STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ) CERTIFICATION OF ORLANDO UTILITIES )
COMMISSION, ET AL., FOR CURTIS H. ) CASE NO. 91-1813EPP STANTON ENERGY CENTER UNIT 2 )
PA81-14B )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on September 23, 24 and 25, 1991, in Orlando, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Orlando Utilities THOMAS B. TART Commission, et al. General Counsel
(OUC): Orlando Utilities Commission Post Office Box 3193 Orlando, Florida 32802
and
KENZA VAN ASSENDERP
C. LAURENCE KEESEY Young, van Assenderp,
Varnadoe & Benton, P.A. Post Office Box 1833
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833
For Department of RICHARD DONELAN Environmental Assistant General Counsel Regulation (DER): 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
For St. Johns River KATHRYN MENNELLA Water Management Counsel
District (SJRWMD): Post Office Box 1429
Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
For South Florida JOHN FUMERO
Water Management Post Office Box 24680 District (SFWMD): 3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
For Florida Audubon CHARLES LEE
Society, et al. Senior Vice President
(Audubon): 460 Highway 436, Suite 200
Casselberry, Florida 32707
The following parties did not enter an appearance at the final hearing, but did enter into settlement stipulations that were accepted in evidence at the final hearing:
For Florida Game and KEN McLAUGHLIN
Fresh Water Fish Assistant General Counsel Commission (FGFWFC): 620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
For Florida Department KATHRYN FUNCHESS
of Community Affairs Assistant General Counsel (DCA): 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
For Florida Department WILLIAM H. ROBERTS
of Transportation Assistant General Counsel (DOT): 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The following statutory parties did not participate at the hearings or through stipulations: East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Orange County, and Florida Department of Natural Resources.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether OUC should receive supplemental certification from the Siting Board for its proposed Unit 2 electrical power plant and associated facilities, including a transmission line and alternate access road, and what conditions, if any, should be incorporated within such supplemental certification to assure that minimal adverse consequences result from the new electrical power plant and associated facilities. The parties have reached substantial agreement on issues of fact and upon conditions of certification necessary to assure compliance with applicable nonprocedural requirements of the agencies having jurisdiction over the project. No party opposes the issuance of the supplemental certification sought by OUC, leaving a single dispute between OUC and SJRWMD as to SJRWMD's proposed condition of certification which would limit OUC's consumptive water use authorization to a ten-year period commencing on the date of certification and would essentially require OUC to reapply for subsequent consumptive use permits for water use thereafter.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Pursuant to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, Section 403.501 et seq., Florida Statutes (PPSA), OUC and its co-applicants filed the first-ever supplemental site certification application under the PPSA on March 15, 1991.
OUC had previously received site certification from the Siting Board on December 14, 1982, for the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center (SEC). In July 1987, OUC placed into operation a 465 megawatt (MW) coal-fired electrical generating plant (Unit 1), the first of a planned four units expected to provide 2000 MW of generating capacity in accordance with the ultimate site capacity granted to the Stanton site by the Siting Board. Unit 2, the subject of the instant application, is intended as the second of the series of generating units and is expected to be substantially similar to Unit 1.
At the final hearing, the Applicants presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Theodore C. Pope, Earl C. Windisch, James A. Hengel, Cliff
Russell, Lawrence J. Almaleh, Andrew P. Dicke, John M. Wynne, Robin Hart, Pat Michaels, Kirk W. Kimbel, Gail Easley, James L. Lentz, Michael L. Pelan, John R. Cochran, John Whysner, Helen Kennon, Carol Kuhn, Roy S. DeLotelle, and W. Michael Dennis. Applicants' Exhibits 1A-D, 2A-C, 3, 4A-e, 5A-U, 6-8, 9A-G&K-M, 10A&B, 11-13A-D, 14A&B, 15A&B, 17A-C, 18, and 20-30 were admitted in evidence.
DER presented the testimony of Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. and Gertrude D. Bell. SJRWMD presented the testimony of Lance Hart and Jeffrey Elledge. SJRWMD's
Exhibits 1, 4, and 6-11 were admitted in evidence.
The Applicants called on Hamilton S. Oven as a rebuttal witness.
On September 24, 1991, commencing at 6:00 p.m., an opportunity was provided to the public to participate in the final certification hearing by presenting testimony and evidence. Three members of the public availed themselves of that opportunity.
The transcript of the proceedings was filed on October 14, 1991, together with appropriate affidavits and Errata Sheets. OUC, DER, and SJRWMD timely filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 14, 1991. SFWMD adopted the proposal and memorandum of SJRWMD as its own. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are made in Appendix B attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Co-applicants.
Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) is a statutory commission of the State of Florida and is part of the government of the City of Orlando. OUC generates and distributes electric power and water to persons within its service area. OUC owns the Stanton Energy Center site and will have a 75% ownership interest in Stanton 2.
The Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) is a joint agency formed under the Interlocal Cooperation Act and exercises power under the Joint Power Act. FMPA has authority to undertake and finance electric projects and to plan, finance, acquire, construct, own, operate, maintain or otherwise participate jointly in Stanton 2 and other projects. FMPA members Fort Pierce, Homestead, Key West, Lake Worth, Starke and Vero Beach will be participants in Stanton 2; FMPA members Bushnell, Clewiston, Green Cove Springs, Jacksonville Beach, Leesburg and Ocala will be participants through FMPA's All Requirements Project. The FMPA will have an approximate 21% ownership interest in Stanton 2.
Kissimmee Utility Authority (KUA) is a public body, organized and existing as part of the government of the City of Kissimmee. KUA generates, transmits and distributes electric power. KUA will have an approximate 4% ownership interest in Stanton Unit 2.
The Stanton Site and the proposed project.
OUC owns the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, a 3280-acre site, with associated railroad, utility and transmission corridors located in Orange County, approximately twelve miles east-southeast of the City of Orlando, Florida. On December 14, 1982, the Governor and Cabinet of the State of
Florida, sitting as the Siting Board, certified the Stanton Energy Center site for an ultimate generating capacity of approximately 2000 megawatts. On July 1, 1987, Stanton Energy Center Unit 1, a 465 megawatt gross, 440 megawatt net,
coal-fired electrical generating plant, went into commercial operation. The certified facilities associated with the Stanton site include a railroad corridor containing a railroad spur for coal train access to the site, a cooling water pipeline for the treated sewage effluent used for cooling water obtained from the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, a plant access road, and associated transmission lines. The associated facilities are sized to accommodate the ultimate 2000 megawatt site development; additional associated transmission lines will be required for the ultimate site development.
Certain facilities constructed with Stanton Unit 1 were sized to accommodate Stanton 2. These include the following: cooling water storage pond, coal handling and storage areas, two potable water wells, wastewater treatment systems and a landfill for disposable wastes and flue gas sulfur sludge.
Development of the site for Stanton 1 and its associated facilities directly affected approximately 960 acres. The construction of the Stanton 2 power block will affect approximately nine additional acres which were originally graded and prepared during Stanton 1 construction.
The proposed Unit 2 is a 465 megawatt gross (440 megawatt net) coal- fueled, steam electric generating plant which is intended by OUC to be virtually identical to the existing Unit 1. New plant facilities to be constructed with Unit 2 include electrostatic precipitators, sulfur-dioxide removal equipment, a chimney and a cooling tower.
Unit 2 will have a Babcock and Wilcox natural circulation steam generator with a maximum continuous rating of 3,305,000 lb. hr. of steam at 2,640 psig and 1005/1005 degree F. The unit will have a Westinghouse Turbine Generator with a 516,200 KVA generator nameplate rating. The boiler will be equipped with low NOx burners. The unit will have an electrostatic precipitator and wet limestone scrubber, consisting of two scrubber modules and one spare module.
Treated sewage effluent provided by Orange County's Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant will be used for cooling water. No cooling water or wastewater will be discharged from the Stanton site. A natural draft cooling tower will be used for cooling and evaporation of water.
New linear facilities to be constructed for Unit 2 consist of a 14- mile 230 kV transmission line (which includes a new unpaved access road) and a new 1.4-mile alternate access road.
The existing certified transmission line corridor, which is 220 feet wide, extends approximately 32 miles east and west from a point one-fourth mile north of the SEC site boundary. This corridor contains two sets of transmission lines and structures which connect Unit 1 to OUC's Indian River Power Plant, near Titusville, Florida, and to OUC's Pershing Substation located at Orlando, Florida. One set of lines comprises two 115 kV lines on wooden structures, while the other set is a 230 kV line on steel structures.
In order to integrate the power generated by Unit 2 into OUC's transmission system, a new 230 kV transmission line is required. This proposed
Stanton-Mud Lake 230 kV transmission line will originate at the existing Stanton Energy Center 230 kV Substation and will interconnect with the existing OUC Transmission Line 7-0615 after its relocation near Mud Lake. The new Stanton- Mud Lake Transmission Line, approximately 14.0 miles in length, is to be constructed within OUC's existing OUC coal-haul railroad corridor, which runs from the Stanton Energy Center to its interconnection with existing transmission line 7-0615. This corridor, which varies in width along its route, from 260 feet to 400 feet, was certified along with Unit 1 in 1982.
The 1.4-mile alternate access road will be paved. It will provide a second access to the Stanton site during construction. It will also provide access from the Bee Line Expressway for OUC personnel, and for fire, ambulance or other emergency vehicles. Approximately 60 OUC employees will use the alternate access road on a daily basis. The daily use of this alternate access road will increase during plant outages. Secondary access to the SEC site was previously provided by a road across the adjacent Orange County landfill during the construction of Unit 1. However, expansion of the landfill has resulted in this particular road not being available for Unit 2.
Stanton's solid waste management and disposal area was placed along the western boundary of the SEC site because existing upland surface elevations allowed the use of the area as a source of fill material and because an existing sanitary landfill was located on adjacent property to the west.
The railroad track loop for coal trains is placed along the south side of the complex because the railroad spur from Orlando approaches the site from the south. All coal is received by rail. Rail service to the site is provided by the CSX railroad system from its main line connecting Jacksonville to Orlando and Tampa. A rail spur branches from the CSX main line at a point about three miles south of Taft and runs easterly, skirting the south boundary of Orlando International Airport and associated residential-commercial development. The spur turns due north just before it crosses the Bee Line Expressway, enters the SEC site and terminates in the site's rail loop, utilized for unloading coal.
The headwaters of the Hart, Cowpen, Green and Turkey Creek tributaries of the Econlockhatchee River are located on the eastern part of the site which includes the power block, transmission line and associated proposed access roads. The location and arrangement of the Unit 2 power block does not encroach upon these tributaries. Wetlands on site consist of both isolated wetlands and those connected to other wetland systems or bodies of water. No wetlands will be cleared for the construction of the Unit 2 power block.
Colonies of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) inhabit portions of the SEC site. When Unit 1 was built there were 63 RCW cavity trees on site, of which five had to be removed for construction. One of these was an active cavity tree. No existing cavity trees will be removed for construction of Unit 2. The approximately 2000 undeveloped acres of the site are being managed currently by OUC, pursuant to condition number XXXI of the site certification to provide foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. The construction of Unit 2 should not have any significant adverse impact upon red- cockaded woodpeckers or their habitat on the Stanton site.
Land use planning considerations.
Originally, the site, including the corridor certified for railroad use, consisted predominantly of sandy areas of little topographical relief,
supporting native forest vegetation or improved pasture and pine forest. These terrain conditions are referred to as flatwoods.
Prior to OUC's acquisition of the site, it was logged and used for the grazing of livestock. There are scattered wooded and wet areas on the site.
The east half of Sections 13 and 14 and the northeast quarter of Section 23 were under lease for hunting purposes. There were no residences on the site.
The site is located four and three-fourths miles south of Highway 50 and one mile north of Bee Line Highway in eastern Orange County, Florida. The Econlockhatchee River is about three-fourths mile east of the northeast corner of the site boundary; four tributaries cross the site. The Orange County landfill, or solid waste disposal facility, is adjacent to the site along the west boundary.
There are no incorporated areas within five miles of the plant. The community of Bithlo, at the periphery of a five-mile radius, was incorporated from about 1895 to 1977. In 1977, the incorporation was dissolved and the area reverted as part of unincorporated Orange County, which now determines zoning and provides services for the area.
Some residential development has occurred north and east of the site. Existing development in the Bithlo region begins about three and one-half miles north-northeast of the plant. To the south of the plant, near the Bee Line Expressway, International Corporate Park is attempting to develop an office/industrial complex. A state prison is located south of the site immediately north of the Bee Line and east of the railroad spur.
Some zoning of the plant site and area within a five-mile radius of the plant is classified as "A-2," which is defined as a Ranch and Farmland Rural District with a minimum one-half acre lot size. Exceptions are the Bithlo area northeast of the plant and the proposed development area northwest of the plant. The Bithlo and Cape Orlando areas are predominantly classified at "R-1A," which is defined as a Single Family Residential District with a minimum 7500 square feet lot size. A portion of the Cape Orlando area is zoned "R-1AA," which is Single Family Residential with 10,000 square feet lot size. The area of proposed development to the northwest of the plant is classified as "P-D," which is defined as a Planned Development District.
Citrus groves occur between the four and five mile radii to the northeast, southeast, and northwest of the plant site. No citrus groves are located within four miles of the plant location. There are no prime or unique farmlands, as identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, within five miles of the plant site. There are no state or federally owned lands within five miles of the plant site.
Water resources in the site vicinity (five mile radius) which could be affected include four tributaries of the Econlockhatchee River, isolated wetlands and the surficial and Floridan aquifer. These surface water resources are east and west of the developed portions of the site, respectively, while the surficial and Floridan aquifers underlie all of Orange County. The Floridan aquifer will supply plant service and potable water, and the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Facility supplies cooling tower make- up water. No municipal water supply or wastewater facilities are located on- site or are proposed.
No natural lakes are on-site or within the five-mile site vicinity. Numerous small lakes to the west and south of the site are used for recreation and irrigation water supply. The cooling water reservoir occupying 93 acres was constructed on site to serve the existing and proposed units.
Proximity to and impacts on transportation system.
One alternate access road for vehicular access to the site will be constructed. This alternate access road will extend southward for 1.4 miles along the rail spur to the Bee Line Expressway.
The existing access to the site is by Alafaya Trail, a two lane road which ends at the existing plant site. This road was constructed contemporaneously with Stanton 1 and was subsequently conveyed to Orange County.
The maximum traffic generated by Stanton 2 will occur during a period in 1995 when up to an estimated 983 construction workers will be employed on site. Most of these construction workers will travel eastward from Orlando to work during the morning, with the reverse being true in the evening hours. There will be no substantial adverse effects on traffic congestion as a result of construction or operation of Stanton Unit 2, except at some intersection movements during construction. Traffic would use the East-West Expressway to bypass the more congested State Road 50, therefore not adding substantially to existing conditions at the State Road 50 and Alafaya Trail intersection.
During construction, truck traffic to the plant will be scattered throughout the day and will not pose major problems other than some added wear and tear on roadways. However, the substantial portion of heavy equipment and material needed for Unit 2 is expected to arrive by rail, entering the plant site via the existing rail spur.
Unit 2 is expected to employ only 85 additional personnel spread between three shifts. These employees will have minimal impact upon the transportation system during Unit 2 operation.
Soil and foundation conditions.
The soil and foundation conditions at the Stanton Energy Center Site were described in the original site certification application. There have been no significant changes in these conditions since the site certification. There will be no impact upon or changes to these conditions or factors as a result of the construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2.
The soils underlying Unit 2 and its associated facilities have sufficient strength to support Unit 2 and its associated facilities with conventional foundation systems. The foundation systems will have no detrimental impact on the environment on site.
The strata beneath the site to a depth of 209 feet are divided into five stratigraphic layers: a surficial sand layer, an intermediate cohesive layer, a lower sand layer, a lower cohesive layer and limestone bedrock. The soil and foundation conditions were extensively described in the original site certification application. These conditions are suitable for the construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2.
Impact on archaeological sites and historic preservation areas.
There are no recorded historic, scenic, cultural or natural landmarks located on the plant site. The National Registry of Natural Landmarks does not include any sites for Orange County, Florida.
An archaeological and historic survey was conducted on accessible portions of the Stanton Energy Center site. The site survey was conducted by personnel from the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Archives, History and Records Management. Four sites were found during the survey. Three were prehistoric archaeological sites and one was a historic hunting lodge from the early 20th century. This lodge is located just off the site near the southwest corner of the property line. The Division of Archives, History and Records Management concluded that the sites did not represent significant archaeological or historical resources.
No known landmarks or scenic areas will be affected by the proposed transmission line. During Stanton 1 construction, the railroad spur was realigned to miss a historical site that would have required salvaging. There are no historically, culturally or archaeologically significant areas within or along the new transmission line right-of-way that will be affected.
Although archaeological site #8-OR-2208 is located along the new transmission line right-of-way, as first identified in the 1989 Lake Hart DRI review, the upper 30 cm. of soil in the area had previously been disturbed. Since the transmission line will span the 100 meter site, this project will have no impact on that site.
Impacts to wetland and riparian habitat regulation zone resources.
Installation of the proposed transmission line corridor and access roads will require clearing and filling of wetlands. Impacts to these wetlands are regulated by DER, SFWMD and SJRWMD. Those portions of the site which are located in the SJRWMD jurisdiction lie within a regulatory basin known as the Econlockhatchee River Hydrologic Basin (Econ Basin). Within the Econ Basin is a special area known as the Riparian Habitat Regulation Zone (RHRZ), regulated to provide additional habitat protection for certain contiguous wetlands and uplands. Of the total acres of wetland to be cleared, 13.19 acres are DER jurisdictional wetlands and 21.18 acres are regulated as isolated or connected by the SFWMD. Of the total wetland acres to be filled during construction of the transmission line and access roads, fill impacts include 4.12 acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands and 1.87 acres of SFWMD wetlands. The SJRWMD and SFWMD wetland acreage totals include the DER wetland acreages.
As a result of construction of the transmission line and access roads, approximately a total of 8.9 acres of SJRWMD wetlands, and 6.6 acres of uplands within the Riparian Habitat Regulation Zone and 1.1 acre of isolated SJRWMD wetlands will be impacted. Construction of the access roads will result in the filling of 2.7 acres of herbaceous wetlands, and 0.1 acre of forested wetlands, and 0.9 acre of an isolated wetland. Approximately 0.1 acre of forested and 0.1 acre of herbaceous uplands within the RHRZ will be filled. Clearing impacts associated with the transmission line will result in the loss of 5.5 acres of forested wetlands and 6.4 acres of uplands within the RHRZ and 0.2 of an acre of isolated SJRWMD wetland. OUC's mitigation plan, as approved by SJRWMD, provides
67.75 acres of wetlands mitigation (compared to SJRWMD jurisdiction impacts of
4.3 acres filled and 5.7 acres cleared) and 81.95 acres of upland mitigation, including 32.55 acres of RHRZ (compared to SJRWMD jurisdiction RHRZ uplands impact of 6.6 acres).
Surface water management considerations.
The surface water management system and stormwater management system (the system) which OUC proposes to construct and operate includes the Unit 2 power block facilities, transmission line, structure pads and support structures, unpaved access road and paved alternate access road.
Surface and stormwater runoff from the power block facility will be conveyed by new ditches and piping systems connecting to existing drainage systems to the Recycle Basin and Make-up Water Supply Storage Pond which is part of the power block facilities. The basin and pond are designed to retain runoff from the ultimate build-out (four units) of the power block area.
The transmission line will be maintained through the use of the unpaved access road and the paved alternate access road. The unpaved access road consists solely of intermittent fill segments. No excavation or filling will occur for the unpaved access road in upland areas; however, fill will be placed in wetland areas which exist in the proposed unpaved access road alignment. These areas of fill will be contained with erosion and sediment control practices during construction and stabilized with vegetation upon final grading so as to prevent erosion and sediment transport into the Econlockhatchee RHRZ.
The unpaved access road will allow passage of maintenance vehicles during normal climatic conditions for maintenance and repair of the transmission line and structures; maintenance is expected to occur approximately twice per year. Due primarily to its infrequent use and low impervious nature, the operation of this unpaved, stabilized access road is not expected to be a concern regarding stormwater pollution or to increase peak runoff rates.
Placement of fill will occur for the length of the proposed paved alternate access road. Runoff from this road will be directed to proposed swales with ditch blocks and overflow structures.
The proposed system meets SJRWMD's peak discharge criteria because plans and calculations demonstrate that:
Runoff from the Unit 2 power block is directed to an adequately sized existing facility which attenuates peak discharge from the 25-year and 2.3-year, 24-hour regulatory storm events;
The transmission line with its unpaved access road has a very low impervious nature; therefore, only an insignificant increase in runoff is expected; and
Runoff from the paved alternate access road will be directed to the proposed roadside swale system which will attenuate peak discharge from the SJRWMD regulatory storm events.
The proposed system meets SJRWMD's post-development volume criterion because there is no discharge from the proposed system to a landlocked basin.
The proposed system meets the floodway conveyance and floodplain storage criteria of SJRWMD because plans and calculations show that:
Existing culverts under the railroad track bed will be extended underneath both access roads and an additional bridge adjacent to the existing bridge will be constructed, such that floodway conveyance capabilities will not be impaired. The proposed extended culverts and bridge will be the same sizes as the existing culverts and bridges; and
Necessary compensating storage for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain due to construction of the unpaved access road south of the Bee Line Expressway will be provided by excavating uplands adjacent to the floodplain.
The proposed system will not decrease the flows of adjacent streams, impoundments or other watercourses so as to cause adverse impacts because:
The applicants propose no new impoundments which might impair low flow discharges; and
The applicants propose no deep excavations which might impair base flow. Anticipated construction dewatering will be temporary and will not unacceptably reduce water tables.
The proposed system meets the SJRWMD's water quality criteria and standards because plans and calculations demonstrate that:
Runoff from the Unit 2 power block will be directed to an adequately designed retention facility sized to treat a volume in excess of 1/2 inch of runoff from the contributing site;
The transmission line with its unpaved access road will be stabilized, has a low impervious nature and will be used only to access the transmission line and poles. The operation of this road is not expected to increase pollutant loading to receiving waters; therefore, no additional stormwater management controls are proposed since they are not needed and would only result in additional impact to the RHRZ adjacent to the proposed road;
Runoff from the paved alternate access road will be treated in roadside swales designed to provide storage and recovery of the required pollution abatement volume; and
Adequate temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented to protect the quality of receiving waters.
The proposed system is a gravity flow system. It has no high maintenance pumps or filter drain systems which can be difficult to operate and maintain. The system will be easily maintained through mowing, as necessary, and through inspection of culverts to ensure no obstruction at least twice per month from June through October and once per month from November through May.
There are no Works of the District (SJRWMD) in the vicinity of the plant site, proposed transmission line or proposed roads.
There have been no minimum flows or levels yet established in the SJRWMD pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes.
The area of influence of any dewatering associated with the proposed system will not extend to any area where the surficial aquifer is used by others.
The operation of the proposed system will not induce saltwater intrusion.
The proposed system has been designed to provide attenuation of peak runoff rates, to maintain floodway conveyance and floodplain storage, and to provide treatment of the required pollution abatement volume. No damage to property of the public is likely to be caused by operation of the system.
Plant communities.
Plant communities at the SEC site at the time of the original site certification application were described in that certification application.
The plant communities existing on site are typical of those in the region, predominated by nearly level flatwoods with scattered wetlands and low ridges on the western portion and in the center of the already certified site.
Construction and operation of Unit 2 will not affect any endangered or threatened plant species. No additional protected state listed species pursuant to 581.185(5)(a), Florida Statutes, have been identified on site within the plan proposed for alteration for Unit 2. Spoonflower (Peltandra sagittifolia), a listed species, was observed in a hardwood bay stand in summer 1981; however, this stand is not proposed for development as a result of the construction of Stanton Unit 2.
Animal communities.
The animal species found on or utilizing the SEC site were described in the original site certification application.
The red-cockaded woodpeckers are restricted primarily to the scrub oak and pine flatwoods habitats. However, they are known to also utilize the wetlands on site as foraging habitat.
Habitat improvements to the longleaf pine flatwoods have resulted from the Habitat Management Plan which has been implemented since construction of Unit 1.
The distribution of animal communities on site reflects the variety of site conditions. Primarily upland species may utilize a variety of habitat types. The cypress strand wetlands on site provide habitat requirements for a wide array of wildlife species.
Animal species found on the Stanton site include game animals and resident fur-producing species. Common small game species of wildlife consist of bobwhite quail, mourning dove, cottontail rabbit, marsh rabbit and gray squirrel. Populations of white-tailed deer and feral swine are present in much of the area and some adjoining lands. The land seasonally attracts a few migratory species. A wide selection of fur-bearing mammal species occur on the site.
The endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana), the only American representative of the stork family, is a large white bird locally common in
southern swamps, freshwater marshes and ponds. Its primary foods are fish, frog, young alligators and other aquatic animals. Wood storks have been observed on site.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) are characterized as inhabiting mature, open pine forest. Several trees on site have nest cavities of the red-cockaded woodpeckers. Prior to construction of Unit 1, surveys of the Stanton site revealed a total of 45 active cavity trees and 35 red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the proposed project. Once the presence of the birds was known, the plant site layout was revised to preserve as many cavity trees and as much foraging habitat as possible, although two clans left the area following the construction of Unit 1. Nine clans occurred on the site in 1981 and six clans now live on the site, with others located nearby. One active cavity tree was to be removed for Unit 1 development. No other active trees are destined to be removed for ultimate site development. A management/study plan was developed for the purpose of minimizing and assessing impacts on woodpeckers. OUC has implemented the management plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The threatened Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma c. cocrulescens) is characteristic of oak scrub communities and is confined mainly to such habitats. The range of this subspecies is restricted to peninsular Florida, primarily along the east coast with scattered populations in the central portion and western coastline of Florida. The Florida scrub jay has been observed on the southwest portion of the property. No activities are proposed in this area and no impact to this species is anticipated. Scrub habitat found along the southern portion of the transmission corridor south of the Bee Line was surveyed and no scrub jays were found.
The threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais) occurs in peninsular Florida, in a few widely scattered areas of the Georgia Coastal Plain, and in parts of the Florida panhandle. This snake occupies a wide variety of habitat types. Indigo snakes have been observed on site.
The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), a species of special concern, is commonly encountered in central Florida. On-site populations of gopher tortoise are centered mainly on the higher elevation in the western and south-central portion of the property. No impacts to the gopher tortoise are anticipated as a result of the construction, including the clearing, of the transmission line corridor. No tortoises occur within the alternate access road corridor.
The proposed transmission line corridor follows the existing railroad corridor from the site to the existing OUC transmission line 7-0615 near Mud Lake southeast of Orlando International Airport. The corridor was surveyed in 1982 and in the summer of 1991 for the presence of threatened and endangered species. One sandhill crane nest was observed within the corridor. Construction activities in the vicinity of the known sandhill crane nest will be arranged and scheduled to avoid any adverse impacts to this nest.
Air Quality Issues.
The only new air emission point for Unit 2 will be the 550-foot chimney. This source was previously evaluated with regard to its effect on air quality and is included as an approved source in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the project (Units 1 and 2) during the initial permitting process that
commenced in 1981. However, because combustion parameters and emissions rates for Unit 2 have been revised, an additional review has verified that air quality impacts remain below all applicable PSD increments and ambient air quality standards.
The air quality impact analysis required by the PSD regulations include:
an analysis of existing air quality;
a PSD increment analysis (NOx, PM and SO2 only);
an Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) analysis;
an analysis of impacts on soils, vegeta- tion, and visibility and of growth-related air quality impacts;
a "Good Engineering Practice" (GEP) stack height determination.
The analysis of existing air quality generally relies on pre- construction monitoring data collected with EPA-approved methods. The AAQS analysis depends on the air quality dispersion modeling carried out in accordance with EPA guidelines. Based on these required analyses, there is reasonable assurance that the proposed facility, as subject to the applicable conditions of certification, will not cause or contribute to violation of any PSD increment or ambient air quality standard.
The PSD increment represents the amount that new sources in an area may increase ambient ground-level concentrations of a given pollutant. The purpose of these increment limitations is to prevent areas which currently have good air quality from being significantly degraded. If an area currently has ambient concentrations near the ambient air quality standards for NO2, PM or SO2, the increased emissions from new sources must not cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standard and the allowed increments would be reduced to prevent such exceedances.
The Stanton site is located in a Class II area and must meet the increments defined for this class. The nearest Class I area (Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area) is about 130 kilometers west of the site. Stanton is not expected to influence this Class I area. All of the emissions of NO2, PM and SO2 at Stanton will consume Class II increments. No other sources near Stanton have been identified which would be expected to significantly affect increment consumption in the area of the Stanton Site. Air modeling results indicate that Stanton does not contribute to a violation of the PSD Class II increments.
Of the pollutants subject to review, only CO, NO2, PM, SO2 and ozone have AAQS with which to compare. In general, the total ambient air quality impact for each pollutant is obtained by adding the estimated background concentration to the maximum predicted modeled concentrations of the proposed facility and other modeled background sources. Ozone is a photochemically formed pollutant resulting mainly from motor vehicle emissions. The regulated pollutant for ozone formation is volatile organic compounds (VOC) which cannot be modeled for source-specific applications. Ozone, by way of VOC's, is regulated through BACT. Given existing air quality in the area of the proposed facility, emissions from Stanton are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of any AAQS.
Impacts on soils, vegetation, visibility and growth-related air quality impacts are not expected to change from the original OUC's proposal.
This project does not change the original GEP stack height.
BACT Determination Considerations.
DER's BACT determination is based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques. In addition, Department BACT regulations require the Department to give consideration to any Environmental Protection Agency determination of Best Available Control Technology pursuant to Section 169, and any emission limitation contained in 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources) or 40 CFR Part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), and to:
All scientific, engineering and technical material and other information available to the Department;
The emission limiting standards or BACT determinations of any other state; and
The social and economic impact of the application of such technology.
The EPA currently stresses that BACT should be determined using the "top-down" approach. The first step in this approach is to determine for the emission source in question the most stringent control available for a similar or identical source or source category. If it is shown that this level of control is technically or economically infeasible for the source in question, the next most stringent level of control is determined and similarly evaluated. This process continues until the BACT level under consideration cannot be eliminated by any substantial or unique technical, environmental or economic objections.
The air pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants can be grouped into categories based upon what control equipment and techniques are available to control emissions from these facilities. Using this approach, the emissions can be classified as follows:
Combustion Products (e.g., Particulates). Controlled generally by good combustion of clean fuels and baghouse filters or electrostatic precipitators (ESP);
Products of Incomplete Combustion (e.g., CO). Controlled generally by proper combustion techniques; and
Acid Gases (e.g., NOx). Controlled generally by gaseous control devices.
Grouping the pollutants in this manner facilitates the BACT analysis because it enables the equipment available to control the type or group of pollutants emitted and the corresponding energy, economic and environmental impacts to be examined on a common basis. Although all of the pollutants addressed in the BACT analysis may be subject to a specific emission limiting
standard as a result of PSD review, the control of "nonregulated" (noncriteria) air pollutants is considered in imposing a more stringent BACT limit on a "regulated" (criteria) pollutant (i.e., particulates, sulfur dioxide, fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, etc.), if a reduction in "nonregulated" air pollutants can be directly attributed to the control device selected as BACT for the abatement of the "regulated" pollutants.
Unit 2's major combustion equipment will consist of a pulverized coal (PC) boiler. The PC boiler will be started on No. 6 fuel oil and use No. 6 fuel oil for flame stabilization during low load operation. The PC boiler is rated at 3,305 MMBTU/hr. and has a maximum heat input of 4,286 MMBTU/hr. OUC has indicated the maximum annual tonnage of regulated air pollutants expected to be emitted from the facility based in 100 percent capacity to be as follows:
PSD Significant Emissions | Potential Emissions (tons/yr.) | PC Boiler (tons/yr.) |
NOx | 5943 | 40 |
SO2 | 6008 | 40 |
PM | 375 | 25 |
PM10 | 375 | 15 |
CO | 2816 | 100 |
VOC | 282 | 40 |
H2SO4 | 653 | 7 |
BE | 0.039 | 0.0004 |
Hg | 0.041 | 0.1 |
Pb | 0.701 | 0.6 |
Fluorides | 1.58 | 3 |
Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-2.500(5)(c) requires a BACT review for all regulated pollutants emitted in an amount equal to or greater than the significant emission rates listed in the previous table. The BACT requirements are intended to ensure that a proposed facility will incorporate air pollution control systems that reflect the latest techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion) used in the particular industry. An evaluation of the air pollution control techniques and systems is required, including a consideration for energy requirements, environmental and economic impact.
The appropriate best available control technology (BACT) emission rates for criteria pollutants for Stanton Unit 2 are shown on the following table:
Sulfur Dioxide, lb/MBtu
30-day rolling average 0.25
24-hour emission rate 0.67
3-hour emission rate 0.85
Nitrogen Oxides lb/MBtu
30-day rolling average 0.17
Particulate Matter, lb/MBtu
TSP 0.02
PM10 0.02
VOC, lb/MBtu 0.015
Carbon Monoxide, lb/MBtu 0.15
The BACT emission rates for non-criteria pollutants are shown on the following table:
H2SO4, lb/MBtu | 3.3 | x 10-2 |
Be, lb/MBtu | 5.2 | x 10-6 |
Hg, lb/MBtu | 1.1 | x 10-5 |
Pb, lb/MBtu | 1.5 | x 10-4 |
Fluoride, lb/MBtu | 4.2 | x 10-4 |
Air emission considerations.
The cause-effect-control relationship concerning air and pollutant emissions and the entire phenomenon of acid deposition or "acid rain" is extremely complex. Stanton Unit 2 will have less adverse impact upon air quality than other coal fueled units in the state which do not employ sulfur- dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen-oxides (NOx) emission controls that are as stringent as those required for Stanton Unit 2 to meet BACT emission limits. Stanton Unit
2 will utilize a flue-gas desulfurization system which includes wet limestone scrubber for control of sulfur dioxide emissions. Use of scrubbers and NOx control technologies represent practical and effective means of minimizing the contribution from Unit 2 to rain fall acidification. Given the location of the plant and the advanced air emission controls that will be utilized at Stanton Unit 2, this plant will not significantly contribute to acid rain or acid deposition in Florida.
Potential adverse health effects of the criteria air pollutants expected to be emitted by Unit 2 have been analyzed utilizing the total expected concentrations of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and carbon monoxide. These concentrations were determined by adding together the maximum predicted impacts for both Stanton plants with measured, historical background concentrations. The resulting air levels are all below the Florida Ambient Air Quality Standard values and are not expected to adversely affect human health.
The maximum levels of SO2 in the ambient air are predicted to be 17.2, 106.8, and 642.4 ug/m3 for annual, 24-hour and 3-hour averaging periods, respectively. These are total expected concentrations determined by adding the modeled Stanton impacts with the existing background concentrations. These levels are below the Florida AAQS of 60, 260, and 1,300 ug/m3 for annual, 24- hour and 3-hour values. These concentrations are also below levels at which any clinically evident health effects, such as shortness of breath or wheezing, have been demonstrated in laboratory tests in normal individuals or in sensitive individuals, including asthmatics, during exercise. The annual and 24-hour concentrations are less than those levels shown to have deleterious health effects during longer term epidemiology studies that are relevant to those averaging period.
The annual and 24-hour total expected PM10 concentrations are 42 and
128 ug/m3. These levels are below the Florida AAQS values for annual and 24- hour averaging periods of 50 and 150 ug/m3. The annual total expected PM10 concentration of 42 ug/m3 is below the level associated with health effects in epidemiology studies comparing different annual particulate levels in different cities. The 24-hour total expected particulate level of 128.0 ug/m3 is below the level resulting in clinically significant symptoms, such as shortness of breath or wheezing in asthmatics during exercise. The 24-hour level of 128.0 ug/m3 is also below levels at which most studies on sensitive asthmatics have found changes in laboratory measures of lung function.
90 The annual total expected concentration of NOx is 26.0 ug/m3, which is well below the Florida AAQS of 100 ug/m3. The maximum predicted impact only contributes 2 ug/m3, and background contributes 24 ug/m3 to this value. This total expected concentration has not been found to produce health effects in epidemiology studies of long term NO2 exposures in children. A level of 26 ug/m3 is also well below the lowest dose at which minimal effects have been found in short term studies in sensitive subjects with asthma, chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema).
The total expected concentrations of carbon monoxide are 31.0 and
106.4 ug/m3 for eight- and one-hour average periods, respectively, and are well below the Florida AAQS of 10,000 and 40,000 ug/m3. These values are also well below the level expected to cause any significant health effects. Carbon monoxide causes the production of carboxyhemoglobin, which is normally in the blood at 0.5% as a result of metabolism. Exposure to these maximum expected levels of CO would yield an insignificant increase in the normally present amount of carboxyhemoglobin.
Certain trace elements exist in coal which can be released when the coal is burned. Those trace elements that remain in particulate form will be effectively removed from the flue gas by the electrostatic precipitator. Those trace elements that are volatilized in the boiler will be largely removed by the cooling of the flue gas in the scrubber and the subsequent of these elements after they have condensed on the fly ash particles. Other toxic air emissions are primarily prevented from forming by the complete combustion of the fuel.
Water use considerations.
Water used at the Stanton Energy Center will come from three sources: the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, wells and rain. The majority of the water will be used as make-up to the cooling towers. Cooling tower make-up will be primarily treated sewage effluent, up to 10.19 million gallons per day (MGD) for both units from the Orange County treatment plant, plus collected reuse water, site runoff and direct precipitation on the make-up water supply storage pond. A maximum of 2 MGD of well water from the Floridan aquifer is used for potable water, general plant uses and steam cycle make-up. Yearly use of the aquifer may not exceed 321 million gallons.
The well water comes from two 850 gallons per minute (gpm) capacity on-site wells that pump from the Floridan aquifer. The well water is pumped directly to a solids contact unit for treatment by aeration, lime softening, filtration and chlorination.
Unit 1 operations require withdrawal of 305 gpm from two existing Floridan aquifer wells. The construction of Unit 2 will require the pumping of those wells at the rate of 611 gpm for a daily average consumption of 879,840 gallons.
The proposed consumptive uses represent quantities of water which are necessary for economic and efficient utilization because:
The water will be used for household (or potable) dewatering and power production purposes, which are recognized classes of water use;
Under current technology and economics, the proposed consumptive use amounts are reasonable for the purposes intended; and
The plant, a "zero discharge" facility, employs many current water- saving technologies, in that once water enters the facility, it is recirculated and recycled in a number of processes to reduce quantities used; and
the water is needed in order to meet electric power demands.
The proposed consumptive uses are for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest because:
The water will be put to a variety of purposes, all of which fit into accepted classes of use;
Lower quality water in the form of treated sewage effluent, reuse water and stormwater will be employed for cooling purposes; and
Water will be supplied to generate needed power.
The known characteristics of the aquifer, the results of the 48-hour constant rate discharge pump test performed on each of the two existing Floridan aquifer wells with a withdrawal rate greater than the proposed consumptive use, as well as the fact that these wells have been supplying water for years without experiencing production problems, establish that the Floridan aquifer here is capable of producing the proposed consumptive use amounts. The projected effluent quantities from the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, stormwater runoff and on-site reuse water are sufficient to supply the facility's cooling water needs.
The proposed consumptive uses of water will not seriously harm the sources of the water and will not cause significant saline water intrusion or encroachment, will not result in any unacceptable amount of economic or environmental harm and will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water because:
The drawdown effects due to the proposed consumptive use withdrawals on the Floridan aquifer were predicted utilizing the U.S. Geological Survey MODFLOW model. The proposed reduction in the surficial aquifer due to construction dewatering on the plant site was also analyzed. These analyses of the proposed groundwater consumptive use withdrawals showed limited drawdowns and that the radius of influence of these withdrawals will not extend beyond the boundaries of the facility. Based on currently available data, the proposed consumptive uses are not predicted to cause interference with other water users or result in other adverse economic impacts; and
There is no known water quality or saline water intrusion or encroachment problem in the aquifers on-site. Based on current water quality data and the above-referenced hydrologic modeling, the proposed consumptive uses are not predicted to cause a water quality or saline water intrusion problem.
OUC has submitted and will implement a water conservation plan. The Stanton facility now utilizes currently available conservation, recycling and reuse measures which are economically, environmentally and technologically feasible.
OUC will utilize available treated sewage effluent in an average annual allocated amount of 10.19 million gallons/day for cooling tower make-up water needed for Stanton Units 1 and 2 from the Orange County Easterly Wastewater Treatment Facility. Effluent from the on-site treatment facility
will also be used for this cooling purpose. The proposed consumptive uses of water utilize the lowest acceptable quality water source which is currently available and currently economically, environmentally and technologically feasible.
No flooding damage will result from or be contributed to by the proposed consumptive uses because no wastewater from the plant use or dewatering will be discharged from the site. The proposed consumptive uses will cause no serious harm to any receiving body of water.
The applicants will monitor withdrawals of water through metering devices.
The SJRWMD Governing Board has not reserved water from use pursuant to Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes.
The SJRWMD and OUC entered into a Stipulation agreeing, with one exception, to the imposition of conditions of certification that will ensure that OUC's water withdrawal will be in compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2 F.A.C. SJRWMD proposed the following condition which is opposed by OUC:
Condition 7: During the tenth year following issuance of this certification order, OUC, et al., shall submit a report to SJRWMD and DER demonstrating compliance with these conditions of certification, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules of SJRWMD and DER, applicable to the consumptive use of water.
Compliance shall be demonstrated with rules and statutory provisions in effect at that time.
SJRWMD shall evaluate the report and notify DER in a report of any issues regarding compliance with this certification and applicable rules and statutory provisions, including whether the consumptive use of water complies with those provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and DER's and SJRWMD's rules applicable to consumptive use and whether any conditions of certification must be amended,
added, or deleted in order to insure compliance with the referenced rules and statutory provisions. SJRWMD shall respond within 30 days of receipt of OUC, et al.'s report as to whether or not it contains information sufficient to make a determination as to compliance with the referenced rules and statutory provisions. Thereafter, DER shall notify OUC, et al., and SJRWMD as to its determination concerning sufficiency. SJRWMD shall file its report within ninety (90) days after DER's determination that OUC, et al.'s report is sufficient. Section 40C-1.610, Florida Administrative Code, shall apply. An opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section
120.57, Florida Statutes, shall be afforded any party. In any hearing requested pursuant to this condition of certification, the burden of demonstrating compliance shall be on OUC, et al. The continued consumptive use of water for the Stanton Energy Center Unit 2, shall be dependent upon OUC, et al., demonstrating and presenting sufficient data to establish that its consumptive use meets the referenced rules and statutory provisions. The Board hereby delegates to the Secretary the authority to enter final orders regarding this condition
in the event an administrative hearing is requested.
SJRWMD asserts that its proposed condition is based on the regulatory standards found in Section 6.5.1, Applicants Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water (A.H.) and Section 373.236, Florida Statutes.
SJRWMD believes that the proposed condition 7 is necessary for the following reasons:
Section 6.5.1, A.H., sets forth a 10-year duration for consumptive use allocations where the applicant derives 50% or more of their total allocation from reclaimed water or stormwater.
Water technology is constantly changing and improving. Water which is no longer needed by the applicant as a result of such changes and improvements could be allocated to other uses.
Economic conditions change over time. As water becomes increasingly scarce and the demand for it increases, it is possible that even lower quality waters may be required to be used for this power plant.
Knowledge about the water resource is continually improving. Knowledge gained in the future may change SJRWMD's ability to predict and allocate water.
In order to allocate the water resource consistently with the public interest, the allocating agency needs to have the capability to require a user to periodically re-establish that its uses are not harming the water source or receiving water, are utilizing the must efficient and water-conserving technology, and are not impacting other users or land uses.
The wording of condition 7 and the testimony of Mr. Jeffrey Elledge, Director of the SJRWMD's Department of Resource Management, makes it clear that under the proposed condition, after ten years the burden would be upon OUC to file a report with DER and SJRWMD demonstrating that OUC's continued consumptive use of water is still consistent with the criteria in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the District's rules in effect at that time. The District maintained that a review of the consumptive use of water by OUC after ten years is needed "to reevaluate the use periodically . . . to make sure that they are still efficient and still in the public interest."
SJRWMD has issued water allocations and consumptive use permits to approximately 4000 consumptive water users. These allocations include public
water supply, agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses. Each allocation has been for a specific duration.
Since the passage of the Power Plant Siting Act in 1973, at least thirty power plants have been certified. Of these, only one, Cedar Bay, has had a time limitation on its consumptive water use allocation. Cedar Bay is a private company and it voluntarily accepted a condition of certification similar to condition 7. There is no consumptive use time limitation which was approved through the certification process for Unit 1. The other certified power plants in SJRWMD's jurisdiction do not have time limitations on their consumptive use of water. In fact, other than in Cedar Bay, the issue of duration for a consumptive use allocation has never been raised and contested in any other power plant certification proceeding.
Mr. Elledge acknowledged that SJRWMD's interpretation of and intention in condition 7 is that OUC's ten year water allocation would be reviewed, with the burden being on OUC to convince the District and DER that the rule criteria would be met for the duration of the next allocation. If the burden was not satisfied, the allocation for Unit 2 could be totally rescinded.
Although the condition uses the term "report" for the documentation which OUC would have to file, in fact the "report" is the procedural equivalent of a permit renewal application. Without the granting of that renewal, OUC would not have the authorization for further water use.
The parties have agreed to conditions of certification which adequately protect other current and future water users in the event of water shortages and unforeseen impacts to existing users, adjacent land uses, and water quality. These conditions are adequate to address the nonprocedural requirements and the concerns of SJRWMD which are summarized above in Finding of Fact 107.
Solid waste considerations.
Solid waste is generated from a number of sources at the Stanton power plant. The largest quantity of solid wastes produced by the operation of the plant is sludge generated by the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. Coal combustion ash, in the form of fly ash and bottom ash, is the other major solid waste. Collectively, FGD waste and coal ash are referred to as "high volume solid wastes." Other comparatively small quantities of solid wastes, generated on an infrequent basis by the operation of the plant, include sludge from the sedimentation pond, retention basin, cooling towers and wastewater treatment facilities.
Ash is the residue produced by the combustion of coal. It consists of the unburned organic matter and inorganic mineral constituents present in the coal. The quantity and chemical characteristics of ash depend on the coal, boiler operating conditions and air pollution control devices, among others.
Two types of ash are produced during combustion - fly ash and bottom ash. Fly ash consists of the finer particles that are entrained in the flue gas stream. Bottom ash is the courser, heavier material that accumulates in the furnace bottom in the form of a loose ash or slag.
Approximately 447,000 tons of bottom ash are expected to be generated over the life of the plant. Maximum rate of production of bottom ash is expected to be about 17 tons/hour for each unit.
Fly ash and boiler hopper ash will be generated at a maximum rate of about 48,400 tons/year for each unit. Approximately 1.45 million tons of fly ash will be generated over the life of the plant.
For the proposed Unit 2 wet limestone FGD scrubber, the sulfur dioxide in the flue gas reacts with the limestone slurry producing a waste which must be removed. The maximum rate of production of FGD sludge for the unit is estimated at about 201,000 tons/year. Total wastes produced over the life of the plant will be approximately 6.03 million tons.
Periodic removal of sediments from the sedimentation pond also generates a solid waste. Due to the number of variables involved, such as rainfall frequency and duration, concentration of suspended solids in the influent, etc., quantities are difficult to predict. Frequency of sediment removal is approximately once per year. Solids removed are mainly coal dust and ash.
Cooling towers are expected to be drained approximately once per year and the accumulated solids removed. The solids will contain suspended solids from the make-up water and particulates from the atmosphere.
Based on ground water monitoring data, the concentrations of dissolved constituents in groundwater from the waste disposal area beyond all site boundaries does not exceed Florida Class I-B water quality standards for the inorganic constituents and does not exceed U.S. EPA secondary drinking water standards within the unconfined Hawthorn and Floridan aquifer systems beyond the site boundary. The construction and operation of Unit 2 will not adversely change these existing conditions beyond the site boundaries.
Construction impacts.
Site clearing necessary for the construction of Unit 2 power block was done in connection with Unit 1. The Alafaya Trail, which provides access from State Road 50, was paved during construction of Unit 1. No impacts along Alafaya Trail will result from construction of Unit 2.
Construction waste materials will be disposed of in accordance with applicable Conditions of Certification, rules and regulations. General waste materials will be disposed of in dumpsters for collection and disposal at the county landfill adjacent to the site or other suitable and approved local landfill areas.
Impacts are expected from the construction of the transmission line with an unpaved access road and alternate access road. These include the filling of wetlands and the clearing of uplands and wetlands on the plant site and within the existing certified corridor for the access roads and transmission line. The construction of the existing rail spur from the plant site to the CSX mainline converted land from its original use along its 18-mile length. This corridor will be used for the new 230 kV transmission line and access roads.
Wetland impacts include the filling of wetlands (regulated by SJRWMD, SFWMD and DER) and the clearing of wetlands, 13.19 acres of which are DER jurisdictional. These wetlands vary in quality from cattail (Typha spp.) monocultural areas, swales and ditches adjacent to the existing cooling water reservoir, to cypress domes and mixed hardwood forests. Mitigation for these projected impacts has been proposed by OUC in the form of enhancement of wetlands located on the site through planting of forested wetland species and
proposed reestablishment of "natural" hydroperiod to selected wetland stands, proposed creation of herbaceous wetlands and the proposed enhancement of upland buffers and upland habitats through the planting of longleaf pine forests.
Mitigation for the projected impacts from the transmission line and the transmission line access road within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdiction has been proposed by OUC in the form of wetlands creation within the transmission line right-of-way, enhancement of wetlands located on the OUC plant site through the planting of forested wetland species, the reestablishment of "natural" hydroperiod to selected wetland stands, creation of herbaceous wetlands and the enhancement of upland buffers and sensitive upland buffers and sensitive upland habitats through the planting of longleaf pine forests. Neither DER nor the SFWMD has reviewed or approved final construction plans for this proposed mitigation; both agree that the plan is feasible, appropriate in concept and capable of being approved after certification with the submission to DER and SFWMD by OUC of sufficient additional details and plans following certification.
The primary construction effects on upland areas will be clearing of some forested areas to accommodate the transmission line installation and construction of the access roads. Following clearing, the land under the transmission line can continue to be used for wildlife habitat or agricultural uses where such uses currently exist. A small segment of an orange grove will be crossed, but no clearing will be done there and fruit production will not be affected. The new transmission facilities should cause little inconvenience to the adjacent landowners since the land may continue to be used as it has in the past. The planned facilities also will not change traffic patterns from those already existing.
Right-of-way clearing will affect existing vegetation. Upland habitat provided by trees and other vegetation will be reduced along the six miles of expanded transmission corridor. Of course, the cleared areas will continue to be utilized by some wildlife. Deer, birds and small mammals are often seen in these areas. Growth retardants, chemicals, biocides, sprays, etc., will not be used during construction.
If recommended conditions are followed, no significant erosion is anticipated because of the construction of the new transmission line facilities. The construction techniques used will be similar to those utilized previously in Florida to construct transmission facilities.
As outlined in the application, construction procedures, including runoff control facilities and practices to avoid contamination of state waters, will be implemented. The construction site is isolated from the general public by appropriate means which include fences and guards. Compliance with OSHA standards and the provisions of Section 440.56, Florida Statutes, should adequately protect construction workers and operating personnel.
Comprehensive plan considerations.
The Department of Community Affairs concluded as a result of its overall evaluation of the consistency of the Stanton Energy Center Unit 2 with the state comprehensive plan that the power plant was consistent with the state comprehensive plan and should be certified with appropriate conditions of certification.
The construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2 will be consistent with the state comprehensive plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statutes), the Orange County Plan and the East Central Florida Regional Policy Plan.
Noise impacts.
There are no applicable federal, state or local laws, regulations or ordinances that govern the permittable noise levels in the vicinity of the Stanton Energy Center that will be caused by the proposed construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2.
Both the State of Florida and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have recommended noise guidelines, both of which recommend a 24-hour equivalent noise level of 55 DBA or less in outdoor areas where people spend varying amounts of time. This recommended community noise level should ensure that there is no annoyance or interference with outdoor activities.
Because the majority of site clearing and preparation for Stanton Unit 2 was completed during construction of Unit 1, the noise impacts of Unit 2 construction will be lower than the noise impacts caused during construction of Unit 1. The estimated average construction noise impacts for Unit 2 are below the 55 DBA level at the site boundaries. Therefore, the estimated construction noise impacts will not be significant to the closest residential land uses, which are well beyond the Stanton Energy Center site boundaries.
The off-site noise impacts from the operation of Unit 2 equipment will result in an increase to the existing ambient noise level of approximately
2 DBA. A 2 DBA increase in noise is not noticeable to the average person. No area outside of the Stanton Energy Center site boundary will have noise impacts that exceed 55 DBA. Therefore, the expected noise impacts resulting from the operation of Stanton Unit 2 will be insignificant.
Regional economic impacts.
The local Orlando economy (defined as Orange County, Lake County, Osceola County, and Seminole County) will realize significant and positive, direct regional economic benefits due to the construction and operation of Stanton 2. Direct economic benefits realized by the local Orlando economy due to the construction of Unit 2 include approximately 1,863 man-years of employment, $25.1 million in local supply and material purchases, and $91.8 million (1991 dollars) of construction expenditures. Direct annual economic benefits realized by the local Orlando economy due to the operation of Stanton 2 include approximately $7.0 million (1990 dollars) in fixed operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures and capital addition expenditures, and a Stanton
2 work force of 85 persons.
In addition to the direct economic benefits, the local Orlando economy will also realize indirect economic benefits through output, employment and earnings multiplier effects.
Total (direct and indirect) Stanton 2 construction economic impacts include approximately 3,878 man-years of employment, $181.6 million (1991 dollars) in earnings and $49.5 million (1991 dollars) in output.
Total annual Stanton 2 operational (arising from fixed O&M and capital additions) economic impacts include approximately 263 man-years of
employment, $7.7 million (1990 dollars) in earnings, and $9.7 (1990 dollars) in local output.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Section 403.517, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990).
This case involves the first application for a supplemental site certification under the expedited procedures of Section 403.517 as established by the 1990 amendments to the PPSA. By the express terms of the statute, the supplemental certification process only applies in the situation where a party which already holds certification for an ultimate site capacity desires to add an additional generating unit of the "fuel type previously certified for that site." Section 403.517(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). The Stanton site is currently certified for approximately 2000 MW of coal-fired generating capacity, and the existing Unit 1 accounts for 465 MW of operating capacity. Addition of the proposed coal-fired Unit 2, of the same capacity as Unit 1, will not exceed the ultimate certified capacity of the Stanton site. Accordingly, OUC has properly invoked the supplemental application procedure.
No land use hearing is required with respect to a supplemental application which does not exceed a site's certified capacity if the lands required for construction and operation of the power plant at issue are included within the boundaries of the certified site. All of the lands to be affected by the activities proposed by OUC were included within the original Stanton site certification. The alternate access road and transmission line are to be located within rights-of-way approved in the certification in 1982. Accordingly, no land use hearing is necessary here before the merits of OUC's supplemental application can be considered by the Siting Board. Section 403.517(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990).
Turning to the merits of OUC's application, the test established by the PPSA for certification of a new generating facility requires the Siting Board 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." Section 403.502(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). Under the PPSA's statutory scheme, whether a facility is needed is a matter committed to the determination of the Florida Public Service Commission. Section 403.519, Florida Statutes. (Supp. 1990). By final order dated August 28, 1991, the PSC concluded that Unit 2 and its associated facilities were needed to meet the public need for electric generating capacity. Because this determination creates a presumption of public need and necessity under Section 403.519, it is necessary to balance the expected environmental consequences of the construction and operation of Unit 2 against this presumptive need in order to reach a conclusion as to whether Unit 2 should be certified.
The record evidence in this proceeding, much of which was stipulated to by all parties, demonstrates that OUC has been able to construct and operate Unit 1 in an environmentally sound manner, in compliance with the conditions of certification imposed by the Siting Board in 1982. This fact supports a conclusion that Unit 2 can also be constructed and operated in accordance with the conditions of certification proposed by the agencies of jurisdiction as supplements to the original conditions of certification. OUC has stipulated and
agreed to all of these conditions of certification, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Appendix A.
Construction impacts associated with the power block of Unit 2 are expected to be minimal, primarily because all clearing and habitat destruction necessary to accommodate the power block was accomplished during initial site clearing for Unit 1. Few new support structures will need to be built because most are already in existence; those which will need to be constructed, such as the cooling tower for Unit 2, will fit into the already cleared footprint.
New impacts to habitat and wetland resources are associated with the proposed alternate access road and transmission line. While these impacts are substantial, the record is clear that OUC has taken pains to minimize impacts by a careful selection of routes for the road and transmission line which avoid, as much as is possible, filling of wetland areas. Moreover, where it is impossible to avoid impinging upon jurisdictional wetland acreages, OUC has routed its crossings to the fringes rather than the hearts of these areas whenever possible. Finally, OUC has proposed a substantial mitigation program which is expected to offset the negative effects of the unavoidable filling and clearing of jurisdictional wetlands, as well as to provide compensation for unavoidable inroads made upon the RHRZ currently regulated by SJRWMD for the benefit of the Econlockhatchee River basin. Detailed conditions of certification governing the implementation of mitigation measures have been agreed to by all parties. These conditions provide ample assurance that Unit 2's directly associated facilities will not cause any unacceptable loss of wetland resources.
The original development of the Stanton site was expected to, and did, eliminate habitat essential to the survival of several red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) clans which nested in cavity trees found where the power blocks for the Stanton plant were to be located. Condition 31 of the original certification required OUC to manage approximately 2000 acres of longleaf pine habitat for the benefit of the RCW in order to offset the unavoidable impacts of site development upon this endangered species. The parties have stipulated to a series of conditions to augment existing Condition 31, specifically delimiting the areas of the site to be managed as habitat for the RCW, restricting uses of these areas to avoid future disruption to the avian resource which is not directly required to fulfill power generation imperatives and making future modification requests subject to the specific approval of the Siting Board. These conditions provide additional assurance that the intent of the Siting Board in the original certification is carried out and that protection of the endangered RCW on the Stanton site is enhanced.
Turning next to air issues, the record discloses that the expected air emissions from Unit 2 will be substantially less than those allowed for Unit
DER has established, through its BACT determination, emissions limits more stringent than those applicable to Unit 1, especially as to sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, substances which contribute to acid rain and low-level ozone formation. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 mandate substantial reductions in emissions of these pollutants; the proposed conditions of certification accepted by OUC are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Clean Air Act.
42 USC Section 7401 et seq., as amended.
Potential health effects of the air emissions expected from the Stanton plant have been examined in detail in the record. No adverse health consequences are expected to occur as the result of emissions from Units 1 and 2, nor are adverse consequences to vegetation expected. The record shows that
the extensive forested areas of the Stanton site appear to be in better condition today than they were in before Unit 1 went into operation.
No adverse environmental consequences as to water resources are expected to result from construction and operation of Unit 2 or its associated facilities. OUC is justly proud of its status as a "zero discharge" facility with respect to wastewater. OUC will retain this status with Unit 2, continuing the environmentally sound use of reclaimed domestic wastewater as cooling water for its generating plant. This wastewater is recycled and used in a variety of industrial processes at the plant. Groundwater drawn from the Floridan aquifer will only be used for make-up water for the boiler and for household-type uses, thus conserving this vital resource in accordance with current water management policies. In addition, the record discloses that the stormwater management system for Unit 2 and the associated facilities complies with all applicable water management district regulations, assuming its construction and operation in accordance with the conditions of certification recommended by the districts and agreed to by OUC.
The construction and operation of Unit 2 will not unduly conflict with the goals and policies established by the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the applicable regional and local comprehensive plans.
The sole remaining issue between OUC and any agency having jurisdiction over the Stanton site is the disagreement between SJRWMD and OUC over SJRWMD'S proposed Condition 7.
The St. Johns River Water Management District has urged the inclusion of its proposed Condition No. 7 (contained in its Stipulation with OUC, AE-26, Page 8, and quoted above in Finding of Fact No. 105) which would require OUC to submit a "report" demonstrating compliance with the rules and policies of the St. Johns River Water Management District ten years after the Board's certification of Stanton 2. The proposed condition requires OUC to initiate this action, with the burden being upon OUC to demonstrate compliance with the District's rules then in effect, or risk the possibility of a restriction or elimination of its authorized consumptive use of groundwater for operation of Stanton 2. This condition requires a procedural action by OUC, based upon the mere passage of time (every ten years), without any substantive change in circumstances, change in conditions or without any "emergency" as a condition precedent to this action. Although written so as initially to require submission by OUC of a "report," the purpose and legal effect of this proposed condition is to require OUC, through said report, to apply for and obtain a periodic consumptive use of water permit in order to continue groundwater withdrawals necessary for the operation of Stanton 2.
The SJRWMD consumptive uses of water rules in Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C., establish an exemption from such a permitting requirement. Section 40C-2.051, F.A.C., provides an exemption which states in pertinent part as follows:
No permit shall be required under the provi- sions of this rule for the following water uses: . . . (2) Those uses for which certi- fication has been obtained pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act or the Florida Industrial Siting Act . . . .
SJRWMD's proposed Condition No. 7 is also in conflict with their own Applicant's Handbook on Consumptive Uses of Water which states under Article 3.4, subsection (b):
The following types of use are exempt from the requirement to obtain a consumptive use permit:
* * *
(b) Electrical power plants which have received certification under the provisions of Part II, Chapter 403, F.S., and industrial sites which have been certified with the provisions of the Florida Industrial Siting Act, Chapter 288, F.S.
SJRWMD's proposed Condition No. 7 would require a future action by OUC that would be contrary to the specific exemption provided for Stanton 2's approved consumptive use of water received in this certification proceeding. SJRWMD stipulated and agreed that OUC's consumptive use of water is appropriate and in full compliance with its rules during this site certification process. A subsequent permitting requirement, whether directly or indirectly required, such as the one in SJRWMD's Condition No. 7, is also contrary to the express intent of the Legislature that the power plant siting process provide "an efficient, simplified, centrally coordinated, one-stop licensing process," as stated in subsection 403.510(3), Florida Statutes (1990), for both the construction and operation of the plant.
A limitation on the life of plant's consumptive use of water, as approved in the power plant site certification process has never been imposed before. Mr. Hamilton Oven, the Administrator of the Siting Coordination Office of the DER, testified that only one plant out of thirty or more certified under the act has had any time limitation on its consumptive use of water. This plant, a private, nongovernmental power producer known as Cedar Bay, voluntarily agreed to the only time limitation on the consumptive use of water that applies to any Florida plant.
The SJRWMD Condition No. 7 is not only in conflict with the intent and requirements of the Power Plant Siting Act, and with the District's own exemption rule, it is also clear from the record that a reconsideration of the consumptive use of water issue is not justified by any foreseeable impact on the aquifer resulting from operation of Stanton 2. The District's Director of the Department of Resource Management, Mr. Elledge, testified Stanton 2 will be an excellent example of water conservation and reuse, and based upon the District's modeling, there will be no adverse impact on the Floridan aquifer during the life of the Stanton 2 facility. The facts show that there will be no groundwater impacts, no reduction in water levels and adjacent surface water bodies, no reduction of well water levels affecting any other user, no salt water intrusion and no introduction of pollutants into the water supply of adjacent water users over the 35-year life of Stanton 2.
The proposed Condition No. 7 of the St. Johns River Water Management District is the procedural equivalent of a requirement that OUC, through the "report," reapply for and obtain reissuance of a consumptive use of water permit in ten years. If imposed, the legal effect of that condition is to place the burden upon OUC, without any change in circumstances or conditions, to reapply
for consumptive use of water with the risk borne by the Applicants, and the municipalities that share in this project, that the water allocation may be reduced or eliminated in accordance with the rules and criteria of the District that are in effect at that time. The Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act does not contain any procedural requirement for a renewal of power plant certifications or authorization for agencies periodically to reconsider or revoke their positions taken in the initial certification proceeding. The District's purported ability to require a new permit application, without the requirement of an emergency or a significant change in circumstances as a factual condition precedent, is contrary to the legislative intent that the Power Plant Siting Act "is to provide an efficient, simplified, centrally coordinated, one-stop licensing process." 403.510(3), Florida Statutes The Power Plant Siting Act states that if the Act is in conflict with any other provision, limitation or restriction under any law, rule, regulation or ordinance of this state or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency, this Act shall govern and control, and such law, rule, regulation or ordinance shall be deemed superseded for the purposes of this Act." 403.510(1), Florida Statutes
The State of Florida has preempted the regulation and certification of electrical power plant sites and electrical power plants as defined in the Power Plant Siting Act. 403.510(2), Florida Statutes To the extent that rules or policies of the St. Johns River Water Management District purport to require OUC procedurally to reapply at specific intervals of time for consumptive use of water permits, as would be the effect under the St. Johns River Water Management District's proposed Condition No. 7, the Power Plant Siting Act supersedes such procedural requirements and the Siting Board's certification is in lieu of any such license, permit, certificate, or similar document required by the District pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes See Section 403.511(3), Florida Statutes Therefore, the SJRWMD proposed Condition No. 7 is not legally applicable to Stanton 2, and should not be adopted or incorporated in the attached Conditions of Certification (Appendix A).
In reaching these conclusions about the propriety of proposed Condition 7, the arguments and memorandum of SJRWMD have been considered. Those arguments are rejected principally because the obvious and expressed intent of the Power Plant Siting Act is that the certification shall result from "an efficient, simplified, centrally coordinated, one-stop licensing process." Section 403.510, Florida Statutes. Certification by the Siting Board:
shall constitute the sole license of the state and any agency as to the approval of the site and the construction and operation of the proposed electrical power plant, except for the issuance of department licenses required under any federally delegated or approved permit program . . . .
Section 403.511(1), Florida Statutes. To require OUC to reapply for a consumptive use permit after ten years would run contrary to the expressed provision that the certification, subject to the conditions, is to be the sole license, as defined in Section 403.503(15), for the construction and operation of the power plant.
SJRWMD's arguments simply ignore the expressed statutory intent of the Power Plant Siting Act. They also ignore the expressed exemptions from consumptive use permitting in cases arising under the Act.
In summary, the record discloses that the proposed facilities will comply with the non-procedural standards of all of the agencies of jurisdiction. Unit 2 will incorporate stringent pollution control technologies and suitable operational safeguards within the meaning of Section 403.502(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). The proposed Unit 2 has been determined to be needed by the PSC, and the record does not show any adverse environmental impacts from the facilities which would outweigh the need for additional electric energy for OUC's customer base. The conditions of certification contained in Appendix A are reasonable and necessary to insure compliance with Chapter 403, Part II, the Power Plant Siting Act.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting a supplemental site certification for Unit 2 and the associated facilities of the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in Appendix A.
RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1991.
APPENDIX A TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1813EPP
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION CURTIS H. STANTON ENERGY CENTER UNIT 2
PA 81-14/SA1 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I | ||
I/I | ENTITLEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1 |
I/II | SCOPE OF LICENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1 |
I/III | JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1 |
I/IV | DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2 |
I/V | TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2 |
I/VI | SEVERABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2 |
I/VII | PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3 |
I/VIII | RIGHT OF ENTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3 |
I/IX | DESIGN STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3 |
I/X | LIABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3 |
I/XI | PROPERTY RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 4 |
I/XII | COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 4 |
I/XIII | POST-CERTIFICATION REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 5 |
I/XIV | COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . | 6 |
I/XV | COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 6 |
I/XVI | OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . | 6 |
I/XVII | REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 7 |
I/XVIII | CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . | 7 |
I/XIX | ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 7 |
I/XX | FIVE YEAR REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 7 |
I/XXI | MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 7 |
PART II
II/I | AIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 9 |
II/II | WETLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . | 17 |
II/III | ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS . . . . . . . . . . . . | 19 |
II/IV | OTHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 19 |
PART III
III/I | WILDLIFE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 20 |
III/II | NESTING SANDHILL CRANES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 20 |
III/III | MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 20 |
PART IV | ||
IV/I | LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . | 21 |
IV/II | SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . | 23 |
IV/III | ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 26 |
PART V
V/I | WATER SHORTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 30 |
V/II | WELL CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR ABANDONMENT . . | 30 |
V/III | WELL MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 30 |
V/IV | MITIGATION OF WITHDRAWAL IMPACTS ON EXISTING | |
LEGAL USERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 30 | |
V/V | MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES . . . . | 31 |
V/VI | IDENTIFICATION TAGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 31 |
V/VII | MAXIMUM ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 31 |
V/VIII | MAXIMUM DAILY WITHDRAWALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 31 |
V/IX | LIMITATION ON USE OF WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 31 |
V/X | DEWATERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 32 |
V/XI | OFF-SITE DISCHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 32 |
V/XII | DISCHARGES FROM MAKE-UP WATER SUPPLY POND . . . . . | 32 |
V/XIII | WELL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . | 32 |
V/XIV | WATER TREATMENT PLANT REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . | 33 |
V/XV | WELL WATER FLOW MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 33 |
V/XVI | CONSERVATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 33 |
V/XVII | WELL WATER FLOW METERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 33 |
V/XVIII | CALIBRATION OF FLOW METERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 33 |
V/XIX | MAINTENANCE OF FLOW METERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 33 |
V/XX | DELINEATION OF LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . | 33 |
V/XXI | BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 34 |
V/XXII | COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . | 34 |
V/XXIII | INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF ENHANCEMENT | |
MITIGATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | .34 | |
V/XXIV | CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS OF ENHANCEMENT AND | |
MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 34 | |
V/XXV | MONITORING PLAN FOR ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION . . . | 34 |
V/XXVI | SURVEY OF ENHANCEMENT AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . | .35 |
V/XXVII | MONITORING REPORTS FOR THE ENHANCEMENT AND | |
MITIGATION AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 35 | |
V/XXVIII | REVISIONS TO ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION . . . . . . | 35 |
V/XXIX | EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION . . | 36 |
V/XXX | EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING OPERATION . . . | 36 |
V/XXXI | INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . | 36 |
V/XXXII | COMPLETION OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM . . . | 36 |
V/XXXIII | RETENTION/DETENTION STORAGE AREAS . . . . . . . . . | 36 |
V/XXXIV | ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE | |
CONSTRUCTION PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 37 | |
V/XXXV | ACCESS ROAD FILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 37 |
V/XXXVI | CONTRACTOR REVIEW AND POSTING OF CONDITIONS OF | |
CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 37 | |
VI/I | PART VI CONSTRUCTION IMPACT MITIGATION PROGRAM . . . . . . . | 38 |
PART VII
VII/I | RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT AREA | |
IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 39 | |
VII/II | USE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RCW AREA . . . . . . . . | 39 |
SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION (COCs)
PART I
Administrative Conditions
I/I. ENTITLEMENT
Pursuant to s. 403.501-519, F.S., the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, this certification is issued to Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida Municipal Power Agency, and Kissimmee Utility Authority as joint owner/operators of Curtis H. Stanton Unit 2.
I/II. SCOPE OF LICENSE
Certification has previously been issued by the Governor & Cabinet on 12/14/82 for the Stanton site, including associated transmission and rail spur lines, with subsequent modifications thereto. These Conditions of Certification address the supplementary changes related to the construction and operation of Unit 2 and associated transmission line and alternate access road (shown on Attachment I). Where these conditions supersede the original COC and modifications thereto, such COC are rendered void; otherwise, the original COC and modifications thereto remain in effect.
Unit 2 certification is limited to 516,200 KVA (465 MW at a 0.9 power factor) nameplate capacity.
I/III. JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES
The following agencies are deemed to have jurisdictional interest in the certification, and thus regulatory authority over the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility:
Department of Environmental Regulation (& Central District Office) [DER or DER/CDO]
South Florida Water Management District [SFWMD] St. Johns River Water Management District [SJRWMD] Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission [GFWFC] Department of Natural Resources [DNR]
Department of Community Affairs [DCA] Department of Transportation [DOT] Orange County [OC]
I/IV. DEFINITIONS
Licensee: References herein to the "Licensee" apply to Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida Municipal Power Agency, and Kissimmee Utility Authority as joint owners of Stanton Unit 2, or to their successors or assigns. (See COC-I/V regarding transfer of certification).
Completeness/sufficiency: The term "complete" as used herein shall have the same meaning as contained in Chapter 120, F.S., not Chapter 403, F.S., i.e., a complete application shall also provide sufficient information for an agency to perform an analysis of compliance with the conditions of certification and applicable regulations. Where agency-recommended COCs have used the Ch. 403 FS term of "sufficient", that shall have the same meaning as the term "complete" as used herein.
Affected agencies: References to the "affected agencies" apply to the jurisdictional agencies listed in COC-I/III.
Other terms: The meaning of terms not otherwise specified in A-C, as used herein, shall be governed by the definitions contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and any regulations adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of any dispute over the meaning of a term in these conditions which is not defined in such statutes or regulations, such dispute shall be resolved by reference to the most relevant definitions contained in any other state or federal statute or regulation.
I/V. TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATION
If contractual rights, duties, or obligations are transferred under this Certification, notice of such transfer or assignment shall immediately be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Affected Agencies by the previous certification holder (Licensee) and the Assignee.
Included in the notice shall be the identification of the entity responsible for compliance with the Certification. Any assignment or transfer shall carry with it the full responsibility for the limitations and conditions of this Certification.
I/VI. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this certification are severable, and if any provision of this certification or the application of any provision of this certification to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provisions to other circumstances and the remainder of the certification shall not be affected thereby.
I/VII. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
Where post-certification submittals are required by these conditions, drawings shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer, or Professional Geologist, as applicable, registered in the State of Florida.
I/VIII. RIGHT OF ENTRY
The Licensee shall allow during operational or business hours the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and/or authorized representatives, including personnel of the Affected Agencies, upon the presentation of appropriate credentials:
To have access during normal business hours (Mon.-Fri., 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm.) to any records required to be kept under the conditions of this certification for examination and copying; and
To inspect and test any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in this certification and to sample any discharge or pollutants; and
To assess any damage to the environment or violation of ambient standards; and
To have reasonable escorted access to the power plant site and any associated linear facilities to inspect and observe any activities associated with the construction, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of the proposed project in order to determine compliance with the conditions of this Certification. The Licensee shall not refuse immediate entry or access upon reasonable notice to any Affected Agency representative who requests entry for the purpose of the above noted inspections and presents appropriate credentials.
I/IX. DESIGN STANDARDS
The facility shall be constructed pursuant to the design standards presented in the application and any approved post-certification submittals, and shall be considered the minimum design standards for compliance.
I/X. LIABILITY
The Licensee shall hold and save the Affected Agencies harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance and/or use of any facility authorized by this Certification, to the extent allowed under Florida law.
I/XI. PROPERTY RIGHTS
The issuance of this certification does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to public or private property or any invasion of personal rights nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
I/XII. COMPLIANCE
Compliance with Conditions
The Licensee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the Licensee so as to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this certification. All discharges or emissions authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this certification. The discharge of any regulated pollutant not identified in the application, or more frequent than, or at a level in excess of that authorized herein, shall constitute a violation of the certification.
An environmental control program shall be established under the supervision of a qualified Environmental Engineer/Specialist to assure that all construction activities conform to applicable environmental regulations and the applicable Conditions of Certification. If a violation of standards, harmful effects or irreversible environmental damage not anticipated by the application or the evidence presented at the certification hearing are detected during construction, the Licensee shall notify the DER Central District Office and Siting Coordination office, as required in I/XII.B.
Any anticipated facility expansions beyond the certified initial nameplate capacity, production increases, or process modifications which may result in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants, change in type of fuel, or expansion in steam generation capacity shall be reported by submission of a modification petition pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
In the event of a malfunction of Unit 2's pollution control system, that the Licensee shall comply with 40 CFR 60.46a.
Non-compliance Notification
If, for any reason, the Licensee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any limitation specified in this certification, the Licensee shall notify the Central District office of the Department of Environmental Regulation by telephone within a working day that said noncompliance occurs and shall confirm this in writing within seventy-two (72) hours of becoming aware of such conditions, and shall supply the following information:
A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; and
The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying event.
Adverse Impact
The Licensee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact resulting from noncompliance with any limitation specified in this certification, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
I/XIII. POST-CERTIFICATION REVIEW
Further information may be required by these conditions for site-specific or more detailed review and approval to determine compliance with the conditions of certification. Compliance determinations of the Department and other reviewing agencies are subject to review pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
In order to provide adequate lead time for review, such information, as developed, must be submitted for post-certification review at least 120 days prior to the intended commencement date of construction or operation of the feature undergoing review. Notification of the submittal of the information, and any determinations made pursuant to these COC, shall be provided to the DER Siting Coordination Office for record-keeping purposes.
Where such information is required, it shall be submitted to the agency(ies) named in the condition, which shall then have 30 days in which to determine the completeness (sufficiency) of the information. If a written request for additional information is not issued within the 30 day time period, the information will be presumed to be complete (sufficient).
Once the information has been determined complete (sufficient), the agency(ies) shall have 90 days, unless another time period has been specified herein, in which to make the determination regarding compliance.
I/XIV. COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
At least 30 days prior to the commencement of construction, the Licensee or Project Engineer shall notify the DER Siting Coordination Office, the DER Central District Office, and Affected Agencies of theconstruction start date. Quarterly construction status reports shall similarly be submitted by the Licensee beginning with the initial construction start date. The report shall be a short narrative describing the progress of construction.
I/XV. COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION
At least 30 days prior to the commencement of operation, the Licensee or Project Engineer shall notify the DER Siting Coordination Office and Affected Agencies of the operation start date.
I/XVI. OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLANS
Operating Procedures
The Licensee shall develop and make available for viewing at the Stanton site by the DER operating instructions for all aspects of the operations which are critical to keeping the facility's pollution control equipment working properly and to keep the facility in compliance with air and water quality criteria.
Contingency Plans
The Licensee shall develop and make available for viewing at the Stanton site by the DER written contingency plans or procedures for the continued operation of the unit in event of pollution control equipment breakdown. Stoppages which compromise the integrity of the operations must have appropriate contingency plans. Such contingency plans shall identify critical spare parts to be readily available.
Current Engineering Plans
For all pollution control and monitoring systems, the Licensee shall maintain a complete current set of as installed engineering plans, equipment data books, catalogs and documents in order to facilitate the smooth acquisition or fabrication of spare parts or mechanical modifications.
Application Modifications
The Licensee shall furnish appropriate modifications to drawings and plot plans submitted as part of the application.
I/XVII. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION
This certification may be suspended or revoked for violations of any of its conditions pursuant to Section 403.512, Florida Statutes.
I/XVIII. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
This certification does not relieve the Licensee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance with any conditions of this certification, applicable rules or regulations of the Department or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or regulations thereunder.
Subject to Section 403.511, Florida Statutes, this certification shall not preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Licensee from any responsibilities or penalties established pursuant to any other applicable state statutes, or regulations.
I/XIX. ENFORCEMENT
The Department of Environmental Regulation, as supported by the applicable Affected Agency, may take any and all lawful actions to enforce any condition of this Certification. Any agency which deems enforcement to be necessary shall notify the Secretary of DER of the proposed actions. The agency may seek modification of this Certification for any change in any activity resulting from enforcement of this Certification which change will have a duration longer than
60 days.
I/XX. FIVE YEAR REVIEW
The certification shall be final unless revised, revoked, or suspended pursuant to law. At least every five years from the date of issuance of certification the Department shall review the project and these conditions of certification and propose any needed modifications.
I/XXI. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS
Pursuant to Subsection 403.516(1), F.S., the Board hereby delegates the authority to the Secretary to modify any condition of this certification not in conflict with Condition of Certification Part VII dealing with sampling, monitoring, reporting, specification of control equipment, related time schedules, emission limitations, variances or exceptions to water quality standards, transmission line, access road or pipeline construction, source of treated effluent cooling water, mitigation, transfer or assignment of the Certification or related federally delegated permits, or any special studies conducted, as necessary to attain the objectives of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
All other modifications to these conditions shall be made in accordance with Section 403.516, Florida Statutes.
II/I. AIR
Part II Conditions Recommended by
the
Department of Environmental Regulation
The construction and operation of Unit 2 at Orlando Utilities Commission, Curtis
H. Stanton Energy Center (CHSEC) steam electric power plant site shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-2, 17-4, and 17-5, Florida Administrative Code except for NOx, and SO2 which shall be governed by
40 CFR Part 60 regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In addition to the foregoing, the permittee shall comply with the following conditions of certification:
A. Emissions Limitations
The proposed steam generating station shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the capabilities and specifications of the application including the proposed 465 (gross) megawatt generating capacity and the 4286 MMBtu/hr heat input rate for each steam generator. Based on a maximum heat input of 4286 million Btu per hour, stack emissions from CHSEC Unit 2 shall not exceed the following when burning coal:
SO2 - lb/million Btu heat input
30 - day rolling average 0.25
24 - hour emission rate 0.67
3 - hour emission rate 0.85
NOx - lb/million Btu heat input
30-day rolling average 0.17
PM/PM10 - lb/million Btu heat input
lb/MBtu | lb/hr | |
PM | 0.02 | 85.7 |
PM10 | 0.02 | 85.7 |
CO - 0.15 lb/million Btu heat input, 643 lb/hour.
VOC - 0.015 lb/million Btu heat input, 64 lb/hour.
H2SO4 - 0.033 lb/million Btu heat input 140 lb/hour.
Be - 5.2 x 10-6 lb/million Btu heat input,
0.022 lb/hour.
Hg - 1.1 x 10-5 lb/million Btu heat input,
0.046 lb/hour.
Pb - 1.5 x 10-4 lbs/million Btu heat input,
0.64 lb/hour.
Fluorides - 4.2 x 10-4 lb/million Btu heat input, 1.8 lb/hour.
The height of the boiler exhaust stack for CHSEC Unit 2 shall not be less than 550 ft. above grade.
Particulate emissions from the coal, lime and limestone handling facilities:
All conveyors and conveyor transfer points will be enclosed to preclude PM emissions (except those directly associated with the coal stacker/reclaimer or emergency stockout, and the limestone stockout for which enclosure is operationally infeasible).
Inactive coal storage piles will be shaped, compacted and oriented to minimize wind erosion.
Water sprays or chemical wetting agents and stabilizers will be applied to storage piles, handling equipment, etc. during dry periods and as necessary to all facilities to maintain an opacity of less than or equal to 5 percent, except when adding, moving or removing coal from the coal pile, which would be allowed no more than 20%.
Limestone day silos and associated transfer points will be maintained at negative pressures during filling operations with the exhaust vented to a control system. Lime will be handled with a totally enclosed pneumatic system. Exhaust from the lime silos during filling will be vented to a collector system.
The fly ash handling system (including transfer and silo storage) will be totally enclosed and vented (including pneumatic system exhaust) through fabric filters; and
Any additional coal, lime, and limestone handling facilities for Stanton Unit 2 will be equipped with particulate control systems equivalent to those for Stanton Unit 1
Particulate emissions from bag filter exhausts from the following facilities shall be limited to 0.02 gr/acf: coal, lime, limestone and flyash handling systems excluding those facilities covered by II/I.A.3.c above. A visible emission reading of 5% opacity or less may be used to establish compliance with this emission limit. A visible emission reading greater than 5% opacity will not create a presumption that the 0.02 gr/acf emission limit is being violated. However, a visible emission reading greater than 5% opacity will require the permittee to perform a stack test for particulate emissions, as set forth in Condition II/I.C.
Compliance with opacity limits of the facilities listed in Condition II/I.A. will be determined by EPA referenced method 9 (Appendix A, 40 CFR 60).
Construction shall reasonably conform to the plans and schedule given in the supplemental application.
The permittee shall report any delays in construction and completion of the project which would delay commercial operation by more than 90 days to the DER Central District office in Orlando.
Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate emissions during construction shall be to coat the roads and construction sites used by contractors, regrass or water areas of disturbed soils.
Coal shall not be burned in the unit unless the electrostatic precipitator and limestone scrubber and other air pollution control devices are operating as designed except as provided under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da.
The fuel oil to be fired in Stanton Unit 2 and the auxiliary boiler shall be "new oil" which means an oil which has been refined from crude oil and has not been used. On-site generated lubricating oil and used fuel oil which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 266.40 may also be burned. The quality of the No. 2 fuel oil used by the auxiliary boiler shall not contain more than 0.5% sulfur by weight and cause the allowable emission limits listed in the following table to be exceeded. Such emissions may be calculated in accordance with AP-42.
Allowable Emission Limits
Pollutant lb/MMBtu
PM 0.015
S02 0.51
NOx 0.16
Visible emissions Maximum 20% Opacity
The flue gas scrubber shall be put into service during normal operational startup, and shut down when No. 6 fuel oil is being burned. The No. 6 fuel oil shall not contain more than 1.5% sulfur by weight.
No fraction of flue gas shall be allowed to bypass the FGD system to reheat the gases exiting from the FGD system, except that bypass shall be allowed during startup and shutdown.
All fuel oil and coal shipments received shall have an analysis for sulfur content, ash content, and heating value either documented by the supplier or
determined by analysis. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and recorded on a daily basis. Records of all the analysis shall be kept for public inspection for a minimum of two years after the data is recorded.
Within 90 days of commencement of operations, the applicant will determine and submit to FDER the pH level range in the scrubber reaction tank that correlates with the specified limits for SO2 in the flue gas. Moreover, the applicant is required to operate a continuous pH meter equipped with an upset alarm to ensure that the operator becomes aware when the pH level of the scrubber reaction tank falls out of this range. The pH monitor can also act as a backup in the event of malfunction of the continuous SO2 monitor. The value of the scrubber pH may be revised at a later date provided notification to FDER is made demonstrating the emission limit is met. Further, if compliance data show that higher FGD performance is necessary to maintain the emission limit, a different pH value will be determined and maintained.
The applicant will comply with all requirements andprovisions of the New Source Performance standard for electric utility steam generating units (40 CFR
60 Part Da).
The Licensee shall submit to the Department at least 120 days prior to start of construction of the NOx control system, copies of technical data pertaining to the selected Nox control system. These data, if applicable to the technology chosen by the Licensee, should include but not be limited to design efficiency, guaranteed efficiency, emission rates, flow rates, reagent injection rates, or types of catalysts. The Department may, upon review of these data, disapprove the use of any such device or system if the Department determines the selected control device or system to be inadequate to meet the emission limits specified in l.b. above. Such disapproval shall be issued within 90 days of receipt of the technical data.
B.Air Monitoring Program
A flue gas oxygen meter shall be installed for Stanton Unit 2 to continuously monitor a representative sample of the flue gas. The oxygen monitor shall be used with automatic feedback or manual controls to continuously maintain air/fuel ratio parameters at an optimum. The flue gas manufacturing oxygen monitor shall be calibrated and operated according to established procedures as approved by DER. The document "Use of Flue Gas Oxygen Meter as BACT for Combustion Controls" may be used as a guide.
The permittee shall install and operate continuous monitoring devices for Stanton Unit 2 main boiler exhaust for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and opacity. The monitoring devices shall meet the applicable requirements of Section 17-2.710, FAC., and 40 CFR 60.47a. The opacity monitor may be placed in the duct work between the electrostatic precipitator and the FGD scrubber.
The permittee shall operate one continuous ambient monitoring device for sulfur dioxide in accordance with DER quality control procedures and EPA reference methods in 40 CFR, Part 53, and one ambient monitoring device for PM10, and one continuous NOx monitor. The monitoring devices shall be specifically located at a location approved by the Department. The frequency of operation of the particulate monitor shall be every six days commencing as specified by the Department. During construction and operation the existing meteorological station will be operated and data reported with the ambient data.
The permittee shall maintain a daily log of the amounts and types of fuel used. The log shall be kept for inspection for at least two years after the data is recorded. Fuel analysis data including sulfur content, ash content, and heating values shall be determined on an as received basis and kept for two years.
The permittee shall provide stack sampling facilities as required by Rule 17-2.700(4) F.A.C.
The ambient monitoring program shall begin at least one year prior to initial start up of Unit 2 and shall continue for at least one year of commercial operation. The Department and the permittee shall review the results of the monitoring program annually and determine the necessity for the continuation of or modifications to the monitoring program.
Stack Testing
Within 60 calendar days after achieving the maximum capacity at which Unit 2 will be operated, but no later than 180 operating days after initial startup, the permittee shall conduct performance tests for particulates, SO2, NOx, and visible emissions during normal operations near (+ _ 10%) 4286 MMBtu/hr heat input and furnish the Department a written report of the results of such performance tests within 45 days of completion of the tests. The performance tests will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.46a and 48a.
Compliance with emission limitation standards mentioned in specific Condition No. II/I.A. shall be demonstrated during the initial performance test using appropriate EPA Methods, as contained in 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources), or 40 CFR Part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), or any method as proposed by the Applicant and approved by the Department, in accordance with F.A.C. Rule 17- 2.700.
EPA Method For Determination of
Selection of sample site and velocity traverses.
Stack gas flow rate when converting concentrations to or from mass emission limits.
Gas analysis when needed for calculation of molecular weight or percent 02.
Moisture content when converting stack velocity to dry volumetric flow rate for use in converting concentrations in dry gases to or from mass emission limits.
Particulate matter concentration and mass emissions.
201 or 201A PM10 emissions.
6, | 6C, or | 19 | Sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary sources. |
7, | 7C, or | 19 | Nitrogen oxide emissions from stationary sources. |
9 Visible emission determination of opacity.
At least three one hour runs to be conducted simultaneously with particulate testing for the emissions from dry scrubber/baghouse, and ash handling building baghouse.
At least one lime truck unloading into the lime silo (from start to finish).
10 Carbon monoxide emissions from stationary sources.
12 or 101A Lead concentration from stationary sources.
13A or 13B Fluoride emissions from stationary sources. 18, 25, 25A Volatile organic compounds concentration.
or 25B
101A or 108 Mercury emissions.
104 Beryllium emission rate and associated moisture content:
The permittee shall provide 30 days written notice of the performance tests for continuous emission monitors or 10 working days written notice for stack tests in order to afford the Department the opportunity to have an observer present.
Stack tests for particulates, NOx and SO2 and visible emissions shall be performed annually in accordance with Conditions C.2 and .3 above.
Reporting
For Stanton Unit 2, a summary in the EPA format of stack continuous monitoring data, fuel usage and fuel analysis data shall be reported to the Department's Central District Office and to the Orange County Environmental Protection Department on a quarterly basis commencing with the start of commercial operation in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 60, Section 60.7, and 60.49a and in accordance with Section 17-2.710(2), F.A.C.
Utilizing the SAROAD or other format approved in writing by the Department, ambient air monitoring data shall be reported to the Bureau of Air Quality Management of the Department quarterly. Such reports shall be due within 45 days following the quarterly reporting period. Reporting and monitoring shall be in conformance with 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58.
Beginning one month after certification, the permittee shall submit to the Department a quarterly status report briefly outlining progress made on engineering design and purchase of major pieces of air pollution control equipment. All reports and information required to be submitted under this condition shall be submitted to the Siting Coordination Office, Department of Environmental Regulation, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee Florida, 32301.
Malfunction or Shutdown
In the event of a prolonged (thirty days or more) equipment malfunction or shutdown of air pollution control equipment, operation may be allowed to resume or continue to take place under appropriate Department order, provided that the Licensee demonstrates such operation will be in compliance with all applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. During such malfunction or shutdown, the operation of Stanton Unit 2 shall comply with all other requirements of this certification and all applicable state and federal emission standards not affected by the malfunction or shutdown which is the subject of the Department's order. Exceedances produced by operational conditions for more than two hours due to upsets in air pollution control systems as a result of start-up, shutdown, or malfunctions as defined by 40 CFR 60 need not be reported as specified in Condition I/XII. Identified operational malfunctions which do not stop operation but prevent compliance with emission limitations shall be reported to DER as specified in Condition I/XII.
Open Burning
Open burning in connection with initial land clearing shall be in accordance with Chapter 17-256, F.A.C., Chapter 5I-2, F.A.C., Uniform Fire Code Section
33.101 Addendum, and any other applicable County regulation.
Any burning of construction generated material, after initial land clearing that is allowed to be burned in accordance with Chapter 17-256, F.A.C., shall be approved by the DER Central District Office in conjunction with the Division of Forestry and any other County regulations that may apply. Burning shall not occur unless approved by the jurisdictional agency or if the Department or the Division of Forestry has issued a ban on burning due to fire safety conditions or due to air pollution conditions.
Federal Annual Operating Permits and Fees
DER Responsibilities
The Department of Environmental Regulation shall implement the provisions of Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act for Stanton 2 developing Conditions of Certification requiring submission of annual operating permit information and annual pollutant emission fees in accordance with Federal Law and Federal regulations.
OUC Responsibilities
OUC shall submit the appropriate annual operating permit application information as well as the appropriate annual pollutant emission fees as required by Federal Law to the Department as specified in Condition 3. below.
Annual Operating "Permit" Application and Fee (Reserved)
II/II. WETLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The proposed transmission line from the Stanton Energy Center to the Mud Lake transmission line and the proposed alternate access road to the Stanton Energy Center from the south shall be routed as shown in the supplemental application. Prior to construction, the permittee shall submit drawings on 8.5" by 11" paper, showing the final design, including plan views and cross-sections for each area of filling or clearing in wetlands. The drawings shall show the existing and proposed ground elevations and all existing and proposed structure locations, sizes and invert elevations.
All clearing and construction activities shall be confined to the limits of the clear zone necessary for the transmission line as shown on Figures 6.1-5 and 6.1-6 of the application drawings. Within 30 days of the completion of construction, the permittee shall arrange a site visit by DER District personnel from the Central District office in Orlando to verify that no wetland damage has occurred outside the transmission line clear zone. If wetland damage occurs outside the transmission line clear zone during construction, the permittee shall submit to the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management for review a plan to restore the wetland area which was damaged and to provide mitigation for the damage. The plan shall be implemented with 30 days of the Department approving the restoration and mitigation plan. This condition does not preclude the Department from taking enforcement action if unauthorized activities occur.
Prior to initiating construction, the permittee shall submit a map and aerial photographs showing the location of all staging areas for the transmission line and alternate access road construction to the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management for review and written approval. These areas shall be upland areas which are not currently providing red-cockaded woodpecker nesting or foraging habitat. The staging areas shall not be used prior to receiving DER approval.
Drainage structures shall be placed in the transmission line ROW and under the alternate access road at the same locations where drainage structures currently exist under the CSX Railroad berm. The drainage structures shall provide at least the same efficiency as the corresponding drainage structure currently existing in the CSX Railroad berm.
The forested areas to be cleared shall be cleared using low-impact equipment so as to minimize soil disturbance. The rootmats and tree stumps shall be left in place to provide soil stabilization.
During construction, best management practices, including but not limited to staked hay bales and filter cloth, shall be utilized to control erosion and turbidity. All side slopes shall be seeded and mulched within 72 hours of the final grading.
Construction of the transmission line and alternate access road will result in the filling of 4.12 ac. of herbaceous wetlands the permanent clearing of
13.19 ac. of forested wetlands. The permittee shall provide mitigation to offset the wetland loss and habitat degradation resulting from the construction of this project.
Prior to construction, the permittee shall propose a mitigation plan and shall provide the following information to the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management to allow the Department to review the proposed mitigation plan:
detailed description of each wetland impact area;
acreage of the type and quality of wetland being impacted at each site;
narrative, drawings and aerial photographs showing and explaining the proposed mitigation;
detailed description of the existing conditions at the mitigation area;
acreage of the proposed mitigation by mitigation and wetland type;
documentation providing reasonable assurance that the proposed mitigation will be successful.
If the mitigation submittal is deemed by the Department to provide insufficient information for review, additional information requested by the Department shall be submitted. Upon receiving complete information, the Department will assess the mitigation plan within 90 days.
If the Department, upon review of the proposed mitigation, determines that the proposed mitigation is inadequate to offset the wetland loss and habitat degradation from this project, the permittee shall propose additional mitigation.
II/III. ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS
The associated transmission line shall comply with the requirements of Ch. 17- 274, F.A.C.
II/IV. OTHER
For wastewater treatment, sanitary waste treatment, public water supply, surface water monitoring, and ground water monitoring see Unit 1's Conditions of Certification. For air and water monitoring programs, quality assurance plans shall be submitted by OUC within 90 days of certification. Such QA plans shall be submitted in conformance with Chapter 17-160, F.A.C.
Part III Conditions Recommended by
the
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission III/I. WILDLIFE SURVEY
Prior to the construction of the proposed facility, a wildlife survey, consistent with methodology prescribed by the FGFWFC, shall be conducted for the presence of listed species (endangered, threatened, or species of special concern) and suitable habitat for same within the site. The results of said survey shall be submitted to the DER, the FGFWFC, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If construction of the proposed facility will impact any listed species, other than the previously identified impact on the foraging habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker resulting from the clearing of the transmission line right-of-way, the Permittee shall consult with the DER and the FGFWFC to determine the appropriate steps to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or
otherwise appropriately address any adverse impacts within each agency's respective jurisdiction.
III/II. NESTING SANDHILL CRANES
Nesting sandhill cranes shall be avoided by limiting installation of transmission lines over wetlands utilized by nesting cranes to periods outside of the nesting season, which runs from January through June.
III/III. MANAGEMENT PLAN
Before construction, a management plan for the preserved areas shall be presented to the FGFWFC for review and approval. At a minimum, this plan shall include a statement of what habitat function the preserve is expected to provide; a schedule of fire management through a certified burn specialist and including, but not limited to, burn conditions, burn frequency, and measures taken to avoid spread of wildfire; measures taken to remove exotic vegetation from both wetlands and uplands; and the responsible entity.
Part IV Conditions Recommended by
the
South Florida Water Management District
IV/I. LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
These conditions also incorporate by reference the conditions contained in Part I, Administrative Conditions, of the Recommended Supplemental Conditions of Certification.
GENERAL
Compliance Requirements
This project must be constructed, operated and maintained in compliance with and meet all non-procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40E-4 (Surface Water Management), F.A.C.
Off-Site Impacts
It is the responsibility of the Permittee to ensure based on information provided that adverse off-site water resource related impacts do not occur during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line and associated transmission line access roads within SFWMD.
Post Certification Information Submittals
Information submitted to the SFWMD subsequent to Certification, in compliance with the conditions of this Certification, shall be for the purpose of the SFWMD determining the Permittee's compliance with the Certification conditions and the non-procedural criteria contained in Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., as applicable, prior to the commencement of the subject construction, operation and/or maintenance activity covered thereunder.
PROCESSING OF INFORMATIONAL REQUESTS
Right-of-way Modifications
At least ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line, the Permittee shall submit any proposed modifications to the transmission line right-of-way, identified on Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 (Figures 6.1-2, 6.1-3, and 6.1-4), to the SFWMD staff for review and approval. If the SFWMD staff does not issue a written request for additional information and/or an objection to the proposed right-of-waymodification within thirty (30) days, the modification shall be presumed to be complete and acceptable.
Completeness and Review
At least ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the linear facilities located in the SFWMD, the Permittee shall submit to SFWMD staff, for a completeness and sufficiency review, any pertinent additional information required under the SFWMD's Conditions of Certification for that portion proposed for construction. If SFWMD staff does not issue a written request for additional information within thirty (30) days, the information shall be presumed to be complete and sufficient.
Compliance Review and Confirmation
Within sixty (60) days of the determination by SFWMD staff that the submitted information is complete and sufficient, the SFWMD shall determine and notify the Permittee in writing whether the proposed activities conform to SFWMD criteria, as required by Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., and the Conditions of Certification. If necessary, the SFWMD shall identify what items remain to be addressed. No construction activities shall begin until the SFWMD has determined either in writing, or by failure to notify the Permittee in writing, that the activities are in compliance with the applicable SFWMD criteria.
Revisions to Site Specific Design Authorizations
The Permittee shall submit, consistent with the provisions of Condition IV/I.B, any proposed revisions to the site specific design authorizations specified in this Certification to the SFWMD for review and approval prior to implementation. The submittal shall include all the information necessary to support the proposed request, including detailed drawings, topographic maps, average wet season water table elevations, calculations and/or any other applicable data.
Such requests may be included as part of the appropriate additional information submittals required by this Certification provided they are clearly identified as a requested modification to the previously authorized design.
Dispute Resolution
Since this Certification is the only form of permit required from any agency, it is understood that the Permittee and the SFWMD shall strive to resolve disputes by mutual agreement.
Objections
Objections to modifications of the terms and conditions of this Certification shall be resolved through the process established in Section 403.516, F.S.
Changes to Information Requirements
The SFWMD and the Permittee may jointly agree to vary the informational requirements.
IV/II. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Professional Engineer Certificate
The operation of the surface water management system authorized under this certification shall not become effective until a Florida Registered Professional Engineer certifies, upon completion of each phase, that these facilities have been constructed in accordance with the design approved by the SFWMD. Within 30 days after completion of construction of the surface water management system, the Permittee or authorized agent shall submit the engineer's certification and notify the SFWMD Field Engineering Division that the facilities are ready for inspection and approval. Such notification shall include as-built drawings of the site which shall include elevations, locations, and dimensions of components of the surface water management system.
Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Natural Environment Values and Water Quality
The Permittee shall prosecute the work authorized under this Certification in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impacts of the authorized works on fish, wildlife, natural environment values, and water quality. The Permittee shall institute necessary measures during the construction period, including necessary compaction of any fill materials placed around newly installed structures and/or the use of silt screens, hay bales, seeding and mulching, and/or other similar techniques, to reduce erosion, turbidity, nutrient loading and sedimentation in the receiving waters.
Correction of Water Quality Problems
The Permittee shall be responsible for the correction of any sedimentation, turbidity, erosion, shoaling and/or maintenance of the works authorized under this Certification.
Off-site Conveyances
All off-site conveyances during construction and development of the transmission line and associated access roads shall be made only through the conveyance facilities authorized by this Certification. No roadway or structure pad construction shall commence on-site unless in conjunction with the construction of the permitted conveyance facilities and any associated detention areas.
Water conveyed from the project shall be through facilities having a mechanism suitable for regulating upstream water stages. Stages may be subject to operating schedules satisfactory to the SFWMD.
Additional Water Quality Requirements
The Permittee may be required to incorporate additional water quality treatment methods into the surface water management system if such measures are shown to be necessary.
Access Roads
The Permittee shall, whenever available, utilize adjacent existing roads for access to the transmission line right of way for construction, operation and/or maintenance purposes. Finger roads connecting the existing roads to the structure pads and access roads which must be constructed in areas where an existing road is not available shall be constructed in a manner which does not impede natural drainage flows and minimizes impacts to on-site and adjacent wetlands.
Correction of Drainage Problems
The Permittee shall be responsible for the correction of any adverse on-site, upstream, and/or downstream drainage and/or wetland impacts which may occur as a result of the construction of the proposed access road and/or structure pads.
These may include the placement and/or removal of culverts and/or other structures to remedy the impact.
Modifications
Subsequent modifications to the drawings and supporting calculation submitted to the SFWMD which may alter the quantity and/or quality of waters discharged off- site shall be made pursuant to Section 403.516, F.S., and Rule 17-17.211, F.A.C. They shall also be submitted to the SFWMD for a determination that the modifications are In compliance with the non-procedural requirements of Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-4, F.A.C., prior to the commencement of construction.
SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN AUTHORIZATIONS
Access/Maintenance Road and Structure Pads
The Permittee is authorized to construct an access/maintenance road and associated conveyance facilities for the transmission line in the areas specifically identified on Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 (Figures 6.1-2, 6.1-3, and 6.1- 4). Areas where an access/maintenance road is not proposed will be accessed from existing roads.
Authorized Receiving Water (Transmission Line Access Maintenance Roads only)
Adjacent Wetlands
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Access/Maintenance Road and Structure Pad Construction Plans
Prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line which affects the movement of waters, the Permittee shall submit plans for any construction activities for that portion of the transmission line which may obstruct, divert, control, impound or cross waters of the state, either temporarily or permanently, to the SFWMD, consistent with the provisions of Condition IV/I.B, for a determination of compliance with the non-procedural requirements of Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., in effect at the time of submittal. "Construction activities" in this situation shall include the placement of access/ maintenance roads, culverts, and/or fill materials, excavation activities, and any related activities. All plans, detail sheets and calculations shall be signed and sealed by a Florida Registered Professional
Engineer. For all construction activities, the following information, referenced to NGVD, shall be submitted:
A centerline profile of existing topographic features along the proposed access/maintenance road(s);
A design of the proposed access/maintenance and finger road(s) with finished elevations marked;
A typical cross-section of the proposed access/maintenance and finger road(s), including relative dimensions and elevations;
A cross-section of each stream or creek at the point(s) to be crossed by the proposed access/maintenance and finger road, and/or other facility;
Identification of wet season water table elevations for each basin in which facilities will be located;
Specifications, including supporting assumptions and calculations, showing the type and size of water control structures (pipe, culvert, equalizer, etc.) to be used, with proposed flowline elevations marked, drainage areas identified, and design capacity verified;
A cross-section of any proposed excavation areas showing the proposed depth of excavation;
Calculations and supporting documentation which demonstrate that the proposed construction and/or excavation activities associated with the transmission line will not have an adverse water quantity and/or water quality impact on adjacent wetlands and/or permitted surface water management systems;
If construction of the transmission line contributes to the necessity for future modifications to adjacent/existing roads, water quality treatment requirements of the requested road modifications must be addressed in the surface water management system design for the transmission line.
IV/III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
GENERAL
Wetland Avoidance
The Permittee shall avoid impacting wetlands within the transmission line corridor wherever practicable. Where necessary and feasible, the location of the structure pads, other related facilities and/or the transmission line alignment shall be varied to eliminate or reduce wetland impacts. The Permittee shall work in accordance with the submitted plans in the supplemental site certification application as supplemented by final approved construction plans. Clearing and construction activities shall be confined to the limits of the clearing zone.
Fill Materials
No fill materials shall be obtained from excavated wetlands or within 200 feet of functional wetlands, unless in accordance with a mitigation plan submitted in compliance with the conditions of this Certification.
Additional Wetlands Mitigation
The Permittee may be required to provide additional mitigation and/or other measures if wetland monitoring and/or other information demonstrates that adverse impacts to protected, restored, incorporated, and/or mitigated wetlands have occurred as a result of project-related activities.
Additional Environmental Review
The Permittee shall submit any proposed changes in land use, project design, and/or the treatment of on-site wetlands to the SFWMD for additional environmental review in order to determine whether any additional mitigation activities will be required.
Mitigation Areas
Mitigation credits shall be given for mitigation areas within both the SFWMD and the SJRWMD.
Mitigation credits shall be given for acreages and activities which have also been accepted by the DER as mitigation for impacts in areas of joint jurisdiction.
Any acreages or activities proposed by the mitigation plan and its addendum which exceed the mitigation requirements of the SJRWMD, and meet the non- procedural requirements for wetland mitigation of the SFWMD, shall be credited as mitigation for impacts within the SFWMD.
If required by SFWMD, OUC agrees to provide additional acreages and activities to offset impacts within SFWMD not credited by the Mitigation Plan (June 1991) and its addendum (Sept 1991).
SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN AUTHORIZATIONS
Authorized Wetland Impacts
The Permittee is authorized to construct an access/maintenance road and associated conveyance facilities for the transmission line and structure pads in the wetland areas specifically identified on Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 (Figures 6.1-
2, 6.1-3, and 6.1-4).
Sandhill Crane Nest Protection
The Permittee shall protect the active sandhill crane nest located in the 0.58 acre marsh situated between stations 125 and 126 in accordance with the following requirements:
The transmission line poles and structure pads shall be positioned so that the transmission line spans the marsh;
Construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season for sandhill cranes;
The marsh shall not be disturbed in any way;
The access road shall be located in the swale adjacent to the railroad rather than in the marsh.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Wetlands Protection
Prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line which will be located adjacent to the wetlands identified for preservation, the Permittee shall:
Stake and rope off the protected wetlands and buffer zones to prevent encroachment during construction. The stakes and ropes shall remain in place until all adjacent construction activities have been completed. Verification of staked areas by SFWMD staff shall be required prior to the commencement of and upon completion of any construction activities.
Install silt screens, turbidity barriers and/or hay bales prior to any construction in or alteration of any wetlands within the project site in order to prevent adverse water quality impacts to wetlands. These barriers shall remain in place until fill material is stabilized and turbidity has returned to background levels.
Mitigation Plan
Prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line which may affect wetlands, the Permittee shall submit a mitigation and monitoring plan to the SFWMD for a determination of compliance with the non- procedural requirements of Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., including Appendix 7 (Isolated Wetlands Rule) of the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications in the SFWMD, in effect at the time of submittal. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following information:
Locations and sizes of all proposed mitigation areas, species to be planted, planting densities, details of the proposed hydrologic regime, cross- sections showing the proposed elevations and water depths, and an estimated time schedule for completion of the construction of the mitigation areas.
A wetland mitigation and/or restoration work schedule which details each specific mitigation task (e.g. grading to proper elevation, mulching, planting, regularly scheduled maintenance and monitoring, etc.) and the calendar dates for the start and completion of each task.
Provisions for both quantitative and qualitative observations of wildlife utilization and the vegetative community, monthly water level readings, panoramic photographs documenting the condition of the mitigation areas, and evaluation of the success of the mitigation effort, and an annual report incorporating this information and any other relevant information. The water level readings will be taken weekly for sampling points that are accessable until demonstrated to the appropriate agency that less frequent water level readings are sufficient to demonstrate compliance.
Documentation that sufficient areas have appropriately worded conditions of certification within the SFWMD and/or the SJRWMD to compensate for the proposed wetland impacts with both the water management districts.
Part V
Conditions Recommended by
the
St. Johns River Water Management District V/I. WATER SHORTAGES
Nothing in this certification shall be construed to limit the authority of the SJRWMD to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statues or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 403.516, Florida Statutes, in the event of a water shortage as declared by the SJRWMD, DER may seek a modification of the terms and conditions of this certification to implement the water shortage declaration.
V/II. WELL CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR ABANDONMENT
Prior to the construction, modification, or abandonment of a well, OUC, et al., must obtain approval from the SJRWMD and meet the requirements of Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code.
V/III. WELL MAINTENANCE
Leaking or inoperative well casings, valves, or controls must be repaired or replaced as required to put the system back in an operative condition acceptable to the SJRWMD. Failure to make such repairs will be cause for deeming the well abandoned in accordance with Subsection 17-532.200(1), Florida Administrative Code and Section 373.309, Florida Statutes.
V/IV. MITIGATION OF WITHDRAWAL IMPACTS ON EXISTING LEGAL USERS
OUC, et al., must mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted herein on legal uses of water existing at the time of the Supplemental Site Certification Application for Stanton 2. If unanticipated significant adverse impacts occur, the DER has the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates or water allocations unless the impacts can be mitigated by OUC, et al. Adverse impacts are exemplified by, but not limited to:
Reduction of well water levels resulting in a reduction of 10% in the ability of an adjacent well (other than one owned by OUC) to produce water;
Reduction of water levels in an adjacent surface water body resulting in a significant impairment of the use of water (other than a use by OUC) in that water body;
Saline water intrusion or introduction of pollutants into the water supply of an adjacent water use (other than a use by OUC) resulting in a significant reduction of water quality; or
Change in water quality resulting in either impairment or loss of use of a well or water body (other than a use by OUC).
V/V. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES
OUC, et al., must mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted herein on an adjacent land use which existed at the time of Supplemental Site
Certification Application for Stanton 2. If unanticipated significant adverse impacts occur, the DER has the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates or water allocations unless the impacts can be mitigated by OUC, et al. Adverse impacts are exemplified by, but not limited to:
Significant reduction in water levels in an adjacent surface water body;
Land collapse or subsidence off-site caused by a reduction in water levels; or
Damage to crops and other types of off-site vegetation.
V/VI. IDENTIFICATION TAGS
A SJRWMD-issued identification tag must be prominently displayed at each withdrawal site by permanently affixing such tag to the pump, headgate, valve or other withdrawal facility as provided by Section 40C-2.401, Florida Administrative Code. OUC, et al., must notify the SJRWMD in the event that a replacement tag is needed.
V/VII. MAXIMUM ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS
Maximum annual withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer must not exceed 321.20 million gallons.
V/VIII. MAXIMUM DAILY WITHDRAWALS
Maximum daily withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer must not exceed 2.00 million gallons.
V/IX. LIMITATION ON USE OF WATER
Withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer wells must not be used directly for cooling tower make-up water. Reclaimed wastewater in an allocated amount of
10.19 million gallons/day on an annual average basis from the Orange County Easterly Wastewater Treatment Facility, stormwater runoff, on-site reuse water and direct precipitation shall be the source of cooling tower make-up water.
V/X. DEWATERING
All withdrawals from the surficial aquifer for dewatering to facilitate construction must be retained on-site within the recycle basin or the make-up water supply pond (#20 and #22, respectively, OUC, et al.'s Figure 3.2-1).
V/XI. OFF-SITE DISCHARGES
No off-site discharges are approved from this facility, except as provided for by the overflow structure in the make-up water supply pond (#20, OUC, et al.'s Figure 3.2-1), and the natural drainage patterns indicated on SCA Figure 3.10-1 for the duration of this certification.
V/XII. DISCHARGES FROM MAKE-UP WATER SUPPLY POND
All off-site discharges, as provided for by the overflow structure in the make- up water supply pond (#20, OUC, et al.'s Figure 3.2-1), must be in compliance with water quality standards as set forth in Chapters 17-4, and 17-302, F.A.C., or such standards as issued through a variance by DER.
V/XIII. WELL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
Water quality samples must be taken in April and October of each year from each production well. The samples must be analyzed for the following parameters:
Calcium Chloride
Magnesium Sulfate
Sodium Carbonate
Potassium Bi-Carbonate (or alkalinity if pH is
6.9 or lower)
All major ion analyses must be checked for anion-cation balance and must balance within 5% prior to submission. It is recommended that duplicates be taken to allow for laboratory problems or loss. The sample analyses must be submitted to the SJRWMD by May 15 and November 15 of each year. Prior to sample collection, a minimum of 3-5 casing volumes must be removed from each well. All sampling and water quality analyses shall be performed by organizations with approved comprehensive or generic quality assurance plans on file with the DER or a laboratory having HRS certification.
V/XIV. WATER TREATMENT PLANT REPORTS
By January 31 of each year, OUC, et al., must submit to the SJRWMD copies of the previous year (12 months) DER monthly water treatment plant operating report data showing total flow from the 2 Floridan wells going to the potable water treatment plant on-site. The project name and certification number must be attached to all reports.
V/XV. WELL WATER FLOW MONITORING
OUC, et al., must maintain the continuous recorder on the Floridan aquifer monitor well. Copies of the previous year (12 months) recorder charts must be forwarded to the SJRWMD on a yearly basis. The charts must be submitted by January 31 of each year.
V/XVI. CONSERVATION PLAN
OUC, et al., must implement the conservation plan submitted to the SJRWMD in accordance with the schedule contained therein.
V/XVII. WELL WATER FLOW METERS
All Floridan aquifer production wells must be equipped with totalizing flow meters throughout the duration of this certification. Such meters must maintain a 95% accuracy, be verifiable and be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications.
V/XVIII. CALIBRATION OF FLOW METERS
OUC, et al., must have all flow meter(s) calibrated once every 3 years within 30 days of the anniversary date of certification issuance, and recalibrated if the difference between the actual flow and the meter reading is greater than 5%.
SJRWMD form EN-51 must be submitted to the SJRWMD within 10 days of the inspection/calibration.
V/XIX. MAINTENANCE OF FLOW METERS
OUC, et al., must maintain the required flow meter(s). In case of failure or breakdown of any meter, the SJRWMD must be notified in writing within 5 days of its discovery. A defective meter must be repaired or replaced within 30 days of its discovery.
V/XX. DELINEATION OF LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION
Prior to construction, OUC, et al., must clearly delineate the limits of construction on-site. OUC, et al., must advise the contractor that any work within the Riparian Habitat Regulation Zone outside the limits of construction, including clearing, is a violation of this certification order.
V/XXI. BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT PLAN
Prior to commencement of construction, a Background Assessment Plan of the areas to be enhanced or mitigated must be submitted to the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD for review and joint approval. Data obtained through the Background Assessment Plan must include the following: (a) site specific topographic survey information referenced to NGVD; (b) survey of historic and existing ordinary high, normal or chronic pool water elevations referenced to NGVD based upon biological/physical wetland indicators; (c) a narrative describing the species composition, health and extent of pre-enhanced areas; and (d) quantitative information regarding the species composition including coverage and composition of understory, midcanopy and canopy species.
V/XXII. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT
The background assessment must be completed pursuant to the approved Background Assessment plan prior to construction.
V/XXIII. INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF ENHANCEMENT MITIGATION PLAN
Following completion of the background assessment, and prior to the commencement of construction associated with the transmission line or the access roads, planting and construction associated with the approved Enhancement Mitigation Plan must be initiated, and then must be completed within 12 months after initiation.
V/XXIV. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS OF ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION
Following completion of the background assessment, before any planting in the mitigation and enhancement areas, OUC, et al., must submit for the joint approval of SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD a plan setting forth appropriate criteria for determining success of all wetland and upland enhancement and mitigation areas. OUC, et al., shall implement and maintain the mitigation and enhancement areas to ensure that the success criteria are achieved.
V/XXV. MONITORING PLAN FOR ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION
Within 30 days of completion of the initial planting, OUC, et al., must submit to the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD for review and joint approval, two copies of a monitoring plan detailing the site specific methods to be used for monitoring the enhancement and mitigation areas, so that the achievement of the success criteria can be quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrated. The monitoring
plan must include the location, size and number of monitoring quadrants or transect lines, the location and number of photographic stations, the location of the wetland(s) to be enhanced and mitigated, the location of staff gauges and/or piezometers, and other pertinent factors. OUC, et al., shall monitor the enhancement and mitigation areas until the approved success criteria has been achieved.
V/XXVI. SURVEY OF ENHANCEMENT AREAS
OUC, et al., must submit to the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD two (2) copies of an as- built survey of the enhancement areas certified by a registered surveyor or professional engineer showing dimensions of all planted areas, invert(s) elevation of the proposed culvert in enhancement area 3.6(A), and the final grade of all plugged ditches. An inventory of the planted species within the wetland enhancement areas will be shown on the survey. In areas where planting occurs, the inventory must include the type, number, distribution, and size of the planted vegetation, and must be referenced to the as-built survey. The as- built survey must be submitted to the referenced agency parties within thirty
(30) days of completion of the initial planting.
V/XXVII. MONITORING REPORTS FOR THE ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION AREAS
Following joint approval of the plan referenced in Condition No. 26, OUC, et al., must furnish the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD with two copies of all Monitoring Reports for the enhancement and mitigation areas describing the status of the mitigation and enhancement areas until the enhancement and mitigation areas achieve the success criteria.
V/XXVIII. REVISIONS TO ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION
If it is determined that successful enhancement is not occurring based on the monitoring reports or trends, OUC, et al., must, within 30 days, provide the SJRWMD, DER and SFWMD with a narrative describing the type and causes of failure with a complete set of plans for the redesign and/or replacement planting of the mitigation and enhancement areas demonstrating that the success criteria can be achieved. Within 30 days of joint agency approval of the amended plans, OUC, et al., must implement the redesign and/or replacement planting. Following completion of such work, the success criteria as stated above or as modified by subsequent approval of the plan must again be achieved. In addition, the monitoring required by the conditions of this permit must be conducted.
V/XXIX. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING CONSTRUTION
OUC, et al., must select, implement, and operate all erosion and sediment control measures required to retain sediment on-site and to prevent violations of water quality standards as specified in Chapters 17-302 and 17-4, F.A.C. OUC, et al., is encouraged to use appropriate Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control as described in the "Florida Land Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management" (DER, 1988). All erosion and sediment control measures must remain in place at all locations until construction is completed and the soils are stabilized. Thereafter, OUC, et
al., will be responsible for the removal of the control measures (except for the control measures in the areas of fill for the unpaved access road which shall be permanent).
V/XXX. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING OPERATION
Following the completion of construction, OUC, et al., must construct and maintain a permanent protective vegetative and/or artificial cover for erosion and sediment control on all land surfaces exposed or disturbed by construction or alteration of the certified project. A permanent vegetative cover must be established within 60 days after planting or installation.
V/XXXI. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION PLAN
The proposed mitigation plan submitted to SJRWMD by OUC for the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, Unit 2, dated June 21, 1991, July 20, 1991, September 11,
1991, September 18, 1991, and September 19, 1991 is incorporated as a condition of this certification except where specifically superseded by certification conditions.
V/XXXII. COMPLETION OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Construction or alteration of the surface water management system must be completed and all disturbed areas must be stabilized in accordance with the submitted plans and certification conditions prior to use of the infrastructure for its intended purpose.
V/XXXIII. RETENTION/DETENTION STORAGE AREAS
At a minimum, all retention/detention storage areas must be constructed to rough grade prior to the placement of impervious surface within the area to be served by those facilities. To prevent reduction in storage volume and percolation rates, all accumulated sediment must be removed from the storage areas prior to final grading and stabilization.
V/XXXIV. ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Final Access Road and Transmission Line construction plans must be submitted to the SJRWMD at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction. The final plans must be consistent with the plans and calculations received by the SJRWMD on July 22, 1991, such that the requirements of Chapters 40C-4, 40C-41 and 40C- 42, F.A.C. continue to be met.
V/XXXV. ACCESS ROAD FILL
The fill material for the access roads must satisfy the soil properties assumed in the calculations received by the SJRWMD on July 22, 1991. If fill is to be acquired on site, a plan depicting the location of the area to be used for fill for the Access Roads must be submitted to the SJRWMD at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction. Access to the on-site fill material must be shown on the plan.
V/XXXVI. CONTRACTOR REVIEW AND POSTING OF CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
OUC, et al., must require the contractor to review and maintain a copy of this document, complete with all conditions, attachments, and exhibits, in good condition and posted on the construction site.
Part VI
Conditions Recommended by
the
Florida Department of Transportation VI/I. CONSTRUCTION IMPACT MITIGATION PROGRAM
OUC shall develop and implement at its own expense a construction traffic impact mitigation program after consultation with DOT, and report that will be submitted to DOT prior to commencement of construction of Stanton Unit 2. The program will detail the actions that OUC will take to reduce the impacts of construction traffic, which report shall address the following actions:
OUC shall actively promote and encourage car-pooling by construction companies and workers, including contractors and subcontractors, from whom it obtains construction services, and OUC shall further explore with appropriate public mass-transportation providers in the area the possibility of park-and- ride service to the site.
OUC shall utilize to the extent practicable the existing railway access to the Stanton site for the delivery of equipment and materials needed for the project construction.
OUC will explore with its contractors and subcontractors the practicability of staggering construction employee work schedules, and encourage the staggering of shifts to the extent feasible to mitigate peak hour traffic congestion problems.
OUC will consult with the appropriate Winter Park DOT personnel regarding the practicality of providing temporary traffic control devices and alteration of signal times to assist in maintaining proper traffic flow at the most affected intersections which are the intersections of Alafaya Trail with both the East-West Expressway and State Road 50.
OUC shall suggest and encourage the use by construction personnel of alternate public road access to the Stanton site as appropriate to alleviate traffic congestion.
Part VII
Conditions Stipulated for the
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Management Area
VII/I. RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT AREA IDENTIFICATION
All lands depicted on Figure 4.2 (attached hereto) of the August 1981 red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW) Management Plan, except for the area specifically identified as "construction impact of proposed generating Units 1, 2, 3, and 4" constitute the red-cockaded woodpecker management area subject to the Management Plan specified in Condition XXXI of the Site Certification granted OUC by the Siting Board on December 14, 1982. (DOAH Case No. 81-1431)
VII/II. USE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RCW AREA
With regard to the RCW management area, in addition to Condition XXXI of the December 14, 1982 Order of the Florida Siting Board:
OUC may conduct activities within the RCW management area described in Condition XXXI which are provided for in the Siting Board's certification orders for Units 1 and 2, including without limitation the execution of habitat restoration, enhancement, and creation required as mitigation.
OUC may conduct management, including maintenance in their existing configuration and condition, of existing unpaved private roads utilized by OUC, maintenance of existing water and sewer lines, of existing transmission lines and substation, and other maintenance and management activities within the area of Condition XXXI which are consistent with its purposes.
OUC shall take appropriate action to manage the RCW management area to achieve the purposes required by Condition No. XXXI with regard to the red- cockaded woodpecker, and in general to preserve the natural conditions of the area, including other protected species of native wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and particularly the tributaries and headwaters of the Econlockhatchee River. OUC may act to implement the red-cockaded woodpecker management plan, to monitor its effectiveness, and to react to fire, flood, or other unforeseeable natural or manmade disturbances. Any reports generated by OUC concerning activities within or management of the RCW management area shall be provided to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
OUC shall allow only those activities of others within the RCW Management Area which are consistent with its management in a natural state. Such activities shall be limited to environmentalrestoration, scientific research, habitat management (such as controlled burning) and nature study.
Unless specifically authorized by an order of the Siting Board, dredging, filling, construction of buildings, road-ways, dumping of debris, excavation, and clearing of native vegetation shall be prohibited in the area defined by Condition XXXI. The provisions of Sections 403.516(1) (a) and (b) notwithstanding, OUC agrees that any activity prohibited in this paragraph within the area described in the RCW management area shall be authorized only by affirmative vote of the Siting Board.
OUC hereby stipulates as a factual matter, which shall be binding on it, and all of its officers, agents, attorneys, and employees, that the "alternate access road" authorized by this supplemental certification completes the necessary roadway access for Units 1 and 2, to allow the full development thereof. Any additional access for electric power generation, and any additional facilities necessary for the construction of Units 3 and 4 will be the subject of a comprehensive Supplemental Certification application or applications for Units 3 and 4.
If OUC determines to pursue a modification of its certification with regard to the easement recorded December 30, 1987, at ORB 3946, Page 3187, Orange County, Florida, it shall do so as a ministerial act only and shall not actively utilize its resources, funds or personnel to support such an application.
[Final page of conditions of certification is a map "areas of construction impacts of red-cockaded woodpeckers" which is attached to all hard copies of this order.]
APPENDIX B TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1813EPP
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Applicants, OUC, et al.
Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(4); 6(1); 8(2); 9(3); 10(7); 14(8); 15(9); 20-22(10-12); 24-28(13-17); 40-61(18-40); 70-82(41-53); 84- 86(54-56); 89(57); 90(58); 97-100(60-63); 109(59); 110(64); 112(70); 115-117(71- 73); 120(83&84); 121 & 122(85); 123(86); 124(87-91); 125(92);136-148(93-105); 149(108); 151(111); 191-201(114-124); 203 & 204(125 & 126); 206-209(127-130); 212(131); and 215-223(132-140).
2. Proposed findings of fact 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 16-19, 23, 29-33, 38, 39, 62-69,
83, 101-108, 111, 113, 114, 118, 119, 127, 128, 150, 152, 202, 205, 210, and 211
are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order.
3. Proposed findings of fact 7, 13, 87, 88, 91-96, 126, 129-135, 153-190, 213, and 214 are unnecessary.
4. Proposed findings of fact 34-37 are irrelevant.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Department of Environmental Regulation
1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-104(1-104) and 105- 127(114-136).
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by St. Johns River Water Management District
1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(4); 4-6(1-3); 9(8); 10- 13(10-13); 23(93); 34-36(93-95); 39(98); 41-44(99); 47(100); 49(102); 52(104); 53-55(105-107); 56(109); 58(109); 67-72(41-46); 73-84(46-52); 86(55); 87(39 & 40); 88(125); 90(128); and 91(40).
2. Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 7, 8, 14-22, 24-33, 37, 38, 40, 46, 48, 50,
51, 62, 63, 85, and 92 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order.
Proposed finding of fact 57 is unnecessary.
Proposed findings of fact 45, 59-61, 64, 65, and 93 are irrelevant.
Proposed finding of fact 66 is unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Richard Donelan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Thomas B. Tart, General Counsel Orlando Utilities Commission
500 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801
Kenza Van Assenderp, Attorney at Law
C. Laurence Keesey, Attorney at Law Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Benton
P. O. Box 1833
Tallahassee, FL 32302-1833
Fred Bryant, Attorney at Law Moore, Williams, Bryant & Peoples
306 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32302
James Antista, General Counsel
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building
620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
Ken Plante, General Counsel
Florida Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Kathryn Mennella
Senior Assistant General Counsel
St. Johns River Water Management District
P. O. Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32178-1429
G. Stephen Pfeiffer, General Counsel Kathryn Funchess, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Cliff Guillet
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105
Winter Park, FL 32789
Tom Wilks, Attorney at Law Orange County
201 South Rosalind Avenue 6th floor
Orlando, FL 32801
John Fumero, Attorney at Law
South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road
P. O. Box 24680
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
Michael Palecki
Bureau Chief, Electric and Gas Division of Legal Services Florida Public Service Commission
101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Room 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
Hamilton S. Oven, P.E., Administrator Siting Coordination Office
Division of Air Resources Management Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Charles Lee
Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society
460 Highway 435, Ste. 200 Casselberry, FL 32707
William H. Roberts Assistant General Counsel
Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor
State of Florida The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
State of Florida The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida
The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399
Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Honorable Tom Gallagher
Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller
State of Florida
The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 19, 1991 | Final Order Approving Supplemental Certification filed. |
| Nov. 14, 1991 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 9/23-25/91. |
| Oct. 15, 1991 | One Computer Disk (PRO) filed. (From Richard Donnellan) |
| Oct. 14, 1991 | South Florida Water Management District's Notice of Adoption filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1991 | Transcript (3 Vols) w/Transcript of Public Hearing filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1991 | Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission`s Agreement to Conditions of Certification; Applicants` Proposed Recommended Order w/(TAGGED) Proposed Recommended Order Conditions of Certification (1 computer disk) & Affidavit + Errate Sheet (18) filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1991 | DER'S Proposed Recommended Order w/Appendix-A filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1991 | (SJWMD) Proposed Recommended Order w/St. Johns River Water Management District`s Memorandum of Law & Exhibits A-H filed. |
| Sep. 27, 1991 | 5 Boxes of Exhibits filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1991 | (Charles Lee) Affidavit of Non-Attorney Representative filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1991 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Sep. 20, 1991 | St. Johns River Water Management District`s Errata Sheet to Joint Stipulation of The Parties and Signature Page filed. (From Kathryn L. Mennella) |
| Sep. 20, 1991 | Joint Stipulation of the Parties filed. |
| Sep. 20, 1991 | Joint Stipulation of the applicants and The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Concerning Conditions of Certification filed. |
| Sep. 19, 1991 | Order (DOT's Motion DENIED) sent out. |
| Sep. 19, 1991 | Petitioner For A Variance; Certificate of Service filed. (From C.Laurence Keesey) |
| Sep. 18, 1991 | (Petitioner) Petition For A Variance filed. (From C. Laurence Keesey) |
| Sep. 17, 1991 | Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commissions Response to The Department of Transportation`s Motion Relating To Statements of Issues filed. |
| Sep. 17, 1991 | Orlando Utilities Commissions Response to The Florida Department of Transportations Motion to Accept Issues Raised in The Departments Agency Report, Preliminary Statement of Issues and Petition to Intervene toStand as The Departme nts Statement of Issues |
| Sep. 17, 1991 | St. Johns River Water Management Districts Request for Official Recognition (Exhibit 1-7 TAGGED) filed. |
| Sep. 16, 1991 | (DOT) Motion to Expedite Hearing filed. |
| Sep. 13, 1991 | Letter to L. Keesey from W. Roberts (Re: Prehearing Stipulation); Motion to Allow Issues Raised in The Departments Agency Report, Preliminary Statement of Issues and Petition to Intervene to Stand as The Departments Statement of Issues; The Department of |
| Sep. 13, 1991 | Order (Motion to Accept Statement of Issues as Timely Filed is DENIED; FGFWFC is not precluded from presenting evidence on those issues since they were timely raised by DER) sent out. |
| Sep. 13, 1991 | Supplemental Site Certification Hearings Prepared Direct Testimony filed. (From Hal E. Smith) |
| Sep. 12, 1991 | Orlando Utilities Commission`s Response to the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission`s Motion to Accept Statement of Issues as Timely Filed filed. (From C. Laurence Keesey) |
| Sep. 12, 1991 | Florida and Orange Audubon Societies List of Witnesses filed. (From Charles Lee) |
| Sep. 10, 1991 | Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's Supplemental Witness List filed. (From James V. Antista) |
| Sep. 09, 1991 | South Florida Water Management District's Witness List filed. (From John J. Fumero) |
| Sep. 09, 1991 | (DOT) Witness List filed. (From William H. Roberts) |
| Sep. 06, 1991 | Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission`s Motion to Accept Statement of Issues as Timely Filed; Florida Game And Fresh Water Fish Commission`s Statement of Issues and Witness List filed. (From James V. Antista) |
| Sep. 06, 1991 | Department of Community Affairs List of Witnesses filed. (From L. Kathryn Funchess) |
| Sep. 04, 1991 | Order sent out. (RE: Petition for Intervention). |
| Sep. 04, 1991 | St. Johns River Water Management District's Statement of Issues filed. |
| Sep. 04, 1991 | Department of Environmental Regulation`s List of Issues filed. |
| Sep. 03, 1991 | Reply of Florida and Orange Audubon Societies to Orlando Utilities Commission`s Response in Opposition filed. ( From Charles Lee) |
| Aug. 30, 1991 | Statement of Issues filed. (From Ken Van Assenderp) |
| Aug. 29, 1991 | Orlando Utility Commissions Response in Opposition to The Petition to Intervene of The Florida Audubon Society, Inc. and Orange Audubon Society, Inc. filed. |
| Aug. 27, 1991 | Letter to DKK from John Puhek (Re: Request for Intervention) filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1991 | (Petitioners) Notice of Related Case & attachment filed. (From Charles Lee) |
| Aug. 26, 1991 | Application For Supplemental Certification of Orlando Utilities Commission, et al., For Curtis Stanton Energy Center, Unit 2 & cover Letter filed. (From Cliff Guillet) |
| Aug. 26, 1991 | (1 book binder) Electric Power Plant Site Certification Review & cover Letter filed. (From Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.) |
| Aug. 23, 1991 | (FL Audubon society, Inc.) Petition to Intervene filed. (From Charles Lee) |
| Aug. 20, 1991 | (Petitioner) Petition to Intervene; Motion to Intervene filed. (From William H. Roberts) |
| Aug. 08, 1991 | Final Agency Report of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission filed. (From James V. Antista) |
| Jul. 18, 1991 | Order sent out. (re: ruling on pending motions) |
| Jul. 16, 1991 | Notice of Certification Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Sept. 23-27, 1991; 10:00am; Orlando). |
| Jul. 15, 1991 | Supplemental Certificate of Service filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1991 | Joint Motion For Extension of Time For Filing Agency Reports by St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water Management District w/Exhibit A&B filed. (From Kathryn L. Mennella) |
| Jul. 15, 1991 | Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's Notice of Intent to Participate as a Party filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1991 | Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Final Report filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1991 | (DCA) Motion for Extension of Time For Filing Agency Report filed. (From David L. Jordan) |
| Jul. 12, 1991 | Letter to DKK from C. Laurence Keesey (re: location of final hearing)filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1991 | (Petitioners) Motion to Set Schedule For the Submission of Agency Reports, Discovery and Prehearing Matters filed. (From C. Laurence Keesey) |
| Jun. 26, 1991 | CC Letter to Lawrence Keesey from Harry Robert Bishop, Jr. (re: short extension of time) filed. |
| May 20, 1991 | Letter to DKK from Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. (re: Letter from DCA) filed. |
| May 17, 1991 | CC Request for Information from the St. Johns River Water Management District that was Inadvertently Omitted from the May 6, 19991 Letter filed. (From Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.) |
| May 07, 1991 | Order sent out. (SJRWMD, SWFWMD & DCA are entitled to participate as parties in the proceedings). |
| May 07, 1991 | Letter to DKK from Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. (re: insufficiencies in the supplemental application for site certification) & attachments filed. |
| Apr. 30, 1991 | Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Intent to Participate As A Party filed. (From L. Kathryn Funchess) |
| Apr. 29, 1991 | St. Johns River Water Management Districts Notice of Intent to Participate As A Party filed. (From Kathryn L. Mennella) |
| Apr. 22, 1991 | South Florida Water Management District`s Notice Intent to Participate as a Party filed. (From John J. Fumero) |
| Apr. 08, 1991 | Notice of Assignment sent out. (to DKK) |
| Apr. 08, 1991 | (Orlando Utilities) Supplemental Site Certification Application Vols 1&2 filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1991 | (DER) OUC Stanton #2 Processing Schedule; List of Statutory Parties filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1991 | Notification card sent out. |
| Mar. 22, 1991 | Joint Petition For Supplemental; Certification of Construction and Operation Including Determination of Need For Electrical Power Plant; Certificate of Service filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 17, 1991 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 14, 1991 | Recommended Order | Intent of Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) is centralized one-stop permitting. Limiting duration of consumptive water use conflicts with PPSA & St. Johns Regional Water Management District rule. Supplemental Certification. |
