96-005344 Florida Power Corporation vs. Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, September 23, 1997.


View Dockets  
Summary: Where power units capable of burning petcoke prior to January 6, 1975, utility entitled to exemption from Prevention of Significant Deterioration review. Agency reversed.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
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.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/05/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/04/1999
Proceedings: Other
PDF:
Date: 01/04/1999
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
Date: 07/29/1998
Proceedings: (D. Robertson) Notice of Filing; Consent for Withdrawal of Counsel; Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/1998
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
Date: 03/04/1998
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/1998
Proceedings: Other
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.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/1997
Proceedings: Remanded from the Agency
PDF:
Date: 10/21/1997
Proceedings: Other
Date: 10/21/1997
Proceedings: Order sent out. (ruling on motion for Corrected Order is GRANTED)
PDF:
Date: 10/06/1997
Proceedings: Other
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.

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
11/13/1996
Date Assignment:
11/18/1996
Last Docket Entry:
01/13/1999
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (1):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):