96-005344
Florida Power Corporation vs.
Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, September 23, 1997.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, September 23, 1997.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, )
12)
13Petitioner, )
15)
16vs. ) Case No. 96-5344
21)
22DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )
26PROTECTION, )
28)
29Respondent, )
31)
32and )
34)
35LEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL )
38ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC., )
42and SIERRA CLUB, INC., )
47)
48Intervenors. )
50_______________________________)
51RECOMMENDED ORDER
53Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case
64on June 2 and 3, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Donald R.
76Alexander, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division
85of Administrative Hearings.
88APPEARANCES
89For Petitioner: James S. Alves, Esquire
95Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire
99W. Steve Sykes, Esquire
103Post Office Box 6526
107Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526
110For Respondent: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire
1163900 Commonwealth Boulevard
119Mail Station 35
122Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
125For Intervenor: Gail Kamaras, Esquire
130(LEAF) Debra A. Swim, Esquire
1351115 North Gadsden Street
139Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6327
142For Intervenor: Jaime Austrich, Esquire
147(Sierra Club) Post Office Box 1029
153Lake City, Florida 32056-1029
157STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
161The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be
171issued an air construction permit authorizing its Crystal River
180steam generating plant Units 1 and 2 to co-fire a five to seven
193percent blend of petroleum coke with coal.
200PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
202This matter began on June 25, 1996, when Respondent,
211Department of Environmental Protection, issued its Intent to Deny
"220a permit for the proposed project to burn a blend of petroleum
232coke and coal in the existing coal-fired Units 1 and 2 at the
245Crystal River Power Plant." On October 4, 1996, Petitioner,
254Florida Power Corporation, filed a Petition for Formal
262Administrative Hearing with Respondent for the purpose of
270contesting the proposed agency action.
275The case was then referred by Respondent to the Division of
286Administrative Hearings on November 13, 1996, with a request that
296an Administrative Law Judge conduct a formal hearing. By notice
306of hearing dated December 2, 1996, a hearing was scheduled on
317February 3 and 4, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. At Petitioner's
327request, the hearing was continued to March 6 and 7, 1997. By
339agreement of the parties, the hearing was continued to June 3 and
3514, 1997.
353On May 27, 1997, Petitions to Intervene were filed by Legal
364Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. and Sierra Club, Inc.
372After an objection was lodged by Petitioner, the undersigned
381conditionally allowed the prospective intervenors to participate
388in this proceeding subject to proof of standing at final hearing.
399At final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of
407J. Michael Kennedy, manager of air programs in the Environmental
417Services Department and accepted as an expert in air quality
427permitting and compliance; Danny Douglas, plant manager for
435Crystal River Units 1 and 2 and accepted as an expert in power
448plant operations and management; Robert Kunkel, manager of
456systems performance engineering with ABB Combustion Engineering
463and accepted as an expert in power plant boiler design and
474engineering; and Kennard F. Kosdy, a principal in the
483environmental consulting firm Golder Associates, Inc. and
490accepted as an expert in air quality engineering and
499administration of air quality control requirements. Also, it
507offered petitioner's exhibits 1-47 and 49-67. All exhibits were
516received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Al
525Linaro, administrator/technical supervisor of the new source
532review program and accepted as an expert in air quality
542engineering with an emphasis on the Prevention of Significant
551Deterioration program. Also, it offered respondent's exhibits 1-
55924. All exhibits were received in evidence except exhibit 1.
569Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. offered
575intervenor's exhibits 1 and 2, which were received in evidence.
585The transcript of hearing (three volumes) was filed on July
5951, 1997. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were
606originally due on August 1, 1997, but this time was extended to
618August 15, 1997. Responses to each party's proposed order were
628authorized to be filed by August 25, 1997. All were timely filed
640by the parties, and they have been considered by the undersigned
651in the preparation of this Recommended Order. Finally, on
660September 5, 1997, Respondent filed a Motion to Strike certain
670attachments to Petitioner's Response to Proposed Recommended
677Order. The motion is dealt with in the Conclusions of Law
688portion of this order.
692FINDINGS OF FACT
695Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of
705fact are determined:
708A. Background
7101. Petitioner, Florida Power Corporation (FPC), is an
718investor-owned public utility engaged in the sale of electricity
727to approximately 1.2 million customers. Among others, it
735operates the Crystal River Power Plant consisting of five
744electric-generating units in Citrus County, Florida. Units 1, 2,
7534, and 5 are coal-fired, while Unit 3 is a nuclear unit.
7652. Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation
771(DEP), is a state agency charged with the statutory
780responsibility of regulating the construction and operation of
788business enterprises in a manner to prevent air pollution in
798excess of specified limits. Among other things, DEP issues air
808construction permits for a limited period of time to undertake
818and evaluate initial operations of a business enterprise; long-
827term approval subsequently is available under an air operation
836permit. As a part of this process, and pursuant to federal law,
848DEP engages in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
857review to determine if non-exempt alterations to major facilities
866result in net emission increases greater than specified amounts.
875Under certain conditions, however, the use of alternative fuels
884or raw materials are exempted from PSD review.
8923. Intervenor, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation,
898Inc. (LEAF), is a non-profit Alabama corporation licensed to do
908business in the State of Florida. It is a public interest
919advocacy organization whose corporate purposes include securing
926environmental and health benefits from clean air and water.
935Intervenor, Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club), is a public interest
945advocacy organization incorporated in California and doing
952business in Florida. Its corporate purposes include securing the
961environmental and health benefits of clean air and water.
9704. On December 26, 1995, FPC filed an application with DEP
981for an air construction permit authorizing it to burn a blend of
993petroleum coke and coal in its existing coal-fired Units 1 and 2
1005at the Crystal River Power Plant in Citrus County, Florida. In
1016the application, FPC did not address PSD review since it believed
1027it qualified for an exemption from PSD permitting under Rule 62-
1038212.400(2)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code. That rule exempts
1045from PSD review the
1049[u]se of an alternative fuel or raw material
1057which the facility was capable of
1063accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless
1069such change would be prohibited under any
1076federally enforceable permit condition which
1081was established after January 6, 1975.
10875. After reviewing the application, DEP issued an Intent to
1097Deny on June 25, 1996. In that document, DEP stated that
1108[a]ccording to information in Department
1113files, both Units 1 and 2 operated on liquid
1122fuel prior to January 6, 1975. Very
1129substantial modifications of the boilers and
1135pollution control equipment were implemented
1140thereafter by [FPC] to convert the units to
1148coal-firing mode. Therefore the project does
1154not qualify for the exemption from PSD review
1162claimed by the company.
11666. Contending that it was entitled to an exemption from PSD
1177review and therefore a permit, FPC filed a Petition for
1187Administrative Hearing on October 4, 1996. In its Petition, FPC
1197generally alleged that petroleum coke is a product with
1206characteristics very similar to coal; Units 1 and 2 were capable
1217of accommodating coal and petroleum coke as of January 6, 1975;
1228and contrary to the statements in the Intent to Deny, any boiler
1240modifications and pollution control improvements to those units
1248were minor and not substantial.
1253B. The Permitting Program
12577. The PSD program is based on similar PSD requirements
1267found in the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (the Act).
1280The permitting program is a federally required element of DEP's
1290State Implementation Plan (SIP) under Section 110 of the Act.
1300DEP has fulfilled the requirement of administering the federal
1309PSD program by obtaining approval from the Environmental
1317Protection Agency (EPA) of state PSD regulations that meet the
1327requirements of federal law. The requirements of the SIP are
1337found in Chapters 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-296, and 62-297,
1346Florida Administrative Code.
13498. Chapter 62-212 contains the preconstruction review
1356requirements for proposed new facilities and modifications to
1364existing facilities. Rule 62-212.400, Florida Administrative
1370Code, establishes the general preconstruction review requirements
1377and specific requirements for emission units subject to PSD
1386review. The provisions of the rule generally apply to the
1396construction or modification of a major stationary source located
1405in an area in which the state ambient air quality standards are
1417being met.
14199. Paragraph (2)(c) of the rule identifies certain
1427exemptions from those requirements. More specifically,
1433subparagraph (2)(c)4. provides that a modification that occurs
1441for the following reason shall not be subject to the requirements
1452of the rule:
14554. Use of an alternative fuel or raw
1463material which the facility was capable of
1470accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless
1476such change would be prohibited under any
1483federally enforceable permit condition which
1488was established after January 6, 1975.
1494The rule essentially tracks verbatim the EPA regulation found at
150440 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)1.
150710. Therefore, in order to qualify for an exemption from
1517PSD review, FPC must use "an alternative fuel . . . which [Units
15301 and 2 were] capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975."
1541In addition, FPC must show that "such change would [not] be
1552prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which
1560was established after January 6, 1975." Contrary to assertions
1569by Respondent and Intervenors, in making this showing, there is
1579no implied or explicit requirement in the rule that FPC
1589demonstrate that it had a subjective intent to utilize petroleum
1599coke prior to January 6, 1975.
1605C. The Application and DEP's Response
161111. In its application, FPC proposes to co-fire a five
1621percent (plus or minus two percent) blend of petroleum coke with
1632coal, by weight. It does not propose to make any physical
1643changes to Units 1 and 2 to utilize petroleum coke. Also, it
1655does not request an increase in any permitted air emission rates
1666for the units because it can meet its current limits while
1677burning the proposed blend rate of petroleum coke with coal.
168712. The application included extensive fuel analysis and
1695air emissions data obtained from a DEP-authorized petroleum coke
1704trial burn conducted from March 8 until April 4, 1995.
171413. Although it is not proposing to make physical changes
1724to the plant, FPC applied for the air construction permit in
1735deference to DEP's interpretation that such a permit is required
1745when a permittee utilizes an alternative fuel.
175214. After completing his initial review, the DEP supervisor
1761of the New Source Review program acknowledged in a memorandum to
1772his supervisor that FPC was "entitled to a permit" but suggested
1783that FPC be asked to "change their minds."
179115. Before the permit was issued, however, DEP changed its
1801mind and issued an Intent to Deny on the ground that prior to
1814January 6, 1975, Units 1 and 2 were not capable of accommodating
1826coal or a blend of petroleum coke with coal.
1835D. The Units
183816. Unit 1 has a generating capacity of 400 MW and
1849commenced operation as a coal-fired plant in October 1966. It
1859fired coal until March 1970, fuel oil until October 1978, and
1870then again fired coal from June 1979 to the present.
188017. Unit 2 has a generating capacity of 500 MW and
1891commenced operations as a coal-fired plant in November 1969. It
1901fired coal until September 1971, fired fuel oil from December
19111971 until October 1976, and then again fired coal from December
19221976 to the present.
192618. Original equipment installed during the initial
1933construction of Units 1 and 2 included the following: the barge
1944unloader, which removes coal from barges that deliver coal from
1954New Orleans; the stacker/reclaimer, which stacks the coal into
1963piles and then reclaims the coal by directing it from the coal
1975piles to conveyors that deliver it to the units; the crusher
1986house, which has two crushers that crush the coal on the way to
1999units down to nuggets no larger than three-quarters of an inch in
2011diameter; the silos, which store the crushed coal; the feeders,
2021located below the silos, which regulate the flow of coal from the
2033silos to the pulverizers; the pulverizers, which grind the coal
2043in preparation for combustion and then direct the pulverized coal
2053to the burners, which are located on the corners of each unit's
2065boiler; and the boilers, where the fuel is combusted, imparting
2075heat to water contained in the waterwalls and thereby producing
2085steam for electrical generation.
208919. The foregoing equipment was reflected in the plant's
2098construction specifications and remains in operation, on site, at
2107the plant. Components and parts of this equipment have been
2117maintained, replaced, and repaired periodically. The original
2124operations manual for the barge unloader, stacker/reclaimer,
2131crushers, and conveyor systems are still kept and utilized on
2141site.
214220. The primary fuel utilized in Units 1 and 2 is coal,
2154although these units also co-fire from one to five percent number
21652 fuel oil and used oil.
217121. The combustion of fuel in Units 1 and 2 results in air
2184emissions. As a result of changing regulatory requirements,
2192there have been substantial improvements to the units' air
2201pollution control capabilities since original construction.
2207E. Existing Air Permits
221122. Unit 1 currently operates under Air Operation Permit
2220Number A009-169341. Unit 2 operates under Air Operation Permit
2229Number A-009-191820. Both permits were amended by DEP on October
22398, 1996. Although each air operation permit contains an
2248expiration date that has been surpassed, the permits remain in
2258effect under DEP's regulations during the pendency of the
2267agency's review of FPC's applications for air operation permits
2276under the new Title V program found in Chapter 62-213, Florida
2287Administrative Code.
228923. The air operation permits governing Units 1 and 2
2299contain mass emission rate limitations of 0.1 pounds/million (mm)
2308British thermal units (Btu) or particulate matter (PM), and 2.1
2318pounds/mmBtu for sulfur dioxide. These mass emission rate
2326limitations restrict the amount of each pollutant (measured in
2335pounds) that is to be released into the atmosphere per million
2346Btu of heat energy by burning fuel. The PM limitation is
2357applicable to Units 1 and 2 under state regulations originally
2367promulgated in 1972.
237024. The sulfur dioxide limitation was established in 1978
2379as a result of a PSD air quality analysis performed in
2390conjunction with the permitting of Units 4 and 5. Prior to 1978,
2402sulfur dioxide limits promulgated early in 1975 imposed a limit
2412of 6.17 pounds/mmBtu on coal-fired operations at Units 1 and 2.
242325. Because Units 1 and 2 were subjected to a PSD air
2435quality impact analysis along with Units 4 and 5, the units'
2446sulfur dioxide emission limits were reduced from 6.17 to 2.1
2456pounds/mmBtu. The 2.1 pounds/mmBtu sulfur dioxide emission
2463limitation applicable to Units 1 and 2 was set with the intention
2475of assuring no adverse air quality impacts.
248226. The sulfur dioxide impacts associated with Units 1, 2,
24924, and 5, after collectively being subjected to PSD air quality
2503review, were much lower than the sulfur dioxide impacts
2512previously associated with only Units 1 and 2.
2520F. Is Petroleum Coke an Alternative Fuel ?
252727. Petroleum coke is a by-product of the oil refining
2537process and is produced by many major oil companies. The oil
2548refineries refine the light ends and liquid products of oil to
2559produce gasoline and kerosene, resulting in a solid material that
2569resembles and has the fuel characteristics of coal.
257728. Both historically and presently, it has been common-
2586place for electric utilities to rely on petroleum coke as fuel.
2597For example, during the period 1969 through 1974, regular
2606shipments of petroleum coke were sent to various electric utility
2616companies throughout the United States to be co-fired with coal.
2626In addition, DEP has issued permits for Tampa Electric Company to
2637co-fire petroleum coke with coal.
264229. In 1987 and again in 1990, the EPA promulgated air-
2653emission regulations which specifically define "coal" as
2660including "petroleum coke." DEP has incorporated these
2667regulations by reference at Rule 62-204.800(7)(b) 3. and 4.,
2676Florida Administrative Code.
267930. Given these considerations, it is found that petroleum
2688coke constitutes an alternative fuel within the meaning of Rule
269862-212.400(4)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code.
2702G. Were the Units Capable of Accommodating the Fuel ?
271131. Petroleum coke and coal are operationally equivalent.
2719Petroleum coke can be handled, stored, and burned with the
2729existing coal handling equipment at Units 1 and 2. The barge
2740unloader, stacker/reclaimer, storage areas, conveyors, silos,
2746crusher house, pulverizers, and burners, all installed prior to
27551975, can handle petroleum coke.
276032. The equipment comprising Units 1 and 2 does not require
2771any modification in order to burn a blend of petroleum coke with
2783coal. Also, there will be no net impact on steam generator
2794design or operation, and there will be no decline in performance
2805or adverse impacts to the boilers.
281133. FPC could have co-fired petroleum coke with coal
2820historically without making physical alterations or derating the
2828units. Similarly, petroleum coke can be fired in Units 1 and 2
2840now without alterations or derating. These findings are further
2849supported by Petitioner's Exhibits 35 and 36, which are reference
2859books published in 1948 and 1967 by the manufacturer of the
2870equipment installed at Units 1 and 2. They confirm that prior to
28821975, petroleum coke was suitable for the manufacturer's boilers
2891and pulverizers.
289334. Unrebutted testimony demonstrated that Units 1 and 2
2902could have co-fired petroleum coke with oil during the oil-firing
2912period. Even when Units 1 and 2 fired oil instead of coal for a
2926period of time in the 1970s, the coal-handling equipment remained
2936in existence on-site and available for use, and both units
2946remained readily convertible to their original, coal-firing
2953modes. Because the plant remained capable of accommodating coal,
2962it also remained capable of accommodating petroleum coke.
297035. In light of the foregoing, it is found that co-firing
2981petroleum coke with coal at Units 1 and 2 could have been
2993accomplished prior to January 6, 1975.
2999H. Are there Post-January 6, 1975, Prohibitions ?
300636. There is no evidence to support a finding that a
3017federally enforceable permit condition was establshed after
3024January 6, 1975, that prohibits co-firing petroleum coke with
3033coal.
3034I. Miscellaneous
303637. By letters dated February 14 and June 2, 1997, the EPA
3048Region IV office replied to inquiries from DEP regarding the
3058instant application. The conclusions reached in those letters,
3066however, were based on a misapprehension of the facts in this
3077case. Therefore, the undersigned has not credited these letters.
308638. To prove up its standing, LEAF introduced into evidence
3096a copy of its articles of incorporation and a brochure describing
3107the organization. In addition, it asserted that the air quality
3117for its members would be "at risk" if Units 1 and 2 did not meet
3132PSD standards and air emissions were "increased."
313939. Intervenor Sierra Club proffered that a substantial
3147number of members "live, work, or recreate in the vicinity of the
3159Crystal River Units 1 and 2, and in the area subject to the air
3173emissions by those units," and that those members "would be
3183substantially affected by the proposed exemption."
3189CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
319240. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
3199jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto
3208pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
321641. As the permit applicant, FPC has the ultimate burden of
3227persuasion of entitlement to an air construction permit. See ,
3236e . g ., Cordes v. State, Dep't of Environmental Regulation , 582 So.
32492d 652, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
325642. The contested issue in this case is whether FPC's
3266proposal to co-fire petroleum coke with coal is exempt from the
3277requirement to obtain a PSD permit under Rule 62-212.400(2)(c)4.,
3286Florida Administrative Code. That rule exempts from PSD review:
3295[u]se of an alternative fuel or raw material
3303which the facility was capable of
3309accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless
3315such change would be prohibited under any
3322federally enforceable permit condition which
3327was established after January 6, 1975.
3333If the exemption applies, FPC is entitled to an air construction
3344permit. If the exemption does not apply, the permit should be
3355denied.
335643. By a preponderance of the evidence, FPC has
3365demonstrated that petroleum coke is an alternative fuel within
3374the meaning of the PSD exemption. This conclusion is supported
3384by the established facts that petroleum coke is similar to coal
3395with respect to handling and combustion, has the characteristics
3404of fuel, and is commonly sold and utilized as fuel. Moreover,
3415both the EPA and DEP historically have referred to it as an
3427alternative fuel.
342944. FPC has also demonstrated that no federally enforceable
3438permit condition established since January 6, 1975, prohibits
3446utilization of a petroleum coke blend with coal at Units 1 and 2.
345945. Finally, by a preponderance of the evidence FPC has
3469established that co-firing petroleum coke in Units 1 and 2 could
3480have been accomplished prior to January 6, 1975. On this issue,
3491it was shown that the units could and did burn coal prior to 1975
3505and that petroleum coke is operationally equivalent to coal.
3514This being so, FPC is entitled to an exemption from PSD review,
3526and it should be issued an air construction permit.
353546. Intervenors have demonstrated, at least minimally, that
3543they are substantially affected by these proceedings and should
3552be accorded intervenor status. A showing of "special injury" is
3562not required. Friends of the Everglades v. Bd. of Trustees , 595
3573So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
358047. Respondent's Motion to Strike the attachments to
3588Petitioner's Response to Proposed Order is denied.
3595RECOMMENDATION
3596Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
3606law, it is
3609RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection
3616enter a final order granting the application of Florida Power
3626Corporation and issuing the requested air construction permit.
3634DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1997, in
3644Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
3648___________________________________
3649DONALD R. ALEXANDER
3652Administrative Law Judge
3655Division of Administrative Hearings
3659The DeSoto Building
36621230 Apalachee Parkway
3665Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
3668(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
3672Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
3676Filed with the Clerk of the
3682Division of Administrative Hearings
3686this 23rd day of September, 1997.
3692COPIES FURNISHED:
3694Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk
3698Department of Environmental Protection
37023900 Commonwealth Boulevard
3705Mail Station 35
3708Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3711James S. Alves, Esquire
3715Post Office Box 6526
3719Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526
3722W. Douglas Beason, Esquire
3726Department of Environmental Protection
37303900 Commonwealth Boulevard
3733Mail Station 35
3736Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3739Gail Kamaras, Esquire
37421115 North Gadsden Street
3746Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6327
3749Jaime Austrich, Esquire
3752Post Office Box 1029
3756Lake City, Florida 32056-1029
3760F. Perry Odom, Esquire
3764Department of Environmental Protection
37683900 Commonwealth Boulevard
3771Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3774NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
3780All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15
3791days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to
3802this Recommended Order should be filed with the Department of
3812Environmental Protection.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 01/13/1999
- Proceedings: Notice of Final Permit rec`d
- Date: 01/07/1999
- Proceedings: Final Order on Remand from the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida filed.
- Date: 07/29/1998
- Proceedings: (D. Robertson) Notice of Filing; Consent for Withdrawal of Counsel; Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel filed.
- Date: 03/04/1998
- Proceedings: Final Order filed.
- Date: 01/15/1998
- Proceedings: Response to Order on Remand sent out.
- Date: 11/24/1997
- Proceedings: DEP`s Response in Opposition to FPC`s Motion for Summary Response to Order of Remand (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/10/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Summary Response to Order on Remand filed.
- Date: 11/05/1997
- Proceedings: (DEP) Order of Remand; File Returned from Agency (3 Boxes) filed.
- Date: 10/21/1997
- Proceedings: Order sent out. (ruling on motion for Corrected Order is GRANTED)
- Date: 10/06/1997
- Proceedings: Florida Power Corporation`s Motion for Corrected Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/23/1997
- Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held June 2-3, 1997.
- Date: 09/12/1997
- Proceedings: Florida Power Corporation`s Response to Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion to Strike and, Alternatively, Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- Date: 09/05/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion to Strike filed.
- Date: 08/26/1997
- Proceedings: Letter to Parties of Record from C. Stauffer (re: transcription of hearing w/corrections) filed.
- Date: 08/25/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Reply to FPC`s Proposed Recommended Order; Petitioner Florida Power Corporation`s Response to Proposed Recommended Orders; Intervenors` Reply Memorandum of Law on Standing filed.
- Date: 08/18/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Amended Certificate of Service filed.
- Date: 08/15/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Filing; Replacement copy containing the entire duplicate version downloaded from the Internet filed.
- Date: 08/15/1997
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Memorandum of Law in Support of the Admissibility of Ancient Documents filed.
- Date: 08/15/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Florida Power Corporation`s Proposed Recommended Order; Florida Power Corporation`s Proposed Recommended Order; Notice of Filing Errata for Final Hearing Transcript; Errata filed.
- Date: 08/15/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 08/15/1997
- Proceedings: Intervenors` Memorandum of Law in Support of Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law; Intervenors` Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 08/07/1997
- Proceedings: Amended Index Page for Hearing Transcript Volume 3; & Cover Letter to Counsel of Record from K. Bentley filed.
- Date: 07/10/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 07/01/1997
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing; (Volumes 1 - 3 of 3) DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript filed.
- Date: 06/25/1997
- Proceedings: Florida Power Corporation`s Objection to Notice of Filing of Depositions by Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- Date: 06/16/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Filing; Evaluation of the feasibility of Converting from Oil-Firing for the Crystal River Plant Florida Power Corporation Crystal River, Florida, dated March 10, 1976 filed.
- Date: 06/12/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Filing; (2) Depositions of Al Linero filed.
- Date: 06/06/1997
- Proceedings: FPC Exhibit No. 67 filed.
- Date: 06/03/1997
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 06/02/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Amendment to Exhibit List and Witness List (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 05/30/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Prehearing Stipulation; Prehearing Stipulation filed.
- Date: 05/30/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Exhibit List and Witness List filed.
- Date: 05/29/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Taking Depositions filed.
- Date: 05/29/1997
- Proceedings: (From J. Alves) Notice of Additional Authority in Opposition to Petition to Intervene filed.
- Date: 05/29/1997
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response in Opposition to Petition to Intervene filed.
- Date: 05/29/1997
- Proceedings: Intervenor`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion in Opposition to Petition to Intervene; (Sierra Club, Inc.) Petition to Intervene filed.
- Date: 05/29/1997
- Proceedings: (Jamie Austrich) Amended Certificate of Service (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 05/28/1997
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response in Opposition to Petition to Intervene filed.
- Date: 05/27/1997
- Proceedings: (Sierra Club) Petition to Intervene (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 05/27/1997
- Proceedings: (Legal Environmental) Petition to Intervene filed.
- Date: 05/27/1997
- Proceedings: Florida Power Corporation`s Amended Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- Date: 05/21/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Taking Depositions filed.
- Date: 05/09/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 04/22/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 03/18/1997
- Proceedings: Third Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for June 3-4, 1997; 9:00am; Tallahassee; Prehearing Stipulation due by 5/30/97)
- Date: 03/17/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to the Order of Continuance filed.
- Date: 03/14/1997
- Proceedings: Petitioner Florida Power Corporation`s Notice of Availability of Hearing Dates and Motion for Pretrial Conference filed.
- Date: 03/04/1997
- Proceedings: Order sent out. (Petitioner`s stipulated motion for continuance is granted)
- Date: 03/03/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 03/03/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Stipulated Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 03/03/1997
- Proceedings: Florida Power Corporation`s Response to Florida Department of Environmental Protection`s Second Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 02/28/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to FPC`s Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- Date: 02/27/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Taking Depositions filed.
- Date: 02/21/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of taking Depositions filed.
- Date: 02/21/1997
- Proceedings: FPC`s Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- Date: 02/20/1997
- Proceedings: Petitioner Florida Power Corporation`s Amended Responses to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection`s Requests for Admissions filed.
- Date: 02/17/1997
- Proceedings: Petitioner Florida Power Corporation`s Responses to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection`s Requests for Admissions filed.
- Date: 02/12/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) (2) Revised Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 02/10/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 01/31/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Second Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 01/30/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 01/22/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Deposition Postponement (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 01/21/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 01/17/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Answers to Petitioner`s Request for Admissions; Department of Environmental Protection`s First Request for Production of Documents; Department of Environmental Protection`s First Request for Admissions filed.
- Date: 01/15/1997
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 01/14/1997
- Proceedings: Second Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for March 6-7, 1997; 9:00am; Tallahassee)
- Date: 01/10/1997
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Motion for Continuance filed.
- Date: 01/09/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Request for Oral Argument filed.
- Date: 01/09/1997
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion for Continuance filed.
- Date: 12/20/1996
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Service; Petitioner`s Request for Admissions filed.
- Date: 12/02/1996
- Proceedings: Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out.
- Date: 12/02/1996
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Feb. 3-4, 1997; 9:30am; Tallahassee)
- Date: 11/27/1996
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 11/18/1996
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 11/13/1996
- Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record; Agency Action Letter; Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.