STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. )

WEST COUNTY ENERGY CENTER POWER ) Case No. 05-1493EPP POWER PLANT SITING APPLICATION )

NO. PA 05-47 )

)

SITE CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly-designated Administrative Law Judge, David M. Maloney, held a certification hearing in the above- styled case on September 6 and 7, 2006, in Wellington, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Florida Power & Light Co.:

Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Harris M. Rosen, Esquire Corporate Counsel

Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 14000

Juno Beach, Florida 33408

For the Department of Environmental Protection:

Scott A. Goorland, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve Florida Power & Light Company’s ("FPL") request for certification to authorize construction and operation of the first two units of the West County Energy Center Project (“WCEC Project” or the “Project") and for certification of an ultimate site capacity of 3300 megawatts (“MW”) for the WCEC Project site, in accordance with the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (“PPSA”), Section 403.501, seq., Florida Statutes

(“F.S.”)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This proceeding was conducted pursuant to the PPSA, Chapter 403, Part II, F.S., and Chapter 62-17, Florida Administrative Code (“FAC”) to consider FPL's application for power plant site certification of the WCEC Project. On April 14, 2005, FPL applied for certification to construct and operate a new natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Palm Beach County, Florida, pursuant to the PPSA. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") determined the application for site certification to be complete on April 29, 2005.

Comments on the sufficiency of the application were timely submitted by the DEP, the Department of State’s Division of

Historical Resources, the Department of Transportation, and the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"). FPL filed responses to all agency sufficiency comments. (FPL Ex. 2)1 The application was found sufficient on September 12, 2005.

On August 3, 2005, a land use hearing was held for the purpose of determining whether the Project is consistent and in compliance with local land use plans and zoning ordinances of Palm Beach County, Florida. On September 2, 2005, the assigned Administrative Law Judge entered his Land Use Recommended Order concluding that the Project and its site are consistent and in compliance with Palm Beach County's land use plans and zoning ordinances. The Siting Board's Land Use Order adopting the Land Use Recommended Order and finding the Project to be consistent and in compliance with applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances was signed by Governor Bush and issued on

November 15, 2005. (FPL Ex. 7)

Pursuant to Section 403.519, F.S., the Florida Public Service Commission (“PSC”) issued Order No. PSC-06-0555-FOF-EI, dated June 28, 2006, affirmatively determining the need for the West County Energy Center as proposed by FPL. (FPL Ex. 5)

The various reviewing agencies have submitted reports on the Project and recommended Conditions of Certification. On July 18, 2006, DEP issued its Staff Analysis Report on the

Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and recommending certification of the West County Energy Center, subject to a comprehensive set of recommended Conditions of Certification. At the hearing on this matter, DEP submitted a Revised Staff Analysis Report dated August 24, 2006, that incorporated principally editorial changes and a slightly revised set of recommended Conditions of Certification. (DEP Ex. 2)

On July 17, 2006, notice of the certification hearing scheduled for September 6 and 7, 2006, was published by FPL in the Palm Beach Post, a newspaper published in Palm Beach County, Florida. (FPL Ex. 6) Notice of this certification hearing was also published by DEP in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 21, 2006. (FPL Ex. 6)

On August 28, 2006, FPL, DEP, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (“TCRPC”), PSC, SFWMD, and Palm Beach County filed a Prehearing Stipulation addressing certification issues. The Stipulation indicated that no party objected to certification of the Project, subject to appropriate Conditions of Certification. The TCRPC took no position as to whether or not the Project should be certified.

The certification hearing was held on September 6 and 7, 2006, in Wellington, Florida. The hearing was conducted for the purposes of receiving evidence as to whether certification authorizing construction and operation of the first two units of the Project should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, and as to whether the Project site should be certified for an ultimate site capacity of 3300 MW. The hearing was also held to allow opportunity for public comment.

Pursuant to Section 403.507(3), F.S., the certification hearing shall also serve as the hearing on any petition for an administrative hearing concerning the preliminary determination and draft permit issued by DEP on the separately-issued federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") permit for the Project. No such petition has been filed as to that permit.

At the beginning of the certification hearing,

Barry Silver, an attorney representing Michael Christensen, Patricia Curry, Alexandria Larson, and Sharon Waite, made an ore tenus motion for those four individuals to intervene as parties to this proceeding. Section 403.508(4)(c), F.S. allows the designated administrative law judge discretion to grant intervention “any time prior to 30 days before the commencement

of the certification hearing.” The provision was construed to mean that there was no discretion to allow intervention within

30 days of the certification hearing. The motion was denied accordingly.

FPL presented the oral or written testimony of ten witnesses. The Applicant's expert witnesses and the subject of their expert testimony included: Peter Andersen, P.E., Water Resource Engineering and Groundwater Modeling; Karl Bullock, Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecology; Richard Hathaway, Power Plant Design, Engineering and Construction; John Gnecco, P.E., Power Plant Design and Operation; Kennard Kosky, P.E., Power Plant Siting, Licensing, Alternatives Analysis and Regulatory Compliance, Air Pollution Control Technology Design and Engineering, Best Available Control Technology Determinations, Air Quality Impact Analyses, including impacts to Visibility and Noise Evaluation and Impact Analyses; Gregory Powell, Ph.D., Surface Water Hydrology and Geohydrology; Carmine Priore, III, P.E., Power Plant Operations; Jonathan Shaw, P.G., Hydrogeology; and Richard Zwolak, AICP, Land Use Planning, Socioeconomic Impact Analysis and Traffic Impact Analysis. David N. Hicks, a fact witness, was also called by FPL.

The prefiled written testimony and exhibits of four of FPL’s expert witnesses were received into evidence by prior agreement of all of the parties.

FPL Exhibits 1 through 9, along with FPL Exhibits DNH-1, JG-1, RH-1 through 6, KFK-1 through 4, RZ-1 through 4, and CP-1 were admitted into evidence.

DEP presented the testimony of Steven L. Palmer, P.E., an expert in Electrical Power Plant Site Certification in the State of Florida. DEP Exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted into evidence.

Members of the public were given an opportunity to provide public comment or testimony during the certification hearing.

Four individuals provided public comment that was not sworn testimony. Twenty-five individuals testified under oath.

Counsel for FPL and DEP, as well as Mr. Silver, were given the opportunity to cross-examine those members of the public who gave sworn testimony. Public comment exhibits Tsolkas 1, Larson

1 and Curry 1 were admitted in evidence. Mr. Silver was allowed to make a closing argument on the public comment portion of the proceeding. Additional written public comment was allowed if filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by

September 15, 2006. Responses by the parties to any such written public comments were allowed if filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by September 22, 2006.

FPL elected to order a transcript of the proceedings. It was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on

September 13, 2006. A Joint Proposed Recommended Order was submitted by FPL and DEP and has been considered in rendition of

this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are determined:

Project Summary Public Notice

1. The Notice of Certification Hearing regarding the WCEC Project was published by FPL in the Palm Beach Post on July 17, 2006. It included language consistent with Section 403.508(4) and (5), F.S., regarding opportunities to participate in this proceeding, and requirements and deadlines for intervening as a party in this proceeding. Paragraph 6(c) of that Notice included the following sentence: “Intervention pursuant to this paragraph may be granted at the discretion of the designated Administrative Law Judge and upon such conditions as he may prescribe any time prior to 30 days before the commencement of the September 6, 2006 certification hearing.” (FPL Ex. 6)

2. Other public notices concerning this proceeding were published by FPL and DEP at earlier stages of this proceeding. DEP published a Notice of Filing Application for Power Plant

   
   

   Certification regarding the WCEC Project on May 13, 2005. Under the heading “Point of Entry," that notice stated:

   “This notice does not serve as a point of entry for any person. However, in the future, two hearings will be announced. One hearing will consider the compliance of the site with local land use plans and zoning ordinances. The second will address environmental impacts. Any person who is not a statutory party to the certification proceeding and whose substantial interest is affected and being determined by the proceeding may file a motion to intervene in the proceeding pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the applicable rules; section 403.508(4)(e), Florida Statutes; and section 62-17.141(4), Florida Administrative Code, at least 31 days before the date of the certification hearing. Failure to act within the time frame constitutes a waiver of the right to become a party.

   Intervention may be granted at the discretion of the designated administrative law judge and upon such conditions as he or she may prescribe any time prior to 30 days before the commencement of the certification hearing. The petition must be filed (received) with the Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, The Desoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 at least 31 days before the date of the certification hearing.”

   
   

   (DEP Ex. 3; Palmer Tr. III, pp. 51 to 53)

   
   

3. The Notice of Filing Application for Site Certification regarding the Project published in the Palm Beach Post by FPL on May 14, 2005, included language consistent with Section 403.508(4), F.S. regarding intervention as follows:

   
   

   “Intervention pursuant to this paragraph may be granted at the discretion of the designated administrative law judge and upon such conditions as he may prescribe any time prior to 30 days before the commencement of the certification hearing.” The Notice of Land Use and Zoning Hearing regarding the Project published in the Palm Beach Post on June 16, 2005, included identical language regarding intervention. DEP published a Notice of Public Hearing regarding the land use hearing for the Project on June 17, 2005, that, under the heading “Point of Entry” also included substantially identical language on intervention. (FPL Ex. RZ-2, RZ-3; DEP Ex. 4; Palmer Tr. III, pp. 54, 55)

4. Each of the three newspaper notices published by FPL regarding this proceeding was approximately one-half page in size. The Palm Beach Post is a newspaper of general circulation in Palm Beach County. (FPL Ex. 6, RZ-2; RZ-3; Palmer, Tr. III, pp. 53, 54)

   Background

   
   

5. Florida Power & Light Company is Florida’s largest electric utility. FPL currently serves more than 8 million residents, representing approximately 4.4 million customer accounts. FPL provides service to these customers in all or parts of 35 counties in the state. FPL’s service territory is

   
   

   along the eastern seaboard and in the southern and southwestern portions of Florida. FPL has existing electrical generating units located at 14 sites in Florida. FPL has been providing electric service in Florida for more than 80 years. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 1-2 to 1-3; FPL Ex. DH-1; Hicks, Tr. I, pp. 30-31)

6. The last electrical generating unit added by FPL in Palm Beach County was at its Riviera Plant in 1963. Between 1966 and 2005, FPL’s electric sales in Palm Beach County have increased by 890 percent. (Hicks, Tr. I, p. 34)

7. FPL undertook an extensive public outreach program in connection with the WCEC Project. The goal of this program was to provide opportunities for FPL to share information with the public, to obtain their views, and to address their interests. Beginning in 2005 and continuing in 2006, FPL provided numerous presentations about the WCEC Project to homeowners’ associations, Chambers of Commerce, and civic clubs. FPL also held open houses in local neighborhoods. (Priore, Tr. I, pp. 116-117; FPL Ex. 1, Vol. I, pp. 1-9 to 1-10; RZ-4)

   PSC Need Determination

   
   

8. On June 28, 2006, the Public Service Commission issued its final order determining the need for the WCEC Units 1 and 2. The PSC found that: there is a need for FPL’s proposed WCEC Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for electric system

   
   

   reliability and integrity, as used in Section 403.519, F.S.; without completing WCEC Unit 1 by June 2009, FPL’s and Peninsular Florida’s electric system reliability and integrity would be significantly reduced, and FPL would be unable to meet its reserve margin planning criterion; and, without completing WCEC Unit 2 by June 2010, FPL would fall below its reserve margin criterion. The PSC also found that: the WCEC Units 1 and 2 will be highly efficient and reliable, state-of-the-art units producing electricity for FPL’s customers at a reasonable cost; the addition of WCEC Units 1 and 2 will improve FPL’s average system heat rate by about four percent, allowing FPL’s generating system to use four percent less natural gas; and that WCEC Units 1 and 2 are the most cost-effective alternatives available. The PSC found that there are no energy conservation measures reasonably available to FPL which could avoid or defer the need for the proposed WCEC Units 1 and 2 and that FPL is actively encouraging development of renewable energy, consistent with the direction of the Florida Legislature and the PSC. (FPL Ex. 5; Hicks, Tr. I, pp. 31-34)

   Site and Site Vicinity

   
   

9. The site which is proposed to be certified in this proceeding is a new plant site of approximately 220 acres located adjacent to the existing FPL Corbett transmission

   
   

   substation in the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County, Florida. FPL proposes to construct two new natural gas-fired combined cycle generating units, each providing approximately 1250 MW of electric generation. This new facility is referred to as the West County Energy Center. FPL is also seeking approval for 3300 MW of ultimate capacity for the site. The WCEC site is located north of State Road 80 and just northwest of the Village of Wellington. State Road 80, also known as U.S. Highways 98 and 441, is a major east-west corridor that traverses the middle of Palm Beach County. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 1-1, 2-9, Fig. 2.1.1-1; FPL Ex. RH-2; Zwolak, Tr. III, p. 16-17;

   Palmer, Tr. III, p. 44)

   
   

10. FPL owns the 220 acre WCEC site, which was formerly owned by Palm Beach Aggregates, Inc. (“PBA”). Prior to FPL’s purchase of the site, PBA conducted aggregate mining on a portion of this property. PBA reclaimed the land through removal of all organic material and overburden soils, and backfilled the site to 23 feet above mean sea level with structurally engineered material which meets the requirements of power plant construction. The site is currently undeveloped, disturbed land free of vegetation and void of any wetlands, significant wildlife habitat and threatened or endangered species. A berm has been constructed along the southern

    
    

    boundary of the site where it abuts State Road 80, constituting a planted visual barrier approximately 30 feet above the elevation of State Road 80. The entire WCEC site is above the 100-year flood zone and is above the water levels projected in the event of a breach of the Lake Okeechobee dike. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-1, 2-23 to 26, 4-4, 4-5; FPL Ex. RH-3; Gnecco, Tr. I, p.

    44; Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 53-4; Zwolak, Tr. III, p. 10; Bullock, PT, p. 5)

11. Land uses immediately adjacent to the WCEC site include an electrical substation, mining, high voltage transmission lines and State Road 80. Agricultural lands are located west of the Project, while ongoing mining activities are located to the east and north of the Project. FPL’s Corbett Substation is located northwest of and adjacent to the WCEC site. FPL’s existing 500 kilovolts (“kV”) transmission line corridor is located on the western boundary of the site. Palm Beach Aggregates has entered into an agreement with the SFWMD to construct water storage ponds to the east of the site after mining is completed by PBA. These ponds will be located east of the FPL site and between the PBA Road and the L-8 Canal. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-1, 2-6, 2-21; FPL Ex. RH-3; Zwolak, Tr. III, pp. 10, 11, 14, 16)

    
    

12. The predominant land uses beyond those immediately adjacent to the site include mining to the east, industrial facilities, as well as mining to the north, industrial facilities to the southeast and agricultural land to the west of the site. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-1, 2-6; FPL Ex. RH-3; Zwolak, Tr. III, p. 11)

13. The residential area nearest to the site is a multi- acre per lot subdivision called Deer Run, located to the northeast. The nearest residence in the Deer Run Subdivision is located approximately 0.75 miles from the location proposed for WCEC Unit 1. Beyond two miles from the site, land use patterns are primarily residential to the east, with density gradually increasing further to the east, and agriculture to the west. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 2-1; Zwolak, Tr. III, pp. 14-15)

14. The northern end of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (“LNWR”), a part of the Everglades, is located south of the WCEC site and south of State Road 80. The LNWR comprises over 221 square miles including habitat for the American alligator and the endangered Everglades snail kite. In any given year, as many as 257 species of birds may use the LWNR’s diverse wetland habitats. The portion of the LNWR located nearest the WCEC site is dominated by freshwater tree islands, marsh, shrubs, and cattails. Exotic species have extensively

    
    

    colonized the northern, southwestern, and western portions of the LNWR. The LNWR’s public access point nearest to the WCEC site is approximately 20 miles to the southeast. The portion of the LNWR closest to the WCEC site, a point on the LNWR's northern boundary, is not open for public use. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-6, 2-7; Zwolak, Tr. III, pp. 13, 17) Testimony in the public comment portion of the hearing was that the distance from the site to the closest point in the LNWR is one-half mile. Mr.

    Zwolak, FPL's rebuttal witness estimated it to be "somewhere around 1000 foot . . . one-fifth of a mile." Tr. III, p. 13. Mr. Zwolak's estimate is found to be the more accurate.

    Whichever is more accurate, however, there is no question that the distance between the WCEC site and the nearest point of the LNWR is less than one mile.

15. In choosing the WCEC site, FPL considered a number of factors, including fuel supply, transmission access, water supply, location of the site, and physical attributes of the site. The WCEC site was found acceptable with respect to each of these factors. As to the site location and geology, FPL required assurances that PBA’s ongoing mining operations, which include blasting of limerock material, would not adversely impact the operation of WCEC. PBA entered into an agreement with FPL that outlined the terms, conditions, and restrictions

    
    

    associated with PBA’s blasting activities. The blasting agreement included minimum separation criteria, maximum blasting levels, and coordination notification requirements. The minimum separation criteria was established to ensure that the most sensitive parts of the power plant (large rotating equipment such as the steam turbine) would not be adversely affected by blasting. With an understanding of the maximum velocity, displacement and accelerations associated with any blasting, FPL can design the WCEC structures, buildings and equipment to handle the resulting loads, including the combustion turbine foundations, fuel tanks and natural gas pipelines. Blasting associated with the PBA mining operations is not expected to adversely affect the buildings, structures, or equipment comprising WCEC or the safe and reliable operation of the facility. The ongoing mining activities of PBA have not adversely impacted the existing natural gas pipeline that runs along State Road 80, just south of the WCEC site. (Gnecco, Tr. I, pp. 40-49)

    Project Design

    
    

16. The WCEC Project involves the construction and operation of two new "3-on-l" combined cycle units. Each unit will consist of three combustion turbines (“CTs”) and three heat recovery steam generators (“HRSGs”) that supply steam to a

    
    

    single steam turbine generator. A combustion turbine is similar to a large jet engine. It combines air and fuel in the combustion turbine, where the fuel is ignited and the air expanded to rotate a shaft that has an electric generator attached to it. Heat from each combustion turbine, in addition to supplemental heat from duct burners, is exhausted into a HRSG which produces steam that is used with steam from the other HRSGs to rotate a conventional steam turbine shaft that is attached to a separate electric generator. The recovery of waste heat from the combustion turbine for use in the steam turbine results in the combined-cycle design having efficiency gains over conventional steam electric power plants. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-1 to 3-2; Hicks, Tr. I, p. 32; Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 55)

17. Each of the 3-on-1 combined cycle units will have a total nominal generating capacity of 1250 MW. Each HRSG will contain a duct burner which is fired during peak demand periods to achieve the total nominal generating capacity. The duct burners will fire natural gas only. Duct firing will be limited to an equivalent of 2,880 hours per year per CT at the maximum firing rate. Each CT will also utilize inlet air cooling which removes heat from the inlet air and allows additional power to be produced more efficiently. An 8ºF decrease in the inlet temperature would result in a three

    
    

    percent increase in power output for each CT. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-1 to 3-2; Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 56)

18. The WCEC Project will be fueled primarily by natural gas delivered by a new pipeline extension that will connect to an existing interstate natural gas pipeline. Natural gas will not be stored onsite. The natural gas pipeline extension will be permitted, constructed and operated by Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, LLC. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-2, 3-6; Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 60-61)

19. Ultra low-sulfur light oil will be delivered by truck and used as a backup fuel for up to 500 hours per year per combustion turbine. Fuel oil will be stored onsite in two 6.3 million gallon storage tanks. Proper secondary containment will be provided to contain a spill of the fuel oil within these tanks. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-2, 3-4; FPL Ex. 3; Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 60-61)

20. No new transmission lines are required to connect the WCEC Project to FPL’s existing transmission network. WCEC Units 1 and 2 will be connected to the existing FPL Corbett Substation located directly adjacent to the site by string buses from the onsite collector yards. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-3, 6- 1; Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 62)

    
    

    Construction of WCEC Project Facilities

    
    

21. Construction of WCEC Units 1 and 2 is scheduled to commence in early 2007, with a planned in-service date for Unit

    1 of June 2009 and a planned in-service date for Unit 2 of June 2010. (Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 62)

22. Construction traffic will use State Road 80 to access the existing PBA Road, which is an asphalt-paved road along the eastern boundary of the WCEC Project Site. A separate paved asphalt driveway will be constructed to connect the Site to PBA Road. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 4-4; Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 58)

23. Construction of the Project will not adversely impact adjacent surface water flood elevations or flows. There will be no adverse flooding or related impacts to offsite property. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 4-4)

24. No explosives for blasting will be used during construction of the Project. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 4-1)

25. Site preparation will be minimal due to the existing character and structural stability of the backfilled material at the site. Structural fill will be used in areas of the site as needed. Spread foundations and pilings will be used. Fugitive dust generation from traffic and/or excavations will be minimized through paving, the use of water sprinkling, or other dust suppressant techniques. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 4-2)

    
    

26. Temporary dewatering may be required for initial site preparation. In the Revised Staff Analysis Report, there appears the following about "Dewatering Activities:"

    Prior to commencement of construction of those portions of the project that involve dewatering activities, the Licensee shall submit a detailed plan for any such activities to the SFWMD for a determination of compliance with the non-procedural requirements of Chapters 40E-2, 40E-3 and 40E-20, F.A.C., in effect at the time of submittal.

    
    

    DEP Ex. 2., Appendix 1, p. 26 of 40. Dewatering should last less than one year and take place in the central portion of the site. Dewatering effluent will be routed to the stormwater retention ponds to allow it to evaporate or percolate.

    Construction dewatering is not expected to have any adverse impacts to groundwater or surface water resources and will comply with applicable SFWMD rules related to dewatering. FPL will submit a detailed dewatering plan to the SFWMD prior to commencement of dewatering. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 4-2; Powell, PT. pp. 10 to 11)

27. Water needed during construction will be obtained from the surficial aquifer. During construction, the work force will use portable chemical toilets. A licensed contractor will remove sanitary wastes for disposal in an approved disposal facility. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 4-2 to 4-3)

    
    

    Project Air Emissions, Air Emission Controls and Air Quality Impacts

    
    

28. Air emissions from the WCEC Project will be minimized through the inherent efficiency of the combined cycle design, and the use of natural gas as the primary fuel, with ultra-low sulfur light oil as a backup fuel, advanced combustion control technology, and post-combustion control technology. Natural gas, the cleanest of fossil fuels, has very low levels of impurities relative to other fossil fuels. Ultra-low sulfur light oil is also relatively low in impurities and will be used as a backup fuel for no more than 500 hours per year per combustion turbine. Natural gas and ultra-low sulfur light oil can be burned very efficiently to minimize the formation of air pollutants. The use of dry low NOx combustion design in the combustion turbines, and low NOx burners in the duct burners, will also minimize air emissions by inhibiting formation of thermal NOx by premixing of fuel and air prior to combustion, and by reducing flame temperatures. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) will provide additional control of emissions of NOx from the WCEC. The cooling towers will have high efficiency "drift" or "mist" eliminators to minimize the amount of drift and resulting particulate matter that is formed. These drift eliminators will reduce drift by over 99.99 percent. (FPL Ex.

    
    

    1, pp. 3-6 to 3-12; App. 10.1.5, pp. 2-1 to 2-8; Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 63; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 75-78)

29. State and federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) regulations require that the WCEC Project meet all applicable emission limiting standards and that Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") be determined in order to limit emissions. BACT is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-210.200(39)(a), as:

    An emission limitation, including a visible emissions standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department [of Environmental Protection], on a case by case basis, taking into account:

    
    

    1. Energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs;

    2. All scientific, engineering, and technical material and other information available to the Department; and

    3. The emission limiting standards or BACT determinations of Florida and any other state;

       
       

       determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant.

       
       

       The BACT requirements are intended to insure that the air emission control systems for WCEC reflect the latest in control technologies used in the electric utility industry and take into

       
       

       consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of the Project. BACT review includes a cost-benefit analysis of alternative control technologies capable of achieving a higher degree of emission reduction than the proposed technology.

       DEP's determination on what constitutes BACT for the WCEC Project is based on a balancing of environmental benefits with environmental, energy, and economic impacts and other costs. (FPL Ex. 1, Vol. III, PSD Permit App., “PSD Report,” pp. 3-2 to 3-4; DEP Ex. 2, App. VIII, pp. 7-8)

30. In its review for the PSD permit for the Project, the DEP determined that the emission limits proposed for WCEC Units

    1. and 2 represent BACT for purposes of the PSD permit. (DEP Ex.

       
       

       2, App. VIII, pp. 8-20)

       
       

31. The Project's use of relatively clean fuels, combined with advanced combustion control technology, will provide the maximum degree of emission reduction for sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and sulfuric acid mist. The dry low NOx control technology for the combustion turbine combustion and the duct burners, along with SCR, reflect the latest available control technologies for reducing NOx emissions from combined cycle systems. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. App. 10.1.5, “PSD Report” pp. 4-2 to 4-17; Kosky Tr. I, pp. 75-79)

    
    

32. The emission limits for the WCEC Project in the recommended Conditions of Certification contained in DEP Exhibit

    1. incorporate the emission limits proposed as BACT by DEP. The recommended NOx emission limit of 2.0 parts per million for combined cycle operation firing natural gas and 8.0 parts per million when firing ultra-low sulfur light oil are the lowest NOx emission limits that have been approved as BACT for identical units, and are the lowest NOx emission limits for any power plant in Florida. (DEP Ex. 2, Condition XXVIII.A. and App. 1, App. BD; Kosky Tr. I, pp. 79-80)

    Air Quality Impact Analysis

    
    

33. Ambient air quality standards (“AAQS”) have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and DEP to protect public health and welfare. Air quality in the vicinity of the WCEC Project, and throughout Southeast Florida, currently meets all federal and State ambient air quality standards, and no area of Florida is currently designated as “nonattainment" for any air pollutant. The EPA and DEP have also established PSD increments that are more stringent than the AAQS to protect air quality from further degradation. PSD Class II increments apply except in designated Class I areas, which are subject to more restrictive increments. The Class I increments are designed to protect the sensitive

    
    

    resources of national parks and national wilderness areas. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-32, 2-33; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 85-87)

34. In its review for the PSD permit for the Project, the DEP determined that air quality modeling demonstrates that WCEC Units 1 and 2 will comply with all federal and State ambient air quality standards, as well as PSD Class I and II increments. The air quality modeling conducted for the Project followed EPA and DEP modeling guidelines. Two air quality models were utilized to assess air quality impacts in the area surrounding the WCEC Project site, including assessing the potential impacts in the nearest PSD Class I area, which is the Everglades National Park (“ENP”) located approximately 66 miles south of the WCEC site. Local and regional meteorological data from the National Weather Service was used in the modeling. The modeling incorporated maximum air emissions from the WCEC Project at various operating modes, fuels, loads, and ambient air temperatures, which may affect the emission rates from the WCEC Project. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-21 to 5-29; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 86, 87; DEP Ex. 2, p. 3 and App. VIII, pp. 30 to 39)

35. EPA has established "Significant Impact Levels" for the various pollutants that are subject to PSD review, and the Department has adopted these Significant Impact Levels at Rule 62-204.200(29), F.A.C. The comparison of a Project's

    
    

    potential air quality impacts with the Significant Impact Levels represents an initial screening analysis to determine which pollutants require a more detailed modeling analysis. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-21, 5-22, App. 10.1.5, “PSD Report” pp. 3-4

    to 3-6; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 89-91)

    
    

36. In its review for the PSD permit for the Project, the DEP determined that impacts of the emissions of WCEC Units 1 and

    2 will be below the PSD Class II Significant Impact Levels for all applicable air pollutants, with the exception of the maximum impacts for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of

    10 microns (“PM10”) for the 24-hour averaging time. For this averaging time for PM10, comparison of the maximum Project impacts and other increment consuming sources in the region compared to the PSD Class II increments was performed. This "multi-source modeling" demonstrated that the impacts of the Project, along with all other sources in the region would comply with the AAQS and the PSD increments. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-29, 5- 30, App. 10.1.5, “PSD Report” pp. 6-9 to 6-14; FPL Ex. KFK-2; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 90, 93; DEP Ex. 2, App. VIII, pp. 30 to 39)

37. In its review for the PSD permit for the Project, the DEP determined that the impacts of WCEC Units 1 and 2 on air quality in the Everglades National Park comply with the restrictive PSD Class I increments. With the exception of the

    
    

    24-hour averaging time for PM10, predicted maximum Project impacts are below the Significant Impact Levels in ENP. A multi-source regional impact analysis for the 24-hour averaging time for PM10 demonstrated that maximum predicted impacts in the ENP comply with the Class I increment. The maximum impacts of the Project on air quality in the ENP could not be measured even with the most sophisticated monitoring equipment. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 5-30, App. 10.1.5, “PSD Report” pp. 6-12, 6-13; Kosky Tr. I,

    pp. 92, 93; DEP Ex. 2, App. VIII, pp. 31 to 35)

    
    

38. Analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on Air Quality Related Values (“AQRVs”) in the ENP was also performed as part of the PSD review. AQRVs are established by the federal land manager for each Class I area, taking into account potential impacts on soil, vegetation, wildlife, air deposition, and visibility. The analysis performed as part of the PSD permit review showed that the Project’s impacts on ENP meet all of the federal land manager’s AQRV criteria for protection of the sensitive resources in ENP. Nitrogen and sulfur deposition rates for the Project are less than the significant impact levels determined by the National Park Service, are well within the buffering capacities of the soils in the ENP, and are much less than the observed deposition rates in the area. Both natural gas and low sulfur light oil are relatively low in

    
    

    mercury content. The relatively low sulfur deposition rate from the Project will also minimize activation of mercury in the soils by sulfur reducing bacteria. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-32 to 5- 34, App. 10.1.5, “PSD Report” pp. 7-9 to 7-21; DEP Ex. 2, App.

    VIII, pp. 36 to 37; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 93, 94)

    
    

39. The Project’s potential air quality impacts in the vicinity of the site and on the LNWR were evaluated based upon the soils, vegetation, and wildlife found in the LNWR. This evaluation and additional analyses conducted for staff of the LNWR included potential impacts of deposition from the Project’s cooling towers. The analyses demonstrated that the Project’s emissions would not have any adverse impact on the sensitive resources in the LNWR. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-32 to 5-34, App. 10.1.5, “PSD Report” pp. 7-8, 7-9; Kosky Tr. I, pp. 88, 94, 95) Project Water Use and Sources

40. Two mechanical draft cooling towers will be used in the heat dissipation system for the Project, one for each unit. The cooling towers bring water into contact with air for the purpose of lowering the temperature of the cooling water, mainly through evaporative cooling. Some of the cooling water must be continuously removed to prevent the buildup of dissolved solids that are left behind by the evaporative process. The water that is removed is called cooling tower

    
    

    “blowdown.” Water added to replace evaporation and blowdown is called cooling tower “makeup.” (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-3, 3-13; Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 55, 56; Powell PT p. 5)

41. One source of makeup water for the cooling towers will be surface water withdrawn from the SFWMD L10/L12 Canal, located to the south of the WCEC site. An inlet structure will be constructed and installed on the north bank of the L10/L12 Canal, with a circulating water pump structure located in the southeast corner of the WCEC site. When water is not available from the Canal, FPL will pump non-potable brackish groundwater from three new wells drilled into the Upper Floridan Aquifer. The wells will penetrate to 1400 feet below ground surface. The WCEC Project may also utilize captured onsite stormwater for cooling tower makeup when available. The Project will be able to accept reclaimed water when a source becomes available at the site in an acceptable quality and quantity for the new power plant's cooling towers. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-3, 3-13; FPL Ex. RH- 5; DEP Ex. 2, pp. 21, 23-25; Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 59, 61, 62)

42. Under the recommended Conditions of Certification, water withdrawals from the L10/L12 Canal will be allowed when water is available in the regional system and the SFWMD determines that releases from the regional storage system are not required for the purpose of maintaining designated water

    
    

    levels in the Canals and for meeting existing water supply demands. This limitation is recommended by SFWMD to protect the regional water supply needs and legal water users in existence prior to approval of FPL’s Project. (DEP Ex. 2, p. 23; Powell PT, pp. 6-7)

43. Withdrawals from the L10/L12 Canal are not expected to cause any adverse effects on surface or ground waters in the vicinity of the WCEC site. A review of the historical water and flow levels in the Canal, as well as an evaluation of the hydrology and geohydrology of the Project area, demonstrates that there will be no adverse effects from these withdrawals from the L10/L12 Canal. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-1 to 5-2, 5-13 to 5- 16; Powell PT, pp. 6-7)

44. Withdrawals from the L10/L12 Canal are also not expected to have any adverse effect on aquatic life in the canals. The intake structure will use screening and diversion technologies to minimize impacts to aquatic organisms that may be in the canal. The intake structure will be designed to insure that maximum through-screen velocities are less than 0.5 feet per second. No protected species of fish are found in the canal. The canal does not provide desirable breeding habitat for native fish due to regular canal maintenance and excavation.

    
    

    (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-1 to 5-2, 5-13 to 5-16; Powell PT, pp. 6-7;

    
    

    Bullock PT, p. 5)

    
    

45. The onsite wells pumping from the Floridan Aquifer system will supply cooling tower makeup and other plant water needs when surface water is not available. Each well will be rated at 7,000 gallons per minute (“gpm”). Analyses were performed to determine the impacts of these groundwater withdrawals from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. A three dimensional aquifer model was developed to evaluate these impacts. The model evaluates the response of the large natural aquifer system from the proposed pumping and can predict changes in water levels by changing inputs to the model. The model considers the layering within the aquifer system, the proposed withdrawal rates, and the aquifer system parameters. The Upper Floridan Aquifer model was run to assess the change in water levels or drawdown which would result from FPL’s average proposed pumping of 14.56 million gallons per day (“mgd”). A series of sensitivity analysis simulations were also done to assess the effect of uncertainty or variability in the aquifer system parameters on the predicted results for aquifer drawdowns. There are no existing legal users of the Floridan Aquifer within 15 miles of the FPL West County Energy Center site. Two wells are located approximately 15.3 miles away.

    
    

    These 2 wells will be within the cone of depression where there will be greater than a 1 foot drawdown in the aquifer levels.

    However, due to the potentiometric surface in the Floridan Aquifer, this drawdown is not expected to interfere with the operation of these wells. These groundwater withdrawals are not expected to impact surface wetlands. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-16 to 5- 17, App. 10.1.7; Andersen PT, pp. 9-12)

46. Potable water for the Project will be withdrawn from onsite wells in the surficial aquifer. These withdrawals of approximately 35,000 gallons per day were also modeled. The maximum cone of depression for these withdrawals, as defined by the 0.1 foot drawdown contour extends out 1,350 feet from the well. This drawdown will not significantly impact any wetlands or existing users of the surficial aquifer. The potable water system will meet the requirements of Chapter 62-555, F.A.C. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-13, 5-17, App. 10.7; Andersen PT, p. 11; Bullock PT, p. 7)

47. The WCEC Project will have other process water needs.

    
    

    These water needs will be met by water from the L10/L12 Canal or from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Demineralized water is required to replace blowdown from the HRSG which is necessary to maintain a low dissolved solids content in the HRSG, to replace steam losses, for NOx control, and for the CT air inlet

    
    

    evaporative cooling system. Demineralized water will be produced using an onsite trailer-mounted reverse osmosis/mixed bed demineralizer system. The demineralized water will be stored in a 2 million gallon storage tank for each unit. Reject water from the demineralizer system will be mixed with cooling tower blowdown for disposal. General service water for the Project will include seal water, cleaning and flushing water, and fire protection water. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 3-14)

48. Water use by WCEC will meet the statutory criteria in Chapter 373, F.S. for consumptive water use permits, that the use is a reasonable and beneficial use, that it is in the public interest, and that there be no adverse impact to existing legal users. The proposed withdrawals will therefore be consistent and in compliance with the consumptive water use permitting criteria of the SFWMD Basis of Review for water use permits. Prior to beginning pumping of water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer, FPL will conduct an aquifer performance test on the Project site. (Andersen PT, pp. 11-13; DEP Ex. 2, App. VI) Project Wastewaters and Disposal

49. Project wastewaters include cooling tower blowdown, HRSG blowdown, process water treatment system wastewater, groundwater pretreatment wastewater, equipment wash water, and equipment area stormwater. HRSG blowdown will be quenched with

    
    

    cooling tower blowdown. Contact area stormwater will be passed through an oil/water separator and released to the stormwater ponds. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 3-15)

50. Sanitary wastewater will be routed to an onsite package sanitary treatment system which meets the requirements of state and local regulations. The treated sanitary wastewater will be recycled through the cooling tower or routed to the injection wells. (FPL Ex. 1, 3-16)

51. Cooling tower and HRSG blowdown and other wastewaters will be routed to an onsite injection well system. These wastewaters will be collected in an onsite sump and injected into a 3200-foot deep injection well. The WCEC will require wastewater disposal capacity of approximately 7.0 mgd per Unit. The proposed Class I injection wells and at least one associated dual-zone monitoring well are proposed for the site to accommodate disposal for up to 3300 MW of site buildout. The proposed well design is consistent with the requirements of a Class I “tubing and packer” injection well which is required for disposal of non-hazardous industrial wastewaters, pursuant to Rule 62-528.300(1)(a)(2), F.A.C. This well classification requires injection using a well equipped with tubing and packer assembly installed within a seamless mild steel outer final casing. The injection well is constructed using a series of

    
    

    telescoped steel well casings to seal off various portions of the subsurface system. The inner tubing material consists of fiber glass reinforced plastic. (Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 63; Shaw PT. pp. 7, 8 ; Ex. JS-2, p. 5; Ex JS-3)

52. The underground zone in which this liquid will be injected is a highly permeable zone referred to as the Boulder Zone which contains salt water. This zone is isolated from underground sources of drinking water by approximately 500 to 800 feet of overlying confining rock strata of low permeability. This zone is located in the lower Floridan Aquifer which is not used for drinking water supply. The Boulder Zone underlies most of southern Florida. The permeability of the Boulder Zone is extremely high because of its cavernous nature. This prevents pressure buildup in injection wells and coupled with the fact that the Boulder Zone contains salt water makes it in an ideal zone for receiving injected wastewater. There are approximately

    110 Class I deep injection wells located in Florida with approximately 15 located in Palm Beach County. (Shaw, PT. pp. 6, 7, 10)

53. The underground injection wells are regulated by the

    
    

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection through its Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program. The state’s UIC regulations, found in

    
    

    Chapter 62-528, F.A.C., seek to protect the quality of the underground sources of drinking water and prevent degradation of the quality of other aquifers adjacent to the injection zone.

    These rules seek to insure that the injected fluid remains in the injection zone and that unapproved interchange of water between the aquifers is prohibited. DEP’s criteria and standards for Class I injection wells prohibit the injection of hazardous wastes through any well permitted after January 1, 1992. Rule 62-528.400, F.A.C. Characterization of the Project wastewaters to be disposed in the UIC well indicates that these wastewaters are expected to be non-hazardous. (FPL Ex. 1, Vol. 1, Table 3.6.0-1; Shaw, PT. pp. 8, 9)

54. For the WCEC site, the injection well program involves first obtaining an exploratory well permit from the DEP to gather site specific information. After the exploratory well is drilled and tested, FPL will apply for a test/injection well permit from the DEP. This second permit requires two years of testing of the UIC well after which FPL will be required to obtain an operating permit from the DEP for the injection well system. The permit application process for the UIC well is overseen by the Florida Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) composed of representatives from DEP, SFWMD, the U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The TAC

    
    

    provides a means for review and determination by DEP of what is acceptable or approvable based on the requirements of the Department’s rules. The TAC also provides expert assistance to both DEP and to FPL as the Applicant. The UIC well proposed for the WCEC site can be constructed and operated in a manner that protects the underground sources of drinking water. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 4-5 to 4-8; Shaw PT, pp. 4 to10, Ex. JS-2, p. 5; Ex. JS-3)

    Solid and Hazardous Wastes

    
    

55. The WCEC Project is not expected to generate large quantities of solid or hazardous wastes. An approved solid waste disposal contractor will dispose of all solid waste. Any waste identified as hazardous will be collected onsite and disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste contractor. All hazardous waste will be managed according to applicable rules and regulations. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-17, 3-18)

    Stormwater Management

    
    

56. The Project’s onsite stormwater management system is designed to insure that virtually all stormwater runoff from the Project will be retained onsite with no off-site discharge. The only off-site discharge of non-contact stormwater will be from

    6.2 acres along the western boundary of the WCEC site. Runoff from this area will be allowed to infiltrate within the adjacent FPL transmission line right-of-way. The stormwater management

    
    

    system is designed to retain runoff from the 100-year, 3-day storm event. The surface water management system is also designed to meet the requirements of all applicable local, regional, state, and federal requirements, including the rules of SFWMD, Palm Beach County, DEP, and EPA. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 3-18; Hathaway, Tr. I, p. 63; Powell PT, pp. 11-13)

57. The Project’s drainage system consists of a series of catch basins, pipes, channels, swales, and culverts to convey stormwater runoff to two onsite detention ponds. The northern stormwater basin will receive runoff from the power block areas and areas to the east and west of the power block. Stormwater collected in the northern retention ponds will be pumped back to the cooling tower basin for reuse by the Plant. Water collected in the southern retention pond will be allowed to percolate and evaporate. Based on this design, there should be no discernible degradation of water quality as a result of Project stormwater. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 3-18 to 3-20; Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 58; Powell PT, pp. 11 to 14)

    Spill Prevention and Containment

    
    

58. The oil storage tanks will be designed to American Petroleum Institute Standards to ensure quality of construction and integrity. The tanks will be located within secondary containment structures that will contain a volume equal to at

    
    

    least 110 percent of the volume of the largest tank. The secondary containment will be constructed to American Concrete Institute Standards to assure quality of construction and integrity. (Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 64, 65)

    Noise Impacts

    
    

59. Noise impacts from the construction and operation of the WCEC are predicted to be lower than the allowable noise levels established in Palm Beach County’s Land Development Code. The Project’s noise impacts were evaluated using two components. Existing or baseline noise levels at the Project site and the surrounding area were collected during both the daytime and nighttime. The baseline noise levels are affected by ongoing mining operations and area road traffic, but are generally considered to be typical of a primarily rural area. Noise levels of Project construction and operation were then modeled, including the baseline noise levels collected. The predicted maximum noise levels at the nearest residence are predicted to be below the limits established by Palm Beach County.

    Operations noise levels were also modeled and are predicted to be below Palm Beach County’s noise limits. The Project’s operational noise levels would be below the County standards at a distance of one-half of a mile from WCEC Units 1 and 2. Since the noise estimates are conservative, actual noise impacts are

    
    

    expected to be lower than the predictions. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-35 to 2-39, 4-16 to 4-19; 5-35 to 5-36; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 96 to 99) Impacts to Wetlands and Protected Areas and Species

60. SFWMD evaluated the WCEC Project’s effects on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (“CERP”). SFWMD has an agreement with PBA to construct water storage ponds adjacent to the WCEC site to store additional water for the CERP. Ten aquifer storage and recovery (“ASR”) wells are proposed to be constructed to store water for CERP. SFWMD has proposed a condition of certification for the Project under which SFWMD and FPL may share in the costs and use of the ASR wells for CERP. (DEP Ex. 1, App. VI, Impact Assessment Report, pp. 3, 14, 26)

61. The WCEC Project is not expected to have an adverse impact on natural resources at the Project site or in its vicinity. No wetlands or ecologically significant areas exist within the WCEC site. Construction of the water inlet structure for the Project in the north bank of the L10/L12 canal will affect less than one-quarter acre. Impacts to aquatic and wetland systems from this construction will be negligible. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-22 to 2-23, 4-11 to 4-12; Bullock PT, p. 5)

62. Assessment of potential impacts of the Project on wildlife in the LNWR concluded that the WCEC will have no significant adverse impacts upon wildlife habitat within the

    
    

    LNWR. No foraging or breeding habitats for wading birds will be affected. Surficial aquifer drawdowns for the Project will result in an insignificant impact on the water levels in the LNWR. There will be no offsite surface water discharges of industrial wastewater or contact stormwater from the Project, and no temperature effect on any surfaces waters. (FPL Ex. 1,

    p. 5-8; Bullock PT. pp. 6 to 8; Powell PT. pp. 11 to 13) Traffic Impacts

63. Traffic associated with Project construction and operation will affect roadway areas on a temporary basis during construction and have minimal impact during operation of the Project. The peak use of State Road 80 for Project construction traffic will flow west during the morning peak hour, away from the urbanized areas of Palm Beach County. The opposite will occur in the evening peak hour when construction traffic will flow in a predominantly easterly direction toward the urban areas. Thus, Project construction traffic will flow in the opposite direction of peak hour traffic. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 4-14; Zwolak, Tr. III, p. 35)

64. A traffic impact analysis was conducted for the WCEC to determine impacts during the construction period when the peak construction work force will be present, which is expected to be in 2008. Background traffic conditions were obtained

    
    

    using traffic counts. Project construction will take place primarily over a 3 year period with an average of 350 workers and a maximum of approximately 1,000 construction workers onsite. Workers are expected to be onsite between the hours of

    7 a.m. and 4 p.m. Truck deliveries are expected to arrive at the site daily and will not have a significant impact during the morning or evening peak traffic hours. The construction traffic analysis indicates that all road segments will continue to operate at or above established level of service standards for area roads. If necessary, traffic control will be provided at the intersection of PBA Road and State Road 80 where Project construction traffic enters and departs from State Road 80. Traffic control will be handled by a traffic management specialist hired for the peak construction period. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 4-14 to 4-16; Zwolak, TR. pp. 34, 35)

65. Traffic impacts from Project operation are expected to be minimal with no more than 20 employees working on any shift. The worst case estimate of operational traffic for the Project indicates that up to 36 trips per peak hour could be expected for employee traffic and delivery of materials. The local roadway segments are anticipated to operate without any degradation of level of service and remain at or above the State’s level of service standards. No improvements are

    
    

    required to accommodate traffic impacts during operation of the Project. (FPL Ex. 1, 5-37 to 5-38; Zwolak, TR. pp. 35 to 37) Project Compatibility and Comprehensive Plan Consistency

66. The WCEC site is an appropriate site for the proposed new facility. The Project will be compatible with existing land use patterns in the vicinity of the site. There will be no significant adverse impacts on existing land uses due to the construction and operation of the Project. The WCEC Units 1 and

    2 will be a suitable distance from nearby residential and recreational areas, with a series of buffers and other land use types separating the Project site from nearby residential uses and the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The Project site is adjacent to existing electric power infrastructure consisting of the substation to the north and the transmission lines to the west. Mining, industrial, and future water reservoir uses are found further to the north, east, and southeast of the Project. A number of natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants have been developed and operated in the past decade in Florida that co-exist and are compatible with land use patterns that resemble the pattern in the vicinity of the Project site. (Zwolak Tr. III, pp. 19 to 21)

67. The WCEC Project is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of

    
    

    the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and with the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. The Project will be consistent with the adopted Land Development Regulations of Palm Beach County, Florida. Palm Beach County issued final approval of the site plan for the Project on July 1, 2006. Location of the WCEC at the proposed site will not cause residential growth in western Palm Beach County that would not otherwise occur. Power plants do not cause residential growth, rather electric utilities must respond to historic growth trends and the future projection for growth, and provide a reliable supply of electric power for their service area. Economic forces, as well as governmental regulatory controls, such as the comprehensive plan and land development regulations, ultimately dictate residential growth patterns. The Project will not cause additional growth in the area, but is a response to projected state-wide electrical power demand growth and the requirement that FPL maintain a 20 percent electrical reserve margin. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 5-31; DEP Ex. 2, App. VIII, p. 37; Zwolak Tr. III, pp. 21 to 28,

    37)

    
    

    Socioeconomic Impacts

    
    

68. Construction of the proposed WCEC Project will have a substantial benefit to the local and regional economy. Direct benefits from the Project include employment opportunities

    
    

    created by the construction of the Project. The peak construction work force is estimated to be 1,000 people with an average construction work force estimated at 350 employees over a 3 year period. Employment opportunities will result from construction job opportunities as well as jobs indirectly generated through the purchase of goods and services in the area. The majority of the $170 million in construction wages paid for the Project will be spent within Palm Beach County and the surrounding region. The expenditure of these wages will create additional demands for goods and services, resulting in additional employment opportunity. The construction costs for Units 1 and 2 will be approximately $1.2 billion. Tax benefits will accrue to the State of Florida as a result of the construction of the Project. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 7-1, 7-2; Zwolak, Tr. III, pp. 29 to 31)

69. Ongoing operations of the WCEC Units 1 and 2 will employ approximately 30 to 50 people. At an average wage of

    $60,000 annually, the additional annual operational payroll will be approximately $2.7 million. Other fixed operational costs are expected to be $4 million annually for goods and services which would generally be expended in the region. Over the first five years of operation, an estimated $2 million in sales taxes will be paid to the State of Florida. The operational work

    
    

    force is assumed to reside within commuting distance to the Plant. Impacts to local services from these employees as well as from the Project are expected to be minimal. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 7-2; Zwolak, Tr. III, pp. 31 to 32)

70. The Project site has been previously disturbed due to mining activities, including the placement of fill over the entire site. No archaeological or historical sites have been discovered on the site. There are no archaeological or historical sites located within five miles of the WCEC site. In the event archaeological finds are made during Project construction, the State Division of Historical Resources in the Florida Department of State will be contacted. (FPL Ex. 1, p. 2-7; Zwolak, Tr. III. p. 32)

    Ultimate Site Capacity Determination

    
    

71. A request for certification of ultimate site capacity under the PPSA involves the future use of the site for additional generating capacity, beyond the capacity for which full certification is initially sought. FPL in this case is seeking certification of WCEC Units 1 and 2, with nominal capacity of 1250 megawatts, and certification of an ultimate site capacity of 3300 megawatts. The Siting Board’s Land Use Order determined that “an ultimate capacity of 3300 megawatts for the WCEC site [is] consistent and in compliance with

    
    

    existing land use plans and zoning ordinances and site-specific zoning approvals of Palm Beach County as they apply to the

    Site . . . ." The WCEC site has sufficient space to accommodate a third combined cycle generating unit. Predicted air quality impacts from a total of 3300 megawatts of combined cycle units at the WCEC site are expected to comply with the AAQS and PSD increments. Predicted noise levels for 3300 megawatts of combined cycle units at the WCEC site would comply with Palm Beach County’s noise standards. The use of the WCEC site for up to 3300 megawatts of electrical generating capacity would be an appropriate land use for the site. Prior to construction of a third generating unit at the WCEC site for a total capacity of up to 3300 megawatts, FPL would have to go through the full site certification process, with the exception of the land use portion of the process. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-29 to 5-31, 5-36,

    App. 10.1.5, ”PSD Report” pp. 6-14, 6-15; FPL Ex. 7, p. 5;

    
    

    Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 91-92; Zwolak, Tr. III, p. 20; Palmer, Tr. III, p. 44)

    Public Comment and Public Testimony

    
    

72. During the “public comment” portion of the certification hearing, four individuals provided unsworn comments generally in support of the WCEC Project. Letters from

    
    

    three other individuals generally in support of the Project were received following the certification hearing.

73. Twenty-five individuals, including

    
    

    Michael Christensen, Patricia Curry, and Alexandria Larson, gave sworn testimony during the “public comment” portion of the certification hearing. Many of these individuals expressed questions, generalized concerns, and speculation about and/or opposition to the WCEC Project. Letters from four other individuals in opposition to the Project, including one from Sharon Waite, were received prior to the September 15, 2006, deadline established for receipt of any additional written comment following the hearing. Mr. Silver did not file any written comments by that deadline. On September 22, 2006, FPL filed a letter from Kennard F. Kosky in response to one of the written comment letters.

74. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of questions and concerns. Most of these concerns and questions were addressed by the evidence and are discussed by reference to the relevant Findings of Fact. A number of individuals suggested that there had been inadequate notice to the public regarding the Project, or that information regarding the Project has not been readily available. These matters are addressed in Findings of Fact 1 through 4. The

    
    

    public notices of this proceeding published by DEP and FPL met the statutory requirements. The public notices advised the public of the availability of the Project application at DEP’s offices, at local Public Libraries, and at FPL’s local offices. Concern that the site certification process has moved too fast, that it has been “accelerated,” was also expressed, leading some to request that the process be slowed down or action deferred.

    The typical time frame under the PPSA, from filing of a site certification application to the certification hearing, is eleven or twelve months. In the case of the WCEC Project, that time frame has been almost seventeen months. The site certification process has not been accelerated for the WCEC Project. (See Section 403.508(3), F.S.; Palmer, Tr. III pp. 51 to 58, 64, 65; FPL Ex. 6, RZ-2, RZ-3; DEP Exs 2 and 3).

75. A number of the members of the public who testified indicated their belief that the WCEC Project would cause, promote or encourage “growth” and “development” in western Palm Beach County. This concern appeared to be based on the premise that, if the Project were not located in the vicinity, such “growth” would not occur. This issue is addressed in Finding of Fact 67. The evidence indicated that the WCEC Project would not cause additional residential growth in western Palm Beach County that would not otherwise occur. Power plants do not cause

    
    

    residential growth; rather electric utilities must respond to historic growth trends and the future projection for growth, and provide a reliable supply of electric power for their service area. (Zwolak Tr. III, pp. 21 to 28, 37)

76. Several of those who testified advocated additional conservation measures and/or use of renewable sources of energy, such as solar power, as an alternative to the Project. Those issues related to energy conservation and other generation options are issues to be addressed by the PSC in its separate need determination proceeding, under Section 403.519, F.S. That order and its findings are discussed in Finding of Fact 8. The PSC addressed those issues in its final order determining the need for the WCEC Project. The PSC found that there were no energy conservation measures which could avoid or defer the need for the new generating capacity. The PSC found FPL had taken all reasonably achievable, cost-effective conservation and load management measures. The PSC also found that FPL is actively encouraging development of renewable energy, consistent with the direction of the Florida legislature and the PSC. (FPL Ex. 6)

77. The level of air emissions from the Project, and the potential impacts of those emissions on human health and the environment, was raised as areas of concern in the public testimony. In addition to these general concerns, several

    
    

    individuals expressed more specific concerns about the potential impacts of air emissions from the Project on the LNWR and ENP. A particular concern raised in this context was the effect of Project emissions on mercury levels in those areas. Concerns about global warming were also expressed. These matters are discussed in Findings of Fact 28 to 39. The evidence shows that air emission limits proposed to be applied to the WCEC Project are among the lowest of any power plant in Florida. Project impacts are well below all applicable ambient air quality standards which have been established to protect public health and welfare. Additional air quality analyses demonstrated that the Project’s emissions would not have any adverse impact on the sensitive resources in the ENP and LNWR. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 5-32 to 5-34, App. 10.1.5, “PSD Report” pp. 7-8, 7-9; Kosky Tr. I,

    pp. 85 to 88, 94, 95)

    
    

78. Water use concerns about the Project were also addressed by several individuals. Questions about potential impacts on wells in the vicinity of the site from Project groundwater withdrawals were raised, as were questions about how surface water withdrawals for the Project might affect the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project and the Stormwater Treatment Areas (“STAs”) in the vicinity of the WCEC site. These concerns related to water use are addressed in Findings of

    
    

    Fact 40 to 48. The evidence, including detailed groundwater modeling, indicated that withdrawals from the L10/L12 canal and groundwater sources for the WCEC Project are not expected to adversely impact any existing wells in the vicinity of the Project, and would not adversely affect any nearby surface waters, which would include the CERP and STAs. (Andersen, PT 9 - 12; Powell, PT 6 -7)

79. Concerns about Project wastewater disposal were also raised. The potential impacts of the use of underground injection control wells for the Project were the subject of questions by several individuals, one of whom thought that the wastewater to be disposed of in the underground injection wells would be “hazardous.” These concerns are addressed in Findings of Fact 51 to 54. The Project’s use of deep well disposal of wastewaters will protect the quality of underground sources of drinking water and prevent degradation of the quality of other aquifers adjacent to the injection zone. DEP’s regulations prohibit the disposal of hazardous wastewaters in underground injection wells. Rule 62-528.400, F.A.C. The WCEC Project will not dispose of hazardous wastewaters in the UIC wells.

80. In addition to the other concerns about potential Project impacts in the LNWR, one individual questioned whether noise from WCEC could adversely impact LNWR. The issue of noise

    
    

    impacts is addressed in Finding of Fact 59. The evidence indicates the operation of the WCEC Project will comply with the noise limits established by Palm Beach County. The Project’s operational noise impacts would be below the County standards at a distance of one-half of a mile from WCEC Units 1 and 2. The nearest point in the LWNR is three-quarters of a mile to a mile from the location of the nearest WCEC Unit. Since the noise estimates are conservative, actual noise impacts are expected to be lower than the predictions. (FPL Ex. 1, pp. 2-35 to 2-39, 4-

    16 to 4-19; 5-35 to 5-36; Kosky, Tr. I, pp. 96 to 99)

    
    

81. Several who commented expressed concerns about the potential impact of blasting associated with ongoing mining operations in the vicinity of the WCEC site. In particular, there were fears that such blasting might affect the integrity of oil storage tanks or natural gas pipelines. Concerns about the potential for a spill of oil from the Project were mentioned by several individuals. The issues related to this concern are addressed in Findings of Fact 15 and 19. FPL has obtained an agreement with PBA that assures that the ongoing blasting will not affect the operation of the WCEC. FPL can design the WCEC structures and equipment to account for the blasting. The ongoing blasting by PBA has not affected an existing natural gas pipeline that runs south of the WCEC site. Proper containment

    
    

    will be provided to contain a spill of fuel oil within the tanks. (Gnecco, Tr. 1, pp. 40-49; Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 60-61)

82. A number of the individuals who testified during the public comment period reside in the general vicinity of the Project site. Residents of Naples, Lake Worth, Hobe Sound, West Palm Beach, Stuart, Delray Beach, and Ochopee also testified. One individual testified in her capacity as Advocacy Chair of the Friends of the Loxahatchee Refuge. Another individual stated that he was representing the Loxahatchee Sierra Club.

    The President of the Indian Trail Improvement District also testified, as did the National Co-Chair of the Green Party of the United States. None of these organizations sought to intervene as parties to this proceeding. The testimony by members of the public did not counter the weight of the evidence offered in support of certification of the WCEC Project.

    Agency Positions

    
    

83. The DEP reviewed the WCEC Project with respect to wetlands protection, stormwater management, air resource management, industrial waste, domestic wastewater, domestic water, solid and hazardous waste, and state lands. After receipt of FPL’s responses to the sufficiency comments of DEP and other reviewing agencies, DEP determined FPL’s site certification application for the Project to be complete on

    
    

    September 12, 2005. Agency reports on the Project were submitted to DEP by the Public Service Commission, the Department of State’s Division of Historical Resources, the Department of Community Affairs, the Department of Transportation, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The DEP Staff Analysis Report on the Project, issued on July 18, 2006, contained a summary of the Project, Conditions of Certification, the other agencies’ reports and a recommendation for certification. DEP issued a Revised Staff Analysis Report on August 24, 2006, containing principally editorial revisions and one change to the wording of a condition recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation. (DEP Ex. 2; Palmer, Tr.

    III, pp. 47 to 50) The Revised Staff Analysis Report contains the following recommendation:

    If Florida Power & Light Company agrees to abide by the Conditions of Certification, attached and incorporated herein as Staff Analysis Report, Appendix I, the Department of Environmental Protection would recommend certification of the West County Energy Center Electric Power Generation Project to be constructed and operated in Palm Beach County, Florida to produce 2,500 MW of electrical power with an ultimate site capacity of 3,300 MW.

    
    

    DEP Ex. 2. The Revised Staff Analysis Report is incorporated by reference into the Findings of Fact Section of this Recommended Order.

84. DEP has received reasonable assurances that the WCEC Project will comply with all applicable DEP statutes, rules, policies, and criteria, including but not limited to those concerning air quality, water quality, stormwater, wetlands, solid waste, industrial wastewater, and domestic wastewater. It is DEP’s position that, if FPL complies with all recommended Conditions of Certification, the WCEC Project would comply with all applicable non-procedural requirements of the reviewing agencies. (Palmer, Tr. III, pp. 58, 59)

85. No state, regional or local agency has recommended denial of certification for the Project or denial of an ultimate site capacity determination of 3300 megawatts. All parties, other than the TCRPC, which took no position, agree that the Site Certification Application, as supplemented by the responses to agency sufficiency questions and the recommended Conditions of Certification, provide reasonable assurances that construction and operation of WCEC Units 1 and 2 will comply with all applicable agency standards. (FPL Ex. 4, p. 5)

    
    

    Compliance with Agency Standards and PPSA Criteria

    
    

86. The design and construction of WCEC Units 1 and 2 will comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and standards of the various State, regional, and local agencies that reviewed the Project. The design and construction of WCEC Units 1 and 2 will be consistent with the recommended Conditions of Certification included in DEP’s Revised Staff Analysis Report. WCEC Units 1 and 2 will be capable of operating in compliance with the recommended Conditions of Certification included in DEP’s Revised Staff Analysis Report. Those recommended Conditions of Certification are acceptable to FPL. (Hathaway, Tr. I, pp. 64, 65; Priore, Tr. I, pp. 117, 118; Palmer, Tr. III, p. 58)

87. The WCEC Project utilizes reasonable and available means to minimize adverse impacts on human health, the environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of State waters and their aquatic life. The WCEC Project does not unduly conflict with the goals of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. The WCEC Project includes operational safeguards that are technically sufficient for the welfare and protection of the citizens of Florida. (Kosky, Tr. I, p. 99; Zwolak, Tr. III, pp. 25 to 27; Palmer, Tr. III, p. 59)

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

88. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57, and 403.508(3), F.S.

89. This proceeding was held to implement the purpose and intent of the electrical power plant site certification process, which is to assure the citizens of Florida that construction and operation safeguards of the West County Energy Center are technically sufficient for their welfare and protection, and to effect a reasonable balance between the need for the proposed Project and the environmental impact resulting from its construction and operation, including air and water quality, fish and wildlife, and the water resources and other resources of the state. Subsections 403.502(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.

90. In accordance with Part II of Chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter 62-17, F.A.C., proper notice of this proceeding and of the certification hearing was accorded all persons, entities, and parties entitled to such notice. All necessary and required governmental agencies, as well as members of the public, either participated in or had the opportunity to participate in the certification hearing.

    
    

91. The ore tenus Motion to Intervene offered at the hearing on behalf of four individuals was untimely as it was made well after the statutory deadline requiring that such petitions be filed no later than 30 days before the September 6, 2006, hearing. Section 403.508(4)(e), F.S. (“Other parties may include any person . . . whose substantial interests are affected and being determined . . . and who timely file a motion to intervene . . . . Intervention . . . may be granted at the discretion of the designated administrative law judge and upon such conditions as he or she may prescribe any time prior to 30 days before the commencement of the certification hearing.”) Substantially affected persons were afforded adequate and appropriate notice of their right to intervene. They were also afforded adequate and appropriate notice that the deadline for granting such intervention was 30 days before the site certification hearing. These four individuals offered no good cause or extenuating circumstances to allow them to intervene as parties at the certification hearing. Their counsel was allowed to participate in the hearing to cross-examine members of the public, to make a closing argument following the public comment, and allowed to file a post-hearing statement if he chose to do so. Their counsel did not file any additional written comments by the post-hearing deadline. This participation allowed these

    
    

    four individuals adequate opportunity to identify their concerns about the Project, in light of their untimely Motion to Intervene. The record reflects that their concerns and questions were adequately addressed by the evidence.

92. Reports, studies, and recommended Conditions of Certification were issued by DEP, SFWMD, DCA, Department of State’s Division of Historical Resources, FDOT, and TCRPC.

93. The PSC has issued an affirmative determination that a need exists for WCEC Units 1 and 2 and the electricity it will produce. The PSC is the sole forum for the determination of the need for the WCEC Project, pursuant to Section 403.519, F.S.

94. The Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, sitting as the Siting Board, have determined that the proposed site of the WCEC Project is in conformity with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of Palm Beach County, Florida.

95. FPL is the applicant for site certification in this proceeding under the Power Plant Siting Act, Chapter 403, Part II, F.S. As the applicant, FPL has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its application for site certification should be approved. Section 120.57(1)(j), F.S.; Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The standard for FPL's burden of proof is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees,

    
    

    that the applicable conditions for the issuance of the certification have been satisfied. Manasota-88 Inc. v. Agrico

    Chemical Company and Department of Environmental Regulation, 12

    
    

    F.A.L.R. 1319, 1325, 1988 WL 617583, (DER 1990). "Reasonable assurance" contemplates "a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented." Metropolitan Dade

    County v. Coscan Florida Inc., 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners v.

    Department of Environmental Regulation, 587 So. 2d 1378, 1387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The reasonable assurance standard requires FPL "to deal with 'reasonably foreseeable contingencies' in establishing entitlement to" the site certification. Further, FPL is "not required to disprove all the 'worst case scenarios' or 'theoretical impacts' raised by" members of the public.

    Ginnie Springs Inc. v. Craig Watson and Department of Environmental Protection, 21 FALR 4072, 4080, 1999 WL 1483647;

    (DEP 1999)

    
    

96. A party should be able to anticipate that when agency employees with special expertise in a field accept data and information supplied by the applicant, then the same data and information will be accepted by the administrative law judge, absent evidence showing the inaccuracy or unreliability of that data and information. J.W.C., 396 So. 2d at p. 789. In this

    
    

    proceeding, FPL has met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence its entitlement for site certification for the West County Energy Center under the Power Plant Siting Act. The data and information submitted by FPL to the agencies and at the hearing has not been rejected or contested by any of the agency parties, including DEP, which have expertise in the matters involved in this Project and which have reviewed the information submitted by FPL on the WCEC Project. The evidence offered by FPL is therefore entitled to acceptance as meeting FPL’s burden of proof in support of issuance of a site certification for the Project.

97. In addition to FPL’s affirmative evidence, the other evidence in support of issuance of certification includes the DEP’s Revised Staff Analysis Report and the testimony of DEP staff. The DEP’s Report reflects agencies’ reviews of the Project and demonstrates the Project’s compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including but not limited to, air quality standards, water use criteria, and transportation-related standards. Cumulatively, this evidence from FPL, DEP and other agencies comprises the competent, substantial evidence in support of certification.

98. Once an applicant makes a preliminary showing of its entitlement to the certification, the burden shifts to those

    
    

    opposing the project to offer “contrary evidence of equivalent quality” to show why the certification should be denied.

    J.W.C., 396 So. 2d at 789. In this case, no agency or party opposes certification and no party offered evidence in opposition to that presented by FPL. Several members of the public, who were not parties, raised generalized concerns and statements of opposition to the Project, but their statements do not constitute “contrary evidence of equivalent quality” to the evidence provided by FPL in support of certification. Such evidence constitutes “mere speculation on what might occur,” which is an inadequate basis to overcome FPL’s competent, substantial evidence in support of certification. Lake Region Audubon Society v. SWFWMD and Spanish Oaks of Central Florida, LLC, 2005 WL 373875 (DOAH Case No. 05-2606) (Fla. DOAH 2005)

    (Adopted in toto by SWFWMD Governing Board, Order No. SWF 05-81,

    
    

    dated November 30, 2005); Citizens Against Blasting, Inc. v. DEP and Angelo’s Aggregate Materials, Ltd., 23 FALR 2463 (DEP 2001) Accordingly, FPL has met its burden of proof in this proceeding.

99. Competent substantial evidence produced at the certification hearing demonstrates that the West County Energy Center Units 1 and 2 meet the criteria for certification under the PPSA. The evidence demonstrates that the construction and operational safeguards for the WCEC Units 1 and 2 are

technically sufficient for the welfare and protection of the citizens of Florida and are reasonable and available methods to achieve that protection. The WCEC Project, if constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the recommended Conditions of Certification contained in DEP Exhibit 2, will produce minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. The WCEC Project will not unduly conflict with the goals established by the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. Certification of the Units 1 and 2, with the recommended Conditions of Certification, will fully balance the increasing demand for electrical power plant location and operation in this State with the broad interests of the public that are protected by the PPSA.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board:

1. Grant full and final certification to Florida Power & Light Company, under Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction, and operation of the West County Energy Center Units 1 and 2, comprising two nominal 1250 megawatt combined cycle units, as described in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at the

   
   

   certification hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in DEP Exhibit 2.

2. Certify the West County Energy Center site for an ultimate site capacity of 3300 megawatts, fueled by natural gas with light oil as backup fuel, subject to supplemental application review pursuant to Section 403.517, F.S. and Rule 62-17.231, F.A.C.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DAVID M. MALONEY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2006.

ENDNOTE

1/ References to testimony and exhibits use the following format: “FPL Ex.” refers to FPL exhibits by number; “PT” refers to the Prefiled Testimony of FPL, which is FPL Exhibit 8; “Tr.

I, II, or III” refers to the three volumes of the certification hearing transcript.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Colleen M. Castillo, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Greg Munson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Scott A. Goorland, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Kelly Martinson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

James Antista, Esquire

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600

Peter Cocotos, Esquire

South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690

Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Martha Carter Brown, Esquire Office of General Counsel

Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

Robert Banks, Esquire Lil Walesky, Esquire Palm Beach County

301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Roger Saberson, Esquire

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council

70 Southeast 4th Avenue

Delray Beach, Florida 33483-4514

Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams

Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Harris M. Rosen, Esquire Corporate Counsel

Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 14000

Juno Beach, Florida 33408

Steven Palmer, P.E.

Department of Environmental Protection Siting Coordination Office

2600 Blairstone Road, Mail Station 48

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Cite Certification Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Cite Certification Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 05-001493EPP

Orders for Case No: 05-001493EPP