2002, Respondents requested an informal

conference. On November 13, 2002, the Department denied this

request and granted Respondents twenty day s in which to file a

petition for formal administrative hearing. On December 2,

2002, Respondents requested a 90 - day extension of time "to file

[an] appeal" so that the matter could be "worked out for the

interest of both parties." This request was denie d by Order

dated March 24, 2003, and Respondents were given twenty days

in which to file a petition. The official file does not show

when Respondents filed their initial pleading, but on May 21,

2003, and through counsel, Respondents filed their Amende d

Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing requesting a formal

hearing to contest the Department's proposed agency action. The

matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative

Hearings on June 11, 2003, with a request that an

Administrative Law Judge be assigned to conduct a hearing. By

Notice of Hearing dated July 9, 2003, a final hearing was

scheduled on October 2 and 3, 2003, in Tampa, Florida.

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

Steven G. Morgan, a Department E ngineer II, and Susan Pelz,

Department Solid Waste Program Manager and accepted as an

expert. Also, it offered Petitioner's Exhibits A, C - H, K - M, and

O - S, which were received in evidence. Exhibits P and R are the

depositions of Glenn Jackson and Tara Bar die, both employees of

PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Respondents presented the

testimony of William H. Stanton, Jr.; George K. Foster, a

geologist and accepted as an expert; and Dr. Guerry H.

McClellan, a professor in the Geological Sciences Depart ment at

the University of Florida and accepted as an expert. Also, they

offered Respondents' Exhibits C, D, F, and K - R, which were

received in evidence. Exhibit K is the deposition of Richard B.

Tedder, a Department employee. Finally, the undersigned to ok

official recognition of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62 -

520.410 and 62 - 550.310(1)(a). The latter rule adopts and

incorporates by reference certain drinking water standards

(Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Compounds) found in

Table One of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 - 550.

The Transcript of the hearing was filed on October 24,

2003. At the request of the parties, the time for filing

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was extended to

November 24, 2003. The same w ere timely filed by the parties,

and they have been considered by the undersigned in the

preparation of this Final Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of

fact are determined:

a. Background

1. DDD is a corpo ration registered to do business in the

State of Florida. Its president and sole director is William H.

Stanton, Jr. The corporation is engaged in the business of

"mobil recycling activities" (reduction recycling services for

customers). Mr. Stanton own s a two - acre tract of property

located in Section 26, Township 28S, Range 24B, on the northwest

corner of Mustang Road and Longhorn Drive, Lakeland, Florida.

The property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and was formerly

used in some form of phosphate m ining operations.

2. The Department is the agency charged with the duty of

administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403,

Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Based upon

a complaint made by a Polk County Health Department emplo yee, on

October 8, 2001, a Department enforcement coordinator, Steven G.

Morgan, inspected Mr. Stanton's property and observed that

Respondents had filled and compacted an approximate 150 foot by

300 foot area of the site with 3 to 5 feet of "wallboard typ e

material," which consisted of "both ground up and large pieces

of wallboard." In the middle of the filled area was an

additional pile of the same material around 20 to 25 feet high.

Petitioner's Exhibits A, D, and E are photographs which provide

an acc urate representation of the site on the date of the

inspection.

3. Based on a visual inspection, but without having the

benefit of his own laboratory analysis, 2 Mr. Morgan concluded

that the material was a solid waste made up of discarded

industrial produ cts. Under Department rules, the deposit of

solid waste on such a site requires a waste facility management

permit from the Department. A check of Department records

indicated that Respondents do not hold a permit to operate a

solid waste management faci lity. (DDD does hold a valid air

pollution permit for grinding concrete.)

4. During his inspection, Mr. Morgan also observed that

the land adjacent to the filled area was wet, had a lower

elevation than the compacted area, and contained small pockets

of standing water. This was confirmed by photographs received

in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits D and E.

5. A DDD employee who was present on the site during the

inspection indicated that approximately 900 truck loads of the

material had been transport ed to the site from Plant City after

Mr. Stanton had "lost" a lease on the property on which the

material had previously been placed. This was confirmed by

Mr. Stanton who arrived at the site shortly after the inspection

began, and who indicated that h e intended to use the compacted

wallboard as a sub - base (or foundation) for a wallboard

recycling facility.

6. A second site inspection by Mr. Morgan conducted on

February 5, 2002, confirmed that the conditions (regarding the

piles of fill material but no t the standing water) at the site

were unchanged from those found on October 8, 2001. On that

visit, Mr. Morgan observed the site from his automobile but did

not walk the property. Two other site visits were made, one on

June 19, 2002, by other Departmen t personnel. Except for a

photograph (Petitioner's Exhibit C) dated June 19, 2002, which

indicates the piles of material were still intact and had not

been removed, the results of those inspections are not of

record.

7. Shortly after the initial inspecti on, the Department's

Tampa District Office issued a warning letter to Mr. Stanton

describing Mr. Morgan's observations and outlining the potential

violations. The letter also invited Mr. Stanton to resolve the

matter informally and to present a corrective action plan to

mitigate the site. When the matter could not be resolved

informally, the Department issued its Notice on October 10,

2002, alleging that Respondents had operated a solid waste

facility without a permit and had deposited solid waste in an

a rea prone to flooding. Even though the matter was not

informally resolved, Mr. Stanton has cooperated with the

Department in good faith throughout the regulatory process.

b. The Material on the Site

8. Invoices received in evidence reflect that the sour ce

of the deposited material was James Hardie Building Products in

Plant City, Florida, and that the material was described on the

invoices as "Dry Waste Material," Wet Waste Material," and

"Foreign Material." James Hardie Building Products manufactures

H ardieBoard, which is a one - half to one - inch thick concrete

formulated product used in the construction of homes and other

buildings, and HardiePipe, which is used in road and bridge

construction, culverts, storm sewers, and concrete pipes. The

material be ing deposited was material used in the manufacture of

HardieBoard. Mr. Stanton's long - range plans are to grind up, or

recycle, the material (after all necessary permits, if any, are

obtained) and then sell it to other persons, including cement

manufacturi ng plants in the area, who will then use it for a

variety of purposes, including subbase and base material, cement

and concrete re - additive, and cement production.

9. HardieBoard (as well as HardiePipe) is a variable

mixture of Portland cement, water, fi ne silica sand, less than

10 percent cellulose (a non - toxic organic material commonly

added to such products as ice cream, shampoo, baby diapers, and

rayon clothing), and less than 10 percent of inert materials.

The cellulose fibers are added to the concr ete to avoid cracking

and shrinkage and to reduce the weight of the product. Unlike

concrete used for driveways and the like, HardiBoard does not

have any large aggregate.

c. Disposal of Solid Waste and Clean Debris

10. Florida Administrative Code R ule 62 - 701.300(1)(a)

prohibits the storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste

except at a permitted solid waste management facility. In

addition, no solid waste may be stored or disposed of "[i]n an

area subject to frequent and periodic flooding unl ess flood

protection measures are in place[,]" or "[i]n any natural or

artificial body of water including ground water." Fla. Admin.

Code R. 62 - 701.300(2)(d) and (e). These requirements form the

basis for the charges in the Notice.

11. Florida Administr ative Code Rule 62 - 701.200(113)

defines solid waste in relevant part as "discarded material,

including solid, liquid, semi - solid, or contained gaseous

material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial,

mining, agricultural, or governmental operation s."

12. Section 403.707(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003),

provides, however, that a permit is not required for "[t]he use

of clean debris as fill material in any area." See also Fla.

Admin. Code R. 62 - 701.220(2)(f). "Clean debris" is defined in

Florida Ad ministrative Code Rule 62 - 701.200(15) as:

any solid waste which is virtually inert, which is not

a pollution threat to ground water or surface waters,

is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its

physical and chemical structure under expected

conditio ns of disposal or use. The term includes

brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete

including embedded pipe or steel.

13. The term "virtually inert" is not defined by statute

or rule. However, the parties agree that in order for a

material to be "virtually inert," it must have no potential for

leaking contaminants into the groundwater. In addition, if a

deposited material releases contaminants into the groundwater

thereby posing a threat to human health, it is considered a

"threat to [groundwa ter]" within the meaning of the rule. The

rule also provides that the material must not be a fire hazard.

Finally, if a material decomposes over time after being used as

fill, and releases contaminants into the groundwater, it is not

"likely to retain it s physical and chemical structure under

expected conditions of disposal or use." Therefore, if a

material has no potential for leaking contaminants into the

groundwater, is not a threat to groundwater, is not a fire

hazard, and is not likely to decompose over time, it constitutes

clean debris and is exempt from the waste management facility

permitting requirements.

14. As noted above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 -

701.200(15) identifies four materials that are considered to be

clean debris: brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated

concrete. If a waste product is classified as uncontaminated

concrete, it constitutes clean debris and may be used as fill

without a permit from the Department. Further, clean debris may

be deposited in an area subjec t to frequent or periodic flooding

so long as flood protection measures are taken, or in a natural

or artificial body of water so long as other appropriate permits

(such as an Environmental Resource Permit) are obtained.

15. Here, the central issue is whe ther the material

deposited on Mr. Stanton's property is solid waste or clean

debris. This issue turns on whether the material is virtually

inert, is not a pollution threat to groundwater or surface

waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain it s

physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of

disposal or use. Assuming these criteria are satisfied, the

material is exempt from Department permitting requirements for

solid wastes. On this issue, the Department contends that the

materi al is not virtually inert and is unlikely to retain its

physical and chemical structure. Conversely, Respondents assert

that the material is clean debris and falls within the category

of uncontaminated concrete.

d. Is the Deposited Material Clean Debris?

16. In determining whether a material is virtually inert,

or is a pollution threat to ground or surface waters, two

extraction procedures have been sanctioned by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the measurement of

the amount of contaminants that will leak from a material: the

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the

Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Under both

procedures, the material being tested is ground up into small

sand - size particles , mixed with an extraction fluid, and tumbled

for 18 hours in a rotary agitator while the liquid solution

extracts various metals that are found in the solids. The

extracted liquid solution is then filtered and analyzed to

determine the concentration of m etals actually leached from the

solids.

17. Under state water drinking standards found in Table 1

of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 - 550, the maximum

contaminant levels for chromium and barium (stated in milligrams

per liter (mg/L)) are 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively.

18. In reaching its conclusion that the fill material is a

solid waste, the Department relied principally on certain tests

of the material run by various laboratories between 1998 and

2000, which showed that the amount of chrom ium and barium

leaking out of the product exceeded the State drinking water

standards. See Petitioner's Exhibits K, L, M, and O. However,

in every one of those tests, the laboratories used the TCLP,

rather than the SPLC, which produced a worst case scena rio. For

the reasons stated below, the TCLP is not the appropriate

procedure to be used for this purpose.

19. The TCLP is the more aggressive of the two procedures,

uses a much harsher solution than the SPLC, and generally

leaches higher concentrations o f metals. However, its principal

purpose is to determine whether a material should be classified

as a hazardous waste based on its leaching properties or

characteristics. Using it to predict whether a material will

leach into ground water is inappropriat e because it will "leach

things out in the laboratory that will never leach in the

field." This is because it does not mimic conditions in the

field and is "just not supposed to be used for this purpose."

Therefore, TCLP leachate values should not be app lied to

drinking water standards.

20. Conversely, the SPLC uses a less harsh solution during

the preparation process, evaluates the potential for leaching

metals into ground and surface waters, and is designed to

provide a more realistic assessment of met al mobility under

actual field conditions. In other words, the SPLC simulates

what would happen if the sample were exposed to groundwater and

rain to determine if under those conditions metals might leach

into the water system below. Therefore, the SPLC is the more

appropriate procedure to use here to determine whether the

HardieBoard material will leach certain metals into the

groundwater at levels that exceed State drinking water

standards. Even various Department guidance documents provide

that the SP LC (rather than the TCLP) should be used to determine

if a material will leach metals into the ground water. See

Respondents' Exhibits M, N, and O.

21. Respondents' witness Foster collected three samples of

HardieBoard deposited by Respondents at anoth er site and

submitted them to PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc., in

Gainesville, Florida, for a clinical analysis using the SPLC

test. Those results, which have been accepted as being

reliable, 3 indicate that none of the leachate concentrations for

ars enic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and

silver exceed (or even approach) the drinking water standards.

Therefore, the material is virtually inert, and the groundwater

quality will not be adversely impacted by use of this material

as fill.

22. The parties agree that the material is not a fire

hazard.

23. Prior to depositing the material, Mr. Stanton used a

commercial waste reduction machine (a Smorcazy Bandit Beast 3680

Horizontal Trough Grinder) to grind or pulverize some of the

m aterial into fine particles. As noted earlier, a small amount

of cellulose fibers are added to the product during the

manufacturing process. The Department contends that after the

grinding process occurs, these fibers will separate from the

remaining fin e particles and dissolve into the ground water.

Because of this separation, the Department asserts that the

material does not retain its physical or chemical structure

after being deposited onto the property.

24. Although cellulose fibers are added to th e product

during its preparation to strengthen the material (and have been

added by cement manufacturers since the 1920s), they are

distributed throughout the matrix in the material. This means

that the fibers become "part and parcel of the mixture" and w ill

not deteriorate, fall out, or leach out of the material even

after routine grinding processes, such as that done by

Respondents. As such, the cellulose is not biodegradable, and

there is no concern that the cellulose will dissolve into the

groundwater . Indeed, HardiePipe, which is used in the

construction of culverts, storm sewers, and drainage pipes and

has essentially the same constituents as HardieBoard, was

approved by the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001 for

use on State road and brid ge projects. Therefore, it is found

that the fill material will retain its physical and chemical

structure after being deposited onto the ground.

25. Expert testimony by Dr. McClellan established that the

material meets the general definition of concrete , and because

it is uncontaminated, it should properly be classified as

uncontaminated concrete. As such, the material is clean debris

and is not subject to the Department's solid waste management

permitting requirements.

26. Finally, the Department po ints out that the

compressive strength (measured in pounds per square inch (PSI))

is much greater for concrete used in driveways than for

HardiBoard (2500 PSI versus 20 to 30 PSI), and therefore

Hardiboard is not a true concrete product. While the PSI val ues

are indeed substantially different, the load bearing ratio or

compressive strength of the material does not determine whether

a material falls within the generic category of concrete.

e. Water Issues

27. As noted above, if a material is classified as clean

debris, it may be deposited into an area prone to flooding or in

a natural or artificial body of water, including groundwater

(subject, of course, to other unrelated requirements or

safeguards). There is no evidence that the filling occurred in

a "natural or artificial water body," or directly into the

groundwater. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that in

October 2001, the ground next to the filled area had small

pockets of standing water measuring no more than a few inches

deep. However, when the inspection was made, and the

photographs taken, Polk County was experiencing rather heavy

rainfall, presumably due to the El Nino phenomenon. Whether

these conditions (pockets of standing water) exist on the

property only during the rainy season is not of record.

Further, prior to the filling, Mr. Stanton contacted both the

Southwest Florida Water Management District and the United

States Geodetic Survey and he asserted, without contradiction,

that neither agency indicated that his property was p rone to

flooding. In any event, even assuming that the area is subject

to "frequent and periodic flooding," the permit requirements or

other necessary safeguards, if any, associated with filling

clean debris in such an area are not the subject of this

pro ceeding.

f. Investigative Costs

28. A Department representative spent 66 hours

investigating this matter for the Department. At a then - hourly

rate of $18.54, this totals $1,223.64 in investigative costs.

The reasonableness of this amount was not disput ed by

Respondents.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

29. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 403.121, Florida

Statutes.

30. Sectio n 403.121(2), Florida Statutes, prescribes the

administrative enforcement process for the Department "to

establish liability and to recover damages for any injury to the

air, waters, or property . . . of the state caused by any

violation." Under that proc ess, the Department is authorized to

"institute an administrative proceeding to order the prevention,

abatement, or control of the conditions creating the violation

or other appropriate corrective action." § 403.121(2)(b), Fla.

Stat. The process is initi ated by "the department's serving of

a written notice of violation upon the alleged violator by

certified mail." § 403.121(2)(c), Fla. Stat. If a hearing is

requested by the alleged violator, "the department has the

burden of proving with the preponderan ce of the evidence that

the respondent is responsible for the violation." §

403.121(2)(d), Fla. Stat. Thereafter, "the administrative law

judge shall issue a final order on all matters, including the

imposition of an administrative penalty." Id.

31 . The dispositive issue in this case is whether the

material being deposited as fill (HardieBoard) by Respondents

constitutes solid waste and is therefore subject to Department

permitting requirements.

32. The evidence establishes that the material falls

within the category of uncontaminated concrete and is therefore

clean debris within the meaning of Section 403.707(2)(f),

Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 -

701.200(15). This being so, Respondents do not require a solid

waste manag ement facility permit under Florida Administrative

Code Rule 62 - 701.300(1)(a). Likewise, they have not violated

Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 701.300(2)(d) and (e), which

prohibits the disposal of solid waste in an area subject to

frequent or period ic flooding unless flood protection measures

are in place, or in any natural or artificial body of water,

including ground water. Finally, because there are no rule

violations, Section 403.161, Florida Statutes, has not been

violated. Therefore, administ rative penalties and corrective

action are not warranted, and the Notice must necessarily fail.

33. Finally, Section 403.121(2)(f), Florida Statutes,

provides as follows:

In any administrative proceeding brought by the

department, the prevailing party sha ll recover all

costs as provided in ss. 57.041 and 57.071. The costs

must be included in the final order. The respondent

is the prevailing party when an order is entered

awarding no penalties to the department and such order

has not been reversed on appe al or the time for

seeking judicial review has expired. The respondent

shall be entitled to an award of attorney's fees if

the administrative law judge determines that the

notice of violation issued by the department seeking

the imposition of administrati ve penalties was not

substantially justified as defined in s. 57.111(3)(e).

No award of attorney's fees as provided by this

subsection shall exceed $15,000.

34. Because no penalties have been awarded to the

Department, Respondents are the prevailing p arty in this

proceeding. Accordingly, jurisdiction is retained for the

limited purpose of determining the amount of costs, if any,

incurred by Respondents in defending this action, and

determining whether the Department was substantially justified

in issu ing its Notice, as contemplated by Section 57.111(3)(e),

Florida Statutes. When (and if) this Order becomes final, an

appropriate order will be entered containing further

instructions for the parties on this issue. 4

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fac t and Conclusions of

Law, it is

ORDERED that the Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective

Action, and Civil Penalty Assessment issued against Respondents

be dismissed, with prejudice. Jurisdiction is retained in this

matter to determine whether Responde nts are entitled to an award

of costs and fees, and if so, in what amount.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5th d ay of December, 2003.

ENDNOTES

1/ Unless otherwise noted, all future references are to Florida

Statutes (2002).

2/ The Department does not conduct its own laboratory tests to

determine if a material is a solid waste or qualifies for an

exemption fr om permitting requirements. Rather, it places the

burden of doing so on the alleged violator.

3/ Although the Department suggested that the laboratory may

have actually used the TCLP, rather than the SPLC, procedure for

its analysis, the deposition test imony of witness Jackson

indicates otherwise, and the documentation reflects that when

the samples were submitted to the laboratory, a specific request

to use the SPLC procedure was made by witness Foster.

4/ Even though Section 403.121(2)(f), Florida St atutes,

provides that "[t]he [award of] costs must be included in the

final order[,]" which implies that this issue, and all others,

be addressed in a single final order, the more practical and

efficient manner of handling the fees and costs issue is in a

separate and supplementary final order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lisa G. London, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Thomas S. Hogan, Jr., Esquire

The Hogan Law Firm

Post Office Box 485

Brooksville, Florida 34605 - 0485

Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel

Department of Environment al Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

Statut es. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of

the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied

by filing fee s prescribed by law, with the District Court of

Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in

the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of

appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to

be reviewed.