WPCM3 Nbu IHgL/H0\\; 1s[Eg;juΑ/ nڌ!~"9ncs3.`8ȶ  ZxCl5Cgt?G+ `-SXI -Ӈ!AqRPlPaʩjG:gUD7 Zd5̃Q&9aK} r,סc3np-<Ƈ # ɱݱeNڮ^(gz.kE0ւ˘[xp'k?W˱~.?js;rd3iX`bFTm=`%)-\*n;6RJH H1Ӟ!)y׬'ĹF OR BP> gWd%2D8rD]s,W>'krjFj ࠻0ɞ[{fڮ^S0ԏg-oEb#\ %% ^ + 07 U N w 4 z%  q  m  K 0UN 0DE8E} 00s 0 0K 0   0 0v 0#( 0 0 0X 0) 0 0 00! 0! 0l" 0# 0#bP$ 0X$X$ 0&% 0% 0& 0$' 0' 0Z( 0(v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, 0J.J.J.J. B5/5/ 0R/ D3/ D-)0 0KV0V0 AS00 01 0D^2 A2HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 603  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=M3:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU HobbsHollemanSherrimootness P.J.Gov'tt]here erorB.U.R.N.T. Regsintervenor COAGovtBufordMotternTofiasCortlandAngelloCollegiumWitcherBilbreyRederAldridgeReederCommn NTTCLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ (_2623  ..(#$  0   ; R$      1  !  __NTTCs_Ԁequipmentconsistedofthreemunicipalwastecombustors,twogasandoilfiredboilers,fourcooling  towers,andtwochillers. R$      3  !  _SeeRegulationNo.13135(f).*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    i R$      2  !  _SeeMetropolitanBoardofHealth,PollutionDivision,RegulationNo.13, Part70OperatingPermit_Program_  (October12,1993)(amendedApril9,2002)(RegulationNo.13).*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x     R$      4  !  _Thisnoticeofviolationdoesnotappeartobeintherecord,althoughthepartieshaveincludedarevised  assessmentofcivilpenaltiesdatedOctober15,2002.Therevision,however,doesnotstatetheamountofpenalties t originallyassessedagainstNTTConFebruary8,2002.Mr.Woodassertsinhisbriefthatthepenaltiesamountedto 8 around$942,000.*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  - -(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x     R$      6  !  __TheCourtofAppealsmayaffirmajudgmentondifferentgroundsthanthosereliedonbythetrialcourtwhen  thetrialcourtreachedthecorrectresult.Continental_Cas_.Co.v.Smith,720S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.1986);Arnoldv.City t ofChattanooga,19S.W.3d779,789(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Allenv.NationalBankofNewport,839S.W.2d763,765 8 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Clarkv.Metropolitan_Govt,_Ԁ827S.W.2d312,317(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).  R$      5  !  _EventhoughtheUniformAdministrativeProceduresActappliestoproceedingsbeforestateagencies,the  MetropolitanCouncildecidedthatappealstotheBoardfromtheassessmentofcivilpenaltieswouldbetreatedasa t contestedcaseundertheUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct.Metro.Code10.56.090(C)(4).(|G2$ !.8Gdd8         0  ! d(|3$ !.8Gdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Gdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Gdd8     _TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter  _RX܏3'L3'LetterT  G8UXXdd8  @ IGINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#GIn#Ԉ &   November5,2004Session L XUXG #GXXUW#BRUCEWOODv.METROPOLITANNASHVILLE&DAVIDSON  6 COUNTYGOVERNMENTetal.XUXG   J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  6  @@No.023375IIIEllenHobbsLyle,Chancellor "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200301138_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember22,_2005_   AV) ` dE<h` A i    ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenacitizenandtheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleand P DavidsonCountyregardingtheregulatoryoversightofthenowdefunctNashvilleThermalTransfer < plant.TheMetropolitanDepartmentofHealthdecidedtoreopentheplantsoperatingpermitand (x toassessmonetarypenaltiesfortheplantsviolationsofairqualityregulations.Theplantappealed d thesedecisionstotheMetropolitanBoardofHealth.Whiletheadministrativeappealwaspending, P theplantandtheDepartmentofHealthsettledtheirdispute.TheBoardofHealthapprovedthe < settlementandevenreducedthemonetarypenaltiesassessedagainsttheplantovertheobjections ( ofaprivatecitizenwhohadunsuccessfullysoughttointerveneintheproceeding.Thecitizenthen  filedapetitionforacommonlawwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtseekingjudicialreview  oftheBoardofHealthsdecision.Aftertheplantwastotallydestroyedbyfire,thetrialcourt  dismissedthecitizenspetitiononthegroundthatitwasmoot.Weaffirmthedismissalbecausethe  citizenlackedstandingtofilethepetitionforacommonlawwritofcertiorari. t  #GXXU#XUXGK Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  L"!   #GXU #XUX.GWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks $$t# andFrankG.Clement,Jr.,JJ.,joined. %` $ BruceWood,Nashville,Tennessee,ProSe. &8"& #GXXU #XUXGKarlF.Dean,MargaretHolleman#GXXU#XUXG,andJohnL.Kennedy,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees, ($( MetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty,MetropolitanBoardofHealth,and )$) MetropolitanPublicHealthDepartment. *%* SharonO.Jacobs,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,NashvilleThermalTransplantCorporation. p,',   H.).  OPINION #GXXU#XUXG  #GXXUr#  XUXG@) I.     Duringthe1970s,theMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCountydecided ` toconstructapowerplantthatusedsolidwasteasfueltoprovideheatingandcoolingtothe L  buildingsinthedowntowndistrict.TheNashvilleThermalTransferCorporation(NTTC)was 8  formedforthatpurpose.Inthelate1990s,NTTCwasoperatingthreewastetoenergyboilersand $ t otherequipment #  1      ׀underaPart70operatingpermit #  2      ׀issuedin1998bytheMetropolitanDepartment  ` ofHealth(Department).OnMarch9,2000,theDepartmentissuedNTTCarevisedoperating  L  permit;however,ashorttimelater,theDirectorofHealth(Director)announcedthatshewas  8  consideringwhethersheshouldreopenthepermitapplicationforcauseh #  3      ׀basedonevidencethat $  NTTCwasnotoperatingincompliancewithapplicableairqualitystandards.     TheMetropolitanBoardofHealth(Board)conductedahearingonJanuary23,2002to   receivepubliccommentregardingthereopeningofNTTCspermit.BruceWood,aresidentof   Nashville,waspresentatthishearingandadvocateda safeclosedownofNTTC. p   Followingthehearing,theDirectorinformedNTTCthatshehaddeterminedthatseveral H sectionsofitspermitshouldberevisedorrevokedtoassuretheplantscompliancewithapplicable 4 airqualitystandards.However,shealsoinvitedNTTCtopresentacomprehensiveplanfor  p eliminatingexcessemissionsandotherwisecomplyingwithairqualityregulationswithinfifteen  \ days.Sixteendayslater,havingreceivednothingfromNTTC,theDirectorissuedan Official H NoticeofViolationtoNTTCallegingseventyfiveviolationsofitsoperatingpermitfromOctober 4 1,2001throughDecember31,2001.Apparently,thisorderalsoassessedsubstantialpenalties   againstNTTC." #  4      ׀     NTTCappealedtheDepartmentsdecisiontoreopenitspermit,aswellastheDepartments  noticeofviolationtotheBoard.AtapublicmeetingonFebruary12,2002,theBoarddecidedto  referNTTCsconsolidatedappealstoanadministrativelawjudgeinaccordancewithMetropolitan l GovtofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty,TennesseeCode10.56.090(C)(4)(1997)(MetroCode) X  andTenn.CodeAnn.45301to325(2005).Thereafter,theDirectorandNTTCagreedupon D! aplanofcompliancethataddressedalltheissuesraisedinthenoticeofviolation.Theyinformed 0"  theadministrativelawjudgeinalettertransmittingtheirproposedfinalorderthatportionsofthe  planrequiredEPAapprovalthathadnotyetbeenobtained.OnMay1,2002,theadministrativelaw  judgefiledaninitialorderrecitingthepartiessettlementanddirectingthemtosubmitaproposed  finalorderassoonastheEPAhadapprovedtheplan. t   OnMay3,2002,Mr.WoodfiledaprosemotionpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.24.01seeking L  tointerveneintheadministrativeproceedingsbeforetheadministrativelawjudge.Hestatedthat 8  hewasalongtimeenvironmentalistwithspecialinterestinsolidwaste,airpollution,andwater $ t qualityandthathewaspresidentofanenvironmentalgroupcalled BURNT(BringUrban  ` RecyclingtoNashvilleToday).Mr.WoodinsistedthatNTTChadpollutedNashvillesairandhad  L  operatedovertheyearswith humaneror[sic],poortraining,andbadmanagement.Accordingly,  8  heobjectedtotheproposedsettlement,demandedan openhearing...bytheHealthBoardora $  designatedHearingOfficer,andinsistedthattheadministrativelawjudgeshouldmakefindingsof   factregardingtheseventyfiveviolationscitedintheDirectorsnoticeofviolation.     OnMay13,2002,theadministrativelawjudgedeniedMr.Woodsmotiontointervene.He   pointedoutthatapplicationstointerveneweregovernedbyTenn.CodeAnn.45310(2005)and p Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.136041.12(2004),notbyTenn.R.Civ.P.24.Theadministrativelaw \ judgealsodeterminedthatMr.Wooddidnothavestandingtointervenebecausehefailedto H demonstratearecognizablelegalinterestintheproceedingsthat wouldbeadverselyaffectedbythe 4 resolutionoftheadministrativematterwithouthisintervention.Thejudgefurtherconcludedthat  p Mr.Woodsmotionwasuntimelybecausethepartieshadalreadyfiledanagreedinitialorderand  \ thusthecasehadalreadybeenconcluded.Finally,thejudgeconcludedthattheinterestsofjustice H andthepromptconductoftheproceedingswouldbeimpairedbyMr.Woodsinterventiondueto 4 thefactthatthepartieshadalreadyresolvedtheirdispute.     TheEPAapprovedNTTCscomplianceplanaftertheentryoftheadministrativelawjudges  order.Thereafter,theadministrativelawjudgefiledanagreedfinalorderonMay23,2002.This  orderprovidedthattheDepartmentwouldconsidertheexpensesincurredbyNTTCinconverting  tocleanergasburningboilerstooffsetthepenaltiesassessedinitsnoticeofviolation.Ironically, l theNTTCplantwasdestroyedbyfirelaterthatsameday. X    OnMay28,2002,Mr.Woodfiledamotiontoreconsiderthedenialofhisrequestto 0"  interveneintheenforcementproceedings.TheadministrativelawjudgedeniedthemotiononJune #l! 5,2002,notingthatinadditiontoMr.Woodslackofstanding,theenforcementproceedingwas $X" nowmootbecauseoftheentryoftheagreedfinalorderonMay23,2002.TheBoardunanimously $D # acceptedtheadministrativelawjudgesordersonJuly9,2002. %0!$   Mr.Woodremaineddissatisfied.DuringtheBoardsNovember12,2002meeting,he '#& insistedthattheBoardshouldreviewandvacatetheorderdenyinghispetitiontointerveneandthat (#' theBoardshouldreopentheenforcementproceedings.AfterlisteningtoMr.Wood,theBoard )$( declinedtopermithimtointerveneintheenforcementproceeding,pointingoutthattherewas |*%) nothinglefttoconsiderbecausetheentryoftheagreedfinalorderonMay23,2002effectivelyended h+&* theproceeding. T,'+ Ї  Stilldissatisfied,Mr.Woodfiledaprosepetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthe  ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyimmediatelyaftertheBoarddeniedhisrequesttointervene.  HetookissuewiththeBoardsrefusaltopermithimtointerveneintheenforcementproceedingas  wellaswiththeagreedfinalorder.Hemaintainedthathehadstandingtofilethepetitionbecause t helivedlessthanonemileawayfromtheNTTCplantandbecausehehadattendedtheBoards ` meetingsandhadspentlengthyamountsoftimeattheDepartmentresearchingairqualityviolations L  bytheNTTC. 8    OnOctober15,2002,theDirectorissuedarevisedassessmentofpenaltiesagainstNTTC  ` fortheviolationsnotedinthenoticeofviolation.Aftertakingintoaccountthefactsthattheplant  L  hadbeendestroyedbyfireandthatNTTChadincurredsignificantexpensesinstallingtemporarygas  8  boilersaftertheplantwasdestroyed,theDirectorrecommendedthatthemonetaryassessmentshould $  bereducedto$100,000.TheBoardconsideredtherevisedassessmentatapublicmeetingon   December10,2002.Mr.WoodandseveralothermembersofBURNTwerepresentatthemeeting   toexpressconcernsregardingNTTCsviolationsandtoprotesttherevisedpenalties.Afterlistening   totheargumentsofMr.Woodandhiscolleagues,theBoardunanimouslyvotedtoapprovethe   Directorsrevisedpenaltyassessment. p   OnFebruary4,2003,theMetropolitanGovernmentandNTTCfiledmotionsforamore H definitestatementandtodismissMr.Woodspetition.Mr.Woodslackofstandingwasoneofthe 4 groundsassertedinthemotiontodismiss.Mr.WoodfiledanamendedpetitiononFebruary14,  p 2003,inwhichheclaimed(1)thathehadbeendeniedanopportunitytoappealtheadministrative  \ lawjudgesMay23,2002agreedordertotheBoard;(2)thattheadministrativelawjudgefailedto H maketherequiredfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw;(3)thattheBoardpreventedhimfrom 4 exercisinghisrightstospeak,toassociate,andtoappealadecisionoftheDirector;(4)thattheClean   AirActprohibitedtheMetropolitanGovernmentfromregulatingandpermittingtheNTTCplant   becausetheCitywasresponsiblefortheplantsdesignandconstruction;and(5)thattherewasno  basisfortheBoardsdecisiontoreduceNTTCsalleged$942,000infinesforpreviousviolations  to$100,000.Accordingly,Mr.Woodrequestedthecourt(1)toorderthedefendantstoassemble  andfilearecordoftheproceedings,(2)toordertheBoardtoconductapermitclosurehearingfor l theNTTCplant,and(3)toorderthatthecitysattorneysbebarredfromrepresentingthedefendants X  duetoaconflictofinterestundertheCleanAirAct. D!   ThetrialcourtenteredanorderonApril1,2003,grantingtheMetropolitanGovernments #l! andNTTCsmotiontodismiss.ThecourtdeterminedthatthecasewasmootbecausetheNTTC $X" planthadbeendestroyedbyfireandthatthewasteincineratingportionshadnotbeenreconstructed. $D # ThecourtpointedoutthatrequiringtheBoardtoinstitutenewproceedingswasnotwarranted %0!$ becausetherewerenoplanstorebuildtheplant.Bythesametoken,italsopointedoutthatrequiring &"% theenforcementproceedingstobereopenedtoenableMr.Woodtoparticipateinthemwouldserve '#& nousefulpurpose.Mr.Woodfiledthisproseappealtakingissuewithwhatheperceivestobe (#' numerousproceduralandsubstantiveerrorscommittedbytheDepartmentandtheBoard. )$(  T,'+ @) II.  @ Mr.WoodsStandingtoSeekJudicialReviewoftheBoardsDecision     TheMetropolitanGovernmentandNTTCassertedinthetrialcourtandargueonthisappeal t thatMr.Woodlacksstandingtofileapetitionforacommonlawwritofcertioraritoreviewthe ` Boardsdecisionsatissueinthiscase.WhilethetrialcourtdismissedMr.Woodspetitiononthe L  groundofmootness,wehavedeterminedthatweshouldfirstaddressthestandingquestionbecause 8  decidingthecaseonthegroundofmootnessnecessarilypresupposesthatMr.Woodhadstanding $ t tofilethepetitionbutthatinterveningeventspreventedthecourt,asapracticalmatter,from  ` providinghimanyrelief.  L  @) A.  $    Thedoctrineofstandingisusedtodeterminewhetheraparticularplaintiffisentitledto   judicialrelief.Knierimv.Leatherwood,542S.W.2d806,808(Tenn.1976);Garrisonv.Stamps,   109S.W.3d374,377(Tenn.Ct.App.2003).Itrequiresthecourttodeterminewhethertheplaintiff   hasallegedasufficientlypersonalstakeintheoutcomeofthelitigationtowarrantajudicial p intervention.SunTrustBankv.Johnson,46S.W.3d216,222(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Browning \ FerrisIndus.ofTennessee,Inc.v.CityofOakRidge,644S.W.2d400,402(Tenn.Ct.App.1982). H Toestablishstanding,aplaintiffmustshow:(1)thatithassustainedadistinctandpalpableinjury, 4 (2)thattheinjurywascausedbythechallengedconduct,and(3)thattheinjuryisonethatcanbe  p addressedbyaremedythatthecourtisempoweredtogive.CityofChattanoogav.Davis,54  \ S.W.3d248,280(Tenn.2001);InreYoungblood,895S.W.2d322,326(Tenn.1995);Metropolitan H AirResearchTestingAuth.,Inc.v.MetropolitanGovt,842S.W.2d611,615(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). 4   Theprimaryfocusofastandinginquiryisontheparty,notonthemeritsofthepartysclaim.   ValleyForgeChristianColl.v.AmericansUnitedforSeparationofChurch&State,Inc.,454U.S.  464,484,102S.Ct.752,765(1982);Pettyv.Daimler/ChryslerCorp.,91S.W.3d765,767(Tenn.  Ct.App.2002).Thus,apartysstandingdoesnotdependonthelikelihoodofsuccessofitsclaim  onthemerits.Mayhewv.Wilder,46S.W.3d760,767(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);MetropolitanAir l ResearchTestingAuth.,Inc.v.MetropolitanGovt,842S.W.2dat615.However,becauseapartys X  standingmayhingeonthenatureofitsclaims,astandinginquiryrequiresa carefuljudicial D! examinationofacomplaintsallegationstoascertainwhethertheparticularplaintiffisentitledtoan 0"  adjudicationoftheparticularclaimsasserted.Allenv.Wright,468U.S.737,752,104S.Ct.3315, #l! 3325(1984). $X"   Thesortofdistinctandpalpableinjurythatwillcreatestandingmustbeaninjurytoa %0!$ recognizedlegalrightorinterest.Inmanycases,thisrightorinterestmaybecreatedordefinedby &"% statute.Thus,incaseswhereapartyisseekingtovindicateastatutoryrightofinterest,thedoctrine '#& ofstandingrequiresthepartytodemonstratethatitsclaimfallswithinthezoneofinterestsprotected (#' orregulatedbythestatuteinquestion.FederalElectionCommnv.Akins,524U.S.11,20,118S. )$( Ct.1777,178384(1998);ChattanoogaRy.&LightCo.v.Bettis,139Tenn.332,337,202S.W.70, |*%) 71(1918);JeffersonCountyv.CityofMorristown,No.03A019810CH00331,1999WL817519, h+&* at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.13,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). T,'+ Ї  Inordertohavestandingtofileapetitionforacommonlawwritofcertiorari,thepartyfiling  thepetitionmustdemonstratethatitis aggrievedbythedecisionsoughttobereviewed.Tenn.  CodeAnn.279101(2000).ForthepurposesofTenn.CodeAnn.279101,tobe aggrieved,  apartymustbeabletoshowaspecialinterestintheagencysfinaldecisionorthatitissubjectto t aspecialinjurynotcommontothepublicgenerally.Bufordv.StateBd.ofElections,206Tenn.480, ` 484,334S.W.2d726,728(1960);LeagueCent.CreditUnionv.Mottern,660S.W.2d787,79192 L  (Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Thepartymustalsoshowthatitwasapartytotheagencyproceedings 8  soughttobereviewed.CityofBrentwoodv.MetropolitanGovernment,149S.W.3d49,57(Tenn. $ t Ct.App.2004);Hortonv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,No.M199902798COAR3CV,2002WL  ` 31126656,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.26,2002)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).  L  @) B.  $    Mr.Woodwasnotapartytotheenforcementproceedings.Thisaloneundermineshis   standingtofileapetitionforacommonlawwritofcertiorari.Therefore,wemustfirstaddress   whethertheadministrativelawjudgeandtheBoardproperlydeniedhisrequesttointerveneinthe   enforcementproceedinginvolvingtheNTTCplant. p   NTTCsappealfromtheDirectorsdecisiontoreopenitspermitandtoassesscivilpenalties H wasgovernedbythecontestedcaseprovisionsoftheUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct.@ #  5      ׀ 4 Therefore,theproceduresandcriteriaofinterventionarefoundinTenn.CodeAnn.45310and  p Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.136041.12(2)(2004).Theseprovisionsaredesignedtostrikeabalance  \ betweenpublicparticipationinanadministrativeproceedingandtherightsoftheparties.Therights H ofthepartiescounterbalancesthedrivetoletallinterestedpersonsparticipate.2CharlesH.Koch, 4 Jr.,AdministrativeLawandPractice5.20[3],at4546(2ded.1997).Accordingly,   interventioninadministrativeproceedingsisnotofright,andadministrativeagencieshave   substantialdiscretionwhethertograntordenyintervention.Tofiasv.EnergyFacilitiesSitingBd.,  757N.E.2d1104,1109(Mass.2001);CortlandGlassCo.v.Angello,752N.Y.S.2d741,743(App.  Div.2002);WestChesterAreaSch.Dist.v.CollegiumCharterSch.,812A.2d1172,1186(Pa.  2002). l   TheadministrativelawjudgedidnoterrbydenyingMr.Woodsrequesttointerveneinthe D! enforcementdecisionaftertheDepartmentandNTTChadreachedasettlementregardingthe 0"  violationsenumeratedinthenoticeofviolation.ThereisnodoubtthatMr.Woodhadmadeithis #l! businesstocarefullyscrutinizetheoperationofNTTCsplantandthathewasextremelyconcerned $X" abouttheplantsimpactonNashvillesairquality.Whilecommendable,Mr.Woodsresearch $D # regardingpollution,hisactivitieswithBURNT,andhisfaithfulattendanceatpublicmeetingsdonot %0!$ necessarilygivehimarighttointerveneasapartyinenforcementproceedings. &"%   '#&   TheDepartmentisentrustedwiththepowertoenforcethecitysairqualityregulations.In   theabsenceofprooftothecontrary,wemustpresumethattheDepartmentwasdischargingitsduties  ingoodfaith,Williamsv.Am.PlanCorp.,216Tenn.435,441,392S.W.2d920,923(1965);State  exrel.Witcherv.Bilbrey,878S.W.2d567,576(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),andinthemannerprescribed t bylaw.Reederv.Holt,220Tenn.428,43536,418S.W.2d249,252(1967);Jacksonv.Aldridge, ` 6S.W.3d501,503(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Mr.Woodhasnotcited,andourindependentresearch L  hasfailedtouncover,anylegalauthorityforthepropositionthatcitizenswithgeneralizedgrievances 8  suchasMr.Woodmustbepermittedtoparticipateasapartyinanenforcementproceedingsuchas $ t theoneinvolvedinthiscase.Mr.Woodwasaffordedgreatlatitudeinpresentinghisinformation  ` andopinionstotheDepartmentandtheBoardateachpublicstepoftheproceeding.Accordingly,  L  wefindnoerrorintheadministrativelawjudgesdecisiontodenyhispetitiontointerveneasaparty  8  intheenforcementproceedingsregardingNTTCsplant. $  @) C.      WenowturntoMr.Woodsstandingtofilethepetitionforwritofcommonlawcertiorari.   BecausehewasnotapartytotheenforcementproceedingbeforetheBoard,hedidnothavestanding p toseekjudicialreviewoftheBoardsdecisionbeyonditsdecisiontoupholdtheadministrativelaw \ judgesdenialofhispetitiontointervene,whichwehavenowaffirmed.Inaddition,inallhis H papers,Mr.Woodhasfailedtopointouthowhehassustainedsomespecialinjurynotcommonto 4 thegeneralpublicbyvirtueoftheBoardsdecisiontoapprovetheagreedcomplianceorderandthe  p Directorsrevisedassessmentofadministrativepenalties.Thus,hefailedtodemonstratethathehas  \ standingtofilethepetitionunderTenn.CodeAnn.279101,andhispetitionshouldhavebeen H dismissedonthatground.8 #  6       4 @^^( III.      WeaffirmthejudgmentdismissingMr.Woodspetitionandremandthecasetothetrial  courtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoBruce  Woodforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue. l    `     h     ______________________________ #l!    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,P.J.,M.S.