STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: Application by GULF POWER ) COMPANY for Power Plant Site )
Certification Caryville Steam ) CASE NO. 75-436EPP Plant, Holmes/Washington County, )
Florida )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated hearing officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above style cause on June 23, 1975 at Caryville, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Applicant, G. Miles Davis
Gulf Power Post Office Box 12950 Company: Pensacola, Florida
For Department Vance W. Kidder
of Pollution 2562 Executive Center Circle Control: Tallahassee, Florida
By this application Gulf Power Company (Thereinafter referred to as Gulf Power or Applicant) seeks a power plant siting certification in accordance with Section 403.506 et seq. Florida Statutes. The purpose of the hearing, which was conducted pursuant to Section 403.508 Florida Statutes, was to determine whether or not the proposed site is consistent, and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Four witnesses testified in behalf of the application and six exhibits were admitted into evidence. There were no protestants.
The proposed site consists of approximately 1500 acres. It is proposed to construct a coal fired plant consisting of one
500 megawatt unit to put into operation by June 1, 1980. A second
500 megawatt generator is planned for completion no later than June 1, 1981. To meet future power needs, Gulf Power is planning the site to allow potential expansion to a generating capacity of
3,000 megawatts. The intake and discharge will be into the Choctawhatchee River.
Exhibit 1, a plat plan of the site, Exhibit 2, Notices of Publication, Exhibit 3, News release dated June 12, 1975, Exhibit 4, Resolution of Board of County Commissioners of Holmes County, Exhibit 5, Resolution of Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, and Exhibit 6, Resolution of the City of Caryville, were admitted into evidence. The proposed site is partly in the city of Caryville and part of it is in Holmes County, and part in Washington County. By resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Holmes County (Exhibit 4) the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed site. That site is consistent with the planning requirements of Holmes County. By resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, (Exhibit 5) those county commissioners also approved the proposed site and the resolution stated that the use of the proposed site is in accord with zoning and land use requirements of Washington County. They do not have any zoning laws for the unincorporated area of the county. By resolution of the city of Caryville (Exhibit 6) the city of Caryville approved the proposed use of the site. Caryville does not have any zoning requirements for that part of the land in question which is within the city limits of Caryville.
In view of the absence of protest, the evidence need not be further delineated except to say that the proposed site conforms with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances in effect as of the date of the application. From the foregoing it is concluded that the granting of the application will not be inconsistent with the land use plans and zoning ordinances for the proposed site. It is therefore,
RECOMMENDED that the application of Gulf Power Company for a land use siting certificate be approved so as to authorize the use of a 1500 acre tract of land in Holmes/Washington counties and City of Caryville for a proposed power plant site.
DONE and ENTERED this 22nd of July, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida.
K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: Application of GULF POWER ) COMPANY for Power Plant Site )
Certification, Carryville Steam ) CASE NO. 75-436EPP Plant, Holmes/Washington County, )
Florida )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated hearing officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled cause on December 3 and 4, 1975, at Carryville, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Gulf Power G. Miles Davis, Esquire Company: Beggs & Lane
Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576
For Florida Public Barrett G. Johnson, Esquire Service Commission: 700 South Adams Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
For Department of William P. White, Jr., Esquire Environmental 2562 Executive Center Circle Regulation: Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By this application, Gulf Power Company (Applicant or Gulf), who is duly authorized to serve customers in the panhandle portion of Florida west of the Apalachicola River, seeks certification as required by Section 403.501 et seq. F.S. to construct and operate an electrical power plant in the vicinity of Carryville, Florida. Gulf proposes to construct a steam plant capable of generating 3,000 megawatts (mw) of electricity commencing with an initial capacity of 500mw coming on line in 1980 and a second 500mw in 1981. Thereafter the additional capacity up to 3,000mw will be added incrementally as required to meet demand. Cooling water will be drawn from the Choctawhatchee River and after passing through condensers and heat exchangers pumped into 450 foot high cooling tanks where evaporation cooling will occur. Coal will be
delivered by rail, unloaded from hopper cars at an unloading trestle and transported to the furnaces by a conveyer. Exhaust from furnaces will be transmitted to the atmosphere through a 700 foot high stack fitted with appropriate equipment to insure the discharge meets environmental standards.
At an original hearing held on June 23, 1975, evidence pertaining to existing land use plans and zoning was presented and on July 22, 1975, a Recommended Order was submitted in which the proposed site was found to conform with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
At the instant hearing, conducted pursuant to Section 403.508(3), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-17.11 FAC, evidence was received pertaining to the necessity for the expanded electrical generation, the expected environmental impact of the proposed power plant, the operational safeguards that should be required as a condition to certification, and other public interests to be considered in carrying out the legislative intent of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Law. Detailed studies required by Section 403.507, F.S., were completed and reports of these studies were received into evidence at this hearing.
Six witnesses testified on behalf of Gulf, one witness testified on behalf of the Public Service Commission (PSC), two witnesses testified on behalf of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and twenty-three exhibits were admitted into evidence. There were no witnesses or intervenors from the general public or from municipal or county agencies.
FINDINGS OF FACT
All parties involved concurred that there is a necessity for expanded generating capacity to serve Gulf's customers and that the two initial units of 500mw each can meet this requirement.
The parties stipulated that the power plant site certification application submitted by Gulf (Exhibit 1) deals sufficiently with the issue of operational safeguards and further that DER's proposed conditions of certification contain a condition that adequately addresses that issue.
All agencies involved recommended certification; however, DER's recommendation was predicated upon Gulf complying with the general and special conditions or certifications contained in
Exhibits 4 and 5. Gulf agreed to all those conditions but three, viz: 1. That the water intake and return lines to the river cross the wetlands on a trestle instead of the causeway proposed by Gulf; 2. A more extensive monitoring program and without termination date than the fixed period monitoring program proposed by Gulf; and 3. Restrictions upon use of herbicides to clear transmission line corridors in excess of those placed by federal and state authorities. In addition DER proposed in general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) to modify in the future the conditions of certification by any new or more stringent department rule enacted pursuant to Chapter 120 F.S. Gulf objected to this condition of certification and submitted a brief in opposition thereto.
I
With respect to Item number 1 the proposed causeway will occupy some 8 acres of wetlands. It is proposed to commence the causeway at elevation + 58 feet (above MSL), which is the 25 year predicted high water flood level in the Choctawhatchee River flood plain, and continue the causeway some 2400 feet at this elevation tot he river bank. The base of the proposed causeway will have a maximum width of 130 feet at a point near the river's edge where the causeway height will be 23 feet (T91). The top width is roughly 60 feet (T90) of which 18 feet will be paved surface. To the north of the access road will be a buried electrical service to carry electricity to the pumps. In the causeway to the south of the access road will be buried two intake lines of 30 inch diameter and one water discharge line. Near the river end of the causeway a vehicle turn-around area will be provided.
The causeway across the wetlands will run in a southwesterly direction from plant site parallel to the principal direction of flood water flow when the river is out of its banks. Five oval-shaped culverts will be placed in the causeway at the lowest points of natural contour and permit water to pass through the causeway to equalize levels on both sides of the causeway. These culverts will be 6 feet wide by 3 feet 8 inches high. During the wet season water will be standing in most of these culverts.
If the causeway were built in the same location, but without culverts, so as to block any flow normal to the causeway, the build up of water on the north side of the causeway would be only 1 or 2 inches at full flood stage of 57 feet (T146).1 Accordingly, the causeway would have little, if any, effect on the water flow in the wetlands over which this causeway passes; and,
but for the 8 acres of wetlands eliminated by the construction of the causeway, the ecological function of these wetlands will be virtually unimpaired. As a collector of sediment from the flood waters the flood plain would also be unimpaired by the construction of the causeway (T154). The cost of constructing the causeway as proposed is $216,000.
As a condition of certification (Ex 5 D 1 b) DER prescribed "a trestle shall be used for access to the platform for all areas west of station 14 + 00." This includes the access across the wetlands and presumably it is DER's position that the intake and discharge pipes from the Choctawhatchee River shall be placed upon a trestle structure rather than upon a causeway. The only evidence presented with respect to the cost of the trestle structure was presented by Gulf that a concrete pile trestle to support the pipes and access road would cost some $900,000. A creosoted pile trestle to perform the same function would cost approximately $600,000 and to provide fire protection for the piling would cost another $250,000, which would place the cost of either type trestle some four times the cost of the causeway. No maintenance costs or useful life comparisons of the trestle and causeway were presented. Both trestle and causeway would require the same corridor to be cleared thus the construction of either would result in the same ecological damage. Thereafter, however, the vegetation and other indicia of wetlands could return under the trestle. While evidence was presented that the causeway would occupy 8 acres of former wetlands no evidence was presented of the area occupied by the piling of the trestle. It is obvious that this would be a small fraction of the area occupied by the causeway, but not necessarily insignificant.
Gulf opposed the trestle concept for two additional reasons. The exposed pipe on the trestle, if of steel, would require painting and would conduct heat from the sun to the water passing through the pipe.
Testimony was presented that ecologists not present had evaluated wetlands in general as having an ecological value of between $1,000 and $20,000 per acre per year. If these figures have economic reality all wetland should have a market value of at least $10,000 per acre. Regardless of this if we assume the values presented are real and the cost for the access corridors are correct, the following economic comparisons can be made. The difference in the cost of the causeway and trestle is approximately $700,000. If this money is borrowed by Gulf at 8 1/2 percent interest the interest cost is almost $60,000 per year. Since this would be a valid capital expense this interest cost
will be reflected in the rates of Gulf's customers. If the wetlands are ecologically worth $7,500 per acre per year the 8 acres here involved would also have a value of $60,000 per year.
In this connection it should be noted that DER's condition of certification specifying trestle across wetlands was based solely on ecological factors and cost was not considered (T308).
During the course of the hearing considerable evidence was presented regarding a third alternative for piping water to and from the river, viz. in pipes buried across the wetlands.
This evidence was insufficient in numerous aspects to give it viability; however, several aspects of this proposal are worthy of note.
Any pipe that is used to carry cooling water requires some degree of slope to permit the pipe to be drained. From a position near SR 179 (where if underground pipes are used the pumps would have to be placed to provide access for maintenance) the pipe could be buried; but, at some point in the flood plain, the pipe would have to be placed upon a trestle to maintain slope to the river's edge (T287).
Burying pipes across the wetlands would have the least ecological impact upon the wetlands. Once the pipe path was trenched, suitable bearing material placed in the trench to support the pipe, the pipe laid and the trench back filled the wetlands would return to natural state and the area involved resume most of the characteristics of wetlands.
Problems associated with this proposal include providing all-weather access to the inside of the pipe; obtaining suction on pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 + feet above the level of the water to be pumped; long periods of shutdown in case a section of pipe required replacement; and routine engineering problems in obtaining a constant slope upon installation.
Regardless of the path taken by these pipes some difficulties with corbicula clams are expected. These creatures are endemic to the Choctawhatchee River and will be entrained in the pipe. There they will attach themselves and as they grow restrict the flow in the pipes. Although chlorination at the inlet is expected to help control this problem periodic cleaning of the intake pipes may be required. Accordingly, access to these pipes at all stages of the water level in the flood plain is an important concern.
While testimony presented that it was possible to obtain suction with pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 feet higher than the level of the water to be pumped, it was also acknowledged that this 2400 feet of 30 inch pipe would "probably" have to be primed before the pumps could pick up suction. (T305-306). Cost and feasibility of providing all weather access to the buried pipes, and of providing capability to prime the remote pumps was not presented. Furthermore the cost associated with burying the pipes across the wetlands was not presented. Accordingly this concept should not be further considered.
II
With respect to the biological monitoring program to be carried out by Gulf to determine the effects of the power plant on river organisms, DER, as a condition of certification, proposes a program that will continue for the life of the plant regardless of the conclusions reached from such monitoring. Gulf, on the other hand, proposes a monitoring program to commence prior to the operation of Unit I to determine the base line conditions and continue for one year after commencement of operations of Unit I. Thereafter when Unit II comes on line the monitoring program would be reinstituted and continue for one more year. Since Unit II is scheduled to come on line one year after Unit I the monitoring program proposed by Gulf would actually be continuous for about 2 1/2 years.
All parties generally agreed that monitoring is required to ascertain the ecological effects of the plant on the aquatic life in the river. One type monitoring is needed to determine the effect of impingement and entrainment at the intake. The intake structure is designed so the plant of the intake screen is parallel to the current flow. This largely eliminates impingement of fish and other aquatic life on the intake screen as the current flow would tend to wash aquatic life off the screen. Since water is drawn into the intake at a speed of 1/2 foot per second those aquatic life in the volume of water entering which are small enough to pass through the screens will be entrained and killed in the filters. It is to determine the quantity and composition of the aquatic life so destroyed that this part of the monitoring program is intended. The second part of the monitoring program involves ascertaining the aquatic life in the river above the plant and below the point of discharge of the returned cooling water in order to ascertain the effect of the discharged water on the aquatic organisms.
With respect to the entrainment monitoring there was considerable confusion in the testimony regarding anticipated findings. Gulf's witness stated that at low river and low flow conditions the greatest number of organisms would be entrained. While it is obvious that the greatest percentage of available water will be removed from the river during low flow conditions (since the same quantity or volume of water will be withdrawn as at high flow conditions) it is not obvious that there will be a higher density of aquatic organisms in the river at this same time; and no one so testified. In fact the testimony was that various organisms in the water may change radically (of a magnitude of 1,000 to 1) at various times throughout the year. It would appear that whatever concentration of aquatic organisms that exist in the thalweg of the river would exist in the water withdrawn through the intake pipes and be entrained. Those organisms that exist in slack water portions of the river, swim or otherwise remain out of the current passing near the intake would not be entrained. Thus a sampling point in the current near the intake would provide adequate information on the effects of entrainment. The program proposed by Gulf and contained in Exhibit 21 appears adequate for this determination.
With respect to the monitoring required to ascertain the effects of the plant operation on the river ecosystems Gulf proposed sampling only periphyton while DER's condition or certification (Exhibit 5) provides for a sampling to include phytoplankton, zoo plankton, ichthyoplankton, nutrient analysis, benthos and fish. These samples would be taken at points above and below the plant intake and discharge for the obvious determination of the effects on the river ecological system resulting from the discharge of the used cooling water back into the system. In this regard it should be pointed out that the water to be discharged will be treated to remove heat, solids, and other concentrations that would affect compliance with the EPA standards.
No valid cost estimates for the monitoring program proposed by either Gulf or DER was presented. One witness upon cross examination gave a ball park "guesstimate" of $50,000 per year for Gulf's proposed program and $100,000 per year for DER's program. The witness expressly disallowed any credit for the accuracy of these figures and accordingly they are disregarded. They are inserted here simply because cost of the end product, electricity, is a factor to be considered in determining under what conditions this certification should be granted.
As noted above, Gulf proposes to continue the monitoring program for approximately 30 months (until one year after Unit II has come on line) while DER proposes a monitoring program that will continue for the life of the plant. The biological community sampling program contained in Exhibit 5, part II C should be followed. The time during which these programs should be continued will be discussed under Conclusions.
III
All parties generally agreed that the use of herbicides was required to clear vegetation from transmission line corridors in wet areas where mechanical equipment cannot operate. Gulf proposes to use Kuron, a herbicide approved by both state and federal authorities. It will be used in wet areas only at a frequency not to exceed once per year and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions admitted into evidence as Exhibit 22. At the hearing DER appeared to take the position that approval by DER should be obtained prior to each time the herbicide is used. The evidence presented clearly shows that Kuron is a safe non- persistent herbicide which, when applied in accordance with instructions, will cause no harm to untargeted vegetation. All of the transmission line routes were not finalized at the time of the hearing but when the remainder of these corridors are finalized there appears to be no reason that Gulf should not provide DER with a map of these corridors indicating thereon those areas in which herbicides will be used.
IV
No factual evidence regarding general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) was presented. Accordingly these will be treated solely as a matter of law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In part II of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, the legislative intent of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Law provides in Section 403.502 in pertinent part:
". . . the state shall insure through available and reasonable methods that the location and operation of electrical power plants will produce minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. It
is the intent to seek courses of action that will fully balance the increasing demands for electrical power plant location and operation with the broad interest of the public. Such action will be based on these premises:
To assure the citizens of Florida that operation safeguards are technically sufficient for their welfare and protection.
To effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility and the environmental impact resulting from construction and operation of the facility, including air and water quality, fish and wildlife, and the water resources and other natural resources of the state.
To provide abundant, low cost electrical energy."
Since there is no question of the need for the proposed facility the primary interest that must be balanced are the environmental impact of various courses of action and the cost of these various options.
The first area where such balance must be applied is in the water intake and return corridor between the plant and the river. Although trestle-like structures have been required across other wetlands where power plant sitings were involved, here the only evidence of ecological damage is that resulting from the loss of wetlands area due to the construction of the causeway. The only evidence of cost differential between causeway and trestle was that the trestle would cost some $700,000 more than the causeway. It is the balance of this cost against the loss of 8 acres of wetland that must be made. Based upon findings noted earlier, it is concluded that the causeway construction should be approved.
The principal issue regarding biological monitoring of the water of the Choctawhatchee River is the duration of the program. Insufficient evidence was presented to support DER's position that such monitoring should continue for the life of the plant. On the other hand insufficient evidence was presented regarding the cost of the programs proposed from which a cost benefit analysis and determination can be made. It is therefore concluded that this issue should be reconsidered at a future date.
Whether or not general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) should be approved presents a serious question of law. These sections provide:
"(a) upon the adoption by the department of a rule pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, containing limitations or requirements applicable to any then continuing or future activities under this certification, which rule provisions are new or more stringent than the requirements contained herein, the conditions of this certification shall be automatically modified consistent with such rule.
(b) After review of such information as the department deems appropriate, the department may, by order of the Secretary or his designee, modify the conditions of this certification as it deems necessary to attain the objectives of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The department shall provide notice and an opportunity for hearing in accordance with Chapter 403 and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto."
Section 403.511(1), Florida Statutes, provides:
"The certification agreement shall authorize the electric utility named therein to construct and operate the proposed electrical power plant subject only to the conditions set forth in such certification."
If conditions 11(a) and (b) are included in the certificate this would have the effect of removing all finality from the certification agreement and thereby make it subject to future conditions imposed by an agency. This appears to be in direct conflict with the provisions of the statute above quoted and therefore an unauthorized condition. This is not to say the legislature cannot, at any future date, impose more onerous conditions of operation or restrictions upon Gulf; only that the law now extant militates strongly against an agency retaining such powers as a condition to site certification. Other reasons these conditions should be stricken were submitted by Gulf in its brief in opposition to these conditions. Since I consider the above to
be dispositive of the issue those reasons advanced by Gulf are not reached.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Gulf Power Company should be issued a certificate to construct and operate an electrical power plant in Holmes and Washington counties as proposed in its application (Exhibit 1). It is further concluded that the conditions of certification (Exhibits 4 and 5) are valid conditions requiring trestle across wetlands, water monitoring for the life of the plant, prior approval before using Kuron in transmission line corridors and special conditions 11(a) and (b).
It is RECOMMENDED that the application of Gulf Power Company for a power plant site certificate be granted so as to authorize the construction and operation of a coal-fired steam generating electrical power plant near Carryville, Florida in accordance with Exhibit 1. It is further
RECOMMENDED that this approval be conditioned upon compliance by Gulf with the conditions of certification contained in Exhibit
4 and 5 except conditions II D 1 (b) (Exhibit 5), general conditions 11(a) and (b), (Exhibit 4), and that condition II C (Exhibit 5) be modified to provide such monitoring shall commence not less than six months prior to completion of Unit I and continue for a period of three years after completion of Unit II. At this time Gulf may petition DER for authority to discontinue said monitoring or to modify same and if such request is not approved Gulf shall be entitled to a hearing at which evidence shall be presented from which a determination can be made whether the benefits of said monitoring program justify the costs involved.
DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.
K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida
(904) 488-9675
ENDNOTE
1/ Although the witness said 60 feet this height would exceed the elevation of the causeway and no build up could result.
COPIES FURNISHED:
G. Miles Davis, Esquire Beggs & Lane
Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576
Barrett G. Johnson, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 700 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
William P. White, Jr., Esquire 2562 Executive Center Circle East Montgomery Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
In re: Application of GULF POWER COMPANY for Power Plant
Site Certification, Caryville DOAH Case No. 75-436EPP Steam Plant Holmes/Washington Application No. PS 75-07 County, Florida
/
The following persons were present and participated in the disposition of this matter:
Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew Governor
Honorable Bruce A. Smathers Secretary of State
Honorable Robert L. Shevin Attorney General
Honorable Philip F. Ashler
Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner
Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller
Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture
Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education
ORDER
THIS MATTER having come on to be heard by the Governor and the Florida Cabinet in exercising their functions under Sections
403.501 through 403.515, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Chapter 75- 22, Laws of Florida, the Recommended Orders of the hearing
officer, and the Stipulations between the Applicant and the Department having been considered and the parties and the public having been offered an opportunity to make comment and present arguments, it is therefore,
ORDERED, by the Governor and the Florida Cabinet that the Recommended Orders of the hearing officer (Exhibits I, II, and III are approved and adopted except that they are hereby modified to be consistent with and to include, in the Conditions of Certification (Exhibits IV and V), the language indicated in the Stipulations between the Department and the Applicant (Exhibits VI and VII). Accordingly, Certification for the first two (2) five hundred (500) megawatt units of the proposed facility is hereby issued in accordance with said Recommended Orders as modified herein.
DONE the 4th day of May, 1976.
ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1976, at Tallahassee, Florida.
FOR THE GOVERNOR AND FLORIDA CABINET
REUBEN O'D. ASKEW
Governor
VOTE:
FOR: AGAINST:
Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew Honorable Bruce A. Smathers Honorable Robert L. Shevin Honorable Philip F. Ashler Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Honorable Doyle Conner Honorable Ralph D. Turlington
Copies furnished to:
William P. White, Jr.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Barrett G. Johnson
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Louis F. Hubener
DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING
G. Miles Davis GULF POWER COMPANY
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 13, 1977 | Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1975 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 07, 1976 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 22, 1975 | Recommended Order | Absent protest and with showing of consistency with land use in the area, grant permit for power station. |
