STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY )

POWER PLANT SITING APPLICATION, ) CASE NO. 80-1723EPP BIG BEND STATION UNIT 4 P.A. 79-12 )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 23, 1981, at the Hillsborough County Courthouse in Tampa, Florida. The issue for determination at the hearing was whether the power plant siting application of Tampa Electric Company for the construction and operation of an electrical generating facility known as Big Bend Unit Number 4 proposed for Hillsborough County should be granted.

APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING

For Tampa Lawrence N. Curtin and

Electric Robert P. Murray

Company: Holland and Knight

(TECO) Post Office Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802

For Department of Louis F. Hubener Environmental Assistant General Counsel Regulation: Twin Towers Office Building

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Southwest Thomas E. Cone, Jr. Florida Water Blain and Cone, P.A. Management 202 Madison Street

District: Post Office Box 399 Tampa, Florida 33601

OTHER APPEARANCES OF RECORD

For Department C. Laurence Keesey

of Veteran and Room 204, Carlton Building Community Affairs: Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Florida Public Arthur C. Canaday, General Counsel Service Commission: Public Service Commission

101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Prentice C. Pruitt

Public Service Commission

101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

INTRODUCTION

In August of 1980, Tampa Electric Company (TECO) filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation its application for power plant site certification for Big Bend Station Unit 4 in Hillsborough County, Florida. TECO has also requested certain variances from the surface water and ground water quality standards of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and the surface water quality standards and noise level standards of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. This Commission made no appearance at the hearing. A land use hearing was held on November 17, 1980, and the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board under Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, entered an Order on February 19, 1981, concluding that the proposed site of Big Bend Unit No. 4 is consistent with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances and regulations.

Prior to the hearing, the parties filed with the undersigned a Prehearing Stipulation containing certain stipulated facts. All issues concerning certification for the proposed facility were settled by agreement of the parties prior to the hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law and a proposed recommendation was filed with the undersigned. This document constituted the joint effort of all parties with the exception of the Florida Public Service Commission which waived further participation in this proceeding after its order certifying the need for Big Bend Unit No. 4, pursuant to Section 403.519, Florida Statutes.

At the administrative hearing held on June 23, 1981, TECO presented the testimony of five witnesses and its Exhibits 1 through 29 were received into evidence. The witnesses presented by TECO were John B. Ramil, an engineer in the Environmental Planning Department at TECO; Wallace Wilcher, TECO's superintendent of the Big Bend Station; Steven Marks, accepted as an expert witness in the area of air quality and dispersion modeling; Stephen Jenkins, accepted as an expert witness in the area of pollution control, specifically, flue gas desulfurization and electrostatic precipitators; and Jerry L. Williams, manager of environmental planning for TECO. The DER presented the testimony of Hamilton S. "Buck" Oven, DER's administrator of power plant sitings, transmission line sitings and the review section of the Bureau of Permitting.

Received into evidence were DER's Exhibits 1 through 3.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the stipulations of fact and the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:

1. The applicant is a duly authorized and registered Florida corporation engaged in the business of producing electrical power for sale. It proposes to construct and operate a 486 megawatt (gross) coal fired electrical generating facility immediately adjacent to its existing three coal fired units known a Big Bend Units 1, 2 and 3. The proposed site is located on the eastern shore of Tampa Bay near the mouth of the Hillsborough Bay (designated as a Class III waterbody), and is five miles north of Ruskin, ten miles south of Tampa and fourteen miles from St. Petersburg across Tampa Bay. As noted, the proposed unit will be the fourth unit at the applicant's existing Big Bend site and will share many of the service facilities with the existing units. The shared facilities include the coal dock, loading facilities, the coal storage area, the switchyard, and the existing wastewater treatment pond and spray irrigation field. The existing transmission line towers will be used by Unit No. 4, but approximately 3,000 feet of conductors will be installed to connect the new unit

   to the existing switchyard located just east of the existing station. Other associated facilities include storage and handling facilities for limestone necessary to operate the flue gas desulfurization system, storage and disposal areas for the by-product produced by that system and storage and disposal for ash. A spur from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to the site was constructed for previous projects and will be used in connection with construction of proposed Unit No. 4. An additional spur will be constructed entirely within the site boundaries and no offsite rail construction will be necessary.

   
   

2. As a primary energy source, proposed Unit No. 4 will burn high sulfur bituminous coal. The unit will be equipped with an electrostatic precipitator for the purpose of controlling the emission of particulates, and will also be equipped with a flue gas desulfurization system for the purpose of controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide. These pollution control devices have been determined by the Department of Environmental Regulation to constitute the "best available control technology." In order to prevent significant deterioration of air quality from the operation of Unit No. 4, various alternative strategies have been studied by TECO and its consultants. These studies demonstrated that the most economical strategy which will comply with state and federal regulations calls for the use of a 99.74% efficient electrostatic precipitator for the removal of particulate emissions, boiler and burner design for oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide and a system for the removal of sulfur dioxide which includes a flue gas desulfurization system, coal washing and retention of certain of the sulfur dioxide in the ash during combustion. The entire sulfur dioxide control system will provide a removal efficiency of 90 percent. Tampa Electric Company and its consultants have modeled and analyzed the projected effects of air pollution from proposed Unit No. 4. The evidence developed from such studies shows that the operation of Unit No. 4 as proposed pursuant to the attached conditions of certification will comply with State and federal standards for ambient air quality and the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

   
   

3. Big Bend Unit No. 4 will generate three basic byproduct materials. These are fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas desulfurization byproduct. The fly ash generated by Unit No. 4 will be collected in the electrostatic precipitator

   prior to the boiler gas being discharged to the atmosphere. This material will be marketed as a raw material for the production of cement. However, in the event no market is available, provisions have been made to store fly ash at the site of Unit No. 4. The unsold fly ash will be sluiced to a settling pond and then ultimately transported to the final storage area. Bottom ash is the material resulting from combustion of coal which is collected at the bottom of the boiler. Bottom ash will be sluiced to a bottom ash area which will consist of a pond for settling the material and a final disposal area. The flue gas desulfurization system byproduct, a commercial grade gypsum, will be stored as necessary on site. It is anticipated that this will be a marketable product.

   
   

4. Fresh water necessary to operate the facility, other than for cooling purposes, will be obtained from Hillsborough County. This fresh water will be used to supply make-up water to the boiler and in the flue gas desulfurization system. In addition, fresh water will be used to sluice ash and to service the sanitary facilities for the plant, for fire protection and for other limited miscellaneous uses. All such water will be obtained off premises and no production wells will be owned or operated by Tampa Electric Company in connection with Unit No. 4. For some purposes, the applicant will use the lowest quality of water available from the County before drawing from the public potable water supply.

5. Proposed Unit No. 4 will utilize a once through condenser cooling system and fine mesh screens on the intake structures will be installed for existing Unit No. 3 and the proposed Unit No. 4. Saltwater for the cooling system will be withdrawn from the existing intake canal and will be returned to the existing discharge canal. The plant cooling water flow will be pumped from the intake structure screen wells through the plant and discharged to the discharge canal where the flow from Unit No. 4 will combine with the existing flow from Units 1,

2 and 3. There is sufficient water available in Tampa Bay to supply the volume requirements of the Unit No. 4 once through cooling system. The fine mesh screens installed on the intake structures for existing Unit No. 3 and proposed Unit No. 4 will minimize the impact of entrainment and impingement on organisms in the area. A system will be provided to return organisms impinged on the fine mesh screen structures to a location suitable to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

1. The cooling water passing through the plant will increase in temperature to an expected level of 17 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature of the ambient intake cooling water prior to ultimate discharge. This 17 degree temperature rise is the design maximum for the unit at maximum load conditions. The heated water will be discharged to the existing station discharge canal and will then flow in a westerly direction into the Bay where it will mix with ambient water and continue to reduce in temperature.

   
   

2. Tampa Electric Company performed a 316 Demonstration in accordance with Section 316 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, to assess the impacts of the thermal discharge from the plant on organisms in the Bay. In addition, the effects of the cooling water intake structure on impingement and entrainment of organisms in the intake water were assessed. These reports were submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency for evaluation. The Department of Environmental Regulation has approved the use of a once through cooling system with fine mesh screens on the intake structures on Unit No. 3 and Unit No. 4. DER recommends establishment of a thermal mixing zone in accordance with Section 17-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, encompassing an area not to exceed 4980 acres. The conditions of certification proposed by DER require further validation of the size of the mixing zone after Unit No. 4 begins operations. The Environmental Protection Agency has tentatively determined that the use of fine mesh screen technology on existing Unit No. 3 and proposed Unit No. 4 constitutes the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts for the purposes of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, and has also tentatively determined that the impact of the thermal discharge from proposed Unit No. 4 is within acceptable limits under Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1977.

   
   

3. The unit will utilize chlorine in the circulating water system to control the growth of marine organisms in the condenser and intake tunnel. The control of this growth, or biofouling, is necessary to ensure that the flow of the cooling water and transfer of heat is not excessively impeded. The chlorine which is inserted into the circulating system is ultimately discharged to the discharge canal and then to the Bay. To ensure compliance with Florida Class III water quality standards applicable to discharges of chlorine, the Department of Environmental Regulation recommends in its conditions of certification that an effluent limitation of 0.2 milligrams per liter be imposed and a mixing zone encompassing 6.1 acres be established.

   
   

4. Process waste streams associated with Unit No. 4 will include the boiler blowdown, the bottom ash system blowdown and the flue gas desulfurization system blowdown. These three waste streams will be discharged to the circulating water

   system and ultimately to the discharge canal currently in existence. Waste streams which are not discharged to surface waters include the various plant drains and waste waters from various plant washing operations that will take place. These waste streams will be collected and transported to the existing waste water pond and, from there, the waste water will be recycled to the extent possible. Final disposal of this waste water will be through the existing stray irrigation system. The existing waste water pond and spray irrigation field are designed to accommodate the additional use. Runoff from the coal pile facility will be contained on the site and transported to the existing waste water pond.

   
   

5. A drainage system is provided for the plant for the runoff from the materials storage areas, the byproduct storage areas, and the construction activity associated with the main structure at Big Bend Unit No. 4. Materials and by-product storage area runoff will be intercepted and contained on site. Runoff from the Big Bend Unit No. 4 main construction area will be contained and pumped to the waste water pond. Other areas subject to construction will employ mitigative measures defined by the conditions of certification attached hereto.

   
   

6. A potential concern exists that groundwater flow from the waste water treatment facilities and byproduct storage areas may result in leaching of pollutants into the groundwaters of the State. The groundwater at the existing site has been designated as Class I-B waters. The conditions of certification include a groundwater monitoring program designed to assess the ambient water quality and identify the potential impacts of leachate contamination with respect to the State groundwater quality standards.

   
   

7. The impact to the existing water quality as a result of the discharge of the boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown streams through the circulating water system to the discharge canal and ultimately to the Bay will be undetectable across the plant, from the point where the circulating water is taken into the plant, combined with the three streams and released at the point of discharge. There will be no measurable change in water quality as a result of these discharges.

   
   

8. The flue gas desulfurization blowdown stream and the bottom ash blowdown stream will be subject to treatment to meet State and federal effluent limitations. The flue gas desulfurization system will be treated for pH adjustment, suspended solids removal and oil and grease removal prior to discharge. The bottom ash system will include an adequately sized pond to remove suspended solids so that the effluent limitations will be met. Boiler blowdown will not require treatment to meet applicable effluent limitations. In addition to the treatment methods proposed above, Tampa Electric Company evaluated other options relating to the treatment of these streams to meet water quality standards for these discharges. Alternatives investigated included a zero discharge option, further recycling of the waste streams and various treatment methods to remove heavy metals prior to discharge. The cost of these alternatives ranges from $1.2 million to $1.8 million. Even with the treatment systems in place, there will be no detectable change in water quality from the point of intake to the point of discharge, after addition of the discharges from the three identified waste streams. Tampa Electric Company concluded that based upon these factors, and primarily upon the fact that even with additional treatment there will be no detectable change in water quality from the point of intake to the point of discharge, the expenditures are not justified in this circumstance.

   
   

9. Tampa Electric Company requested variances from certain regulations of the Department of Environmental Regulation relating to ground and surface water

   quality standards. The request for variances from water quality standards for groundwater discharges contained in Rules 17-3.071 and 17- 3.101(1),(3),(4),(8),(9) and (13), Florida Administrative Code, can be resolved by defining a zone of discharge and implementation of the groundwater monitoring program as outlined in the attached conditions of certification. This variance request was therefore withdrawn by Tampa Electric Company at the hearing. The variance request from surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17- 3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17-

   3.121(11) (copper), 17-3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121(19)

   (nickel), and 17-3.121(26) (selenium), Florida Administrative Code, for the discharges of boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown are recommended by the Department of Environmental Regulation to be granted for a period of two years after the start of commercial operation during which time TECO shall institute a study program, including monitoring, in accordance with the attached conditions of certification. The request for variances from surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17-3.061(2)(h) and 17-3.121(7) (lead), 17-3.051 (minimum criteria) and 17-3.061(2) (general prohibition), Florida Administrative Code, were withdrawn by TECO at the hearing.

   
   

10. Tampa Electric Company also requesting variances from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission rules relating to noise level standards and surface water quality standards. No representative of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission appeared at the hearing.

    
    

11. A variance from the noise level standards contained in the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commissions's Rule 1-10.04A is requested for the steam blowing operation that is necessary prior to commercial operation of proposed Unit No. 4. This procedure is recommended by the equipment manufacturer to minimize damage to the steam turbine resulting from debris which may accumulate during construction of the unit. The noise levels produced from this steam venting operation vary from unit to unit and it is impossible to accurately predict what the noise levels will be. Violation of the provisions of the Commission's Rule 1-10.04A for short durations during the operation is possible. Tampa Electric Company will institute a notification procedure designed to inform residents in the area that the operation will occur over a short period of time. No adverse impact to residents and the environment in the affected area is anticipated and only minor inconvenience to the residents is expected to occur. The entire operation occurs only intermittently prior to initial start up of the unit and should encompass a period not to exceed thirty

    (30) days from the start of the steam blowing operation.

    
    

12. The surface water quality rules from which TECO seeks a variance from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission relate to the standards for chromium, lead, iron and arsenic for the discharges of boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown from Unit No. 4. This variance request is made for the life of the certification for Unit No. 4. The evidence demonstrates that the three waste streams identified above are discharged to the circulating water system and then to the discharge canal existing at the facility. The request for a variance from these pollutant parameters is based upon data compiled by the applicant and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation which shows that ambient water quality existing in Hillsborough Bay contains concentrations of the identified parameters (chromium, iron, and arsenic) in amounts which are already above applicable Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards for Hillsborough Bay. The data concerning lead concentrations is inconclusive. The evidence demonstrates that with the exception of lead, the

    maximum values contained in the applicant's sampling data for chromium, iron, and arsenic are all above the applicable water quality standards.

    
    

13. Access roads on the site which have been constructed for previous projects at the Big Bend Station are capable of assimilating additional traffic caused by the Unit No. 4 construction activities.

    
    

14. There is very little opportunity for public access to the site during construction and operation. The vehicular traffic will be intercepted and controlled by a guard system at the entrance to the site on a 24-hour basis. In addition, all other fenced areas will be equipped with locked gates and patrolled by roving guards.

    
    

15. Except for intermittent traffic congestion, plant construction is not expected to have an impact on the nearest residential communities of Apollo Beach and Adamsville.

    
    

16. There are no historic, scenic, cultural, or natural areas or state parks and recreation areas which will be disturbed by the construction of Big Bend Unit No. 4.

    
    

17. The construction of Unit No. 4 and its related facilities will involve the loss of approximately 272 acres of vegetation and habitat on the eastern shore of Hillsborough Bay, some of which has been previously disturbed by construction activities associated with existing Units 1, 2 and 3. Sound levels predicted as a result of construction activities are below the maximum permissible sound levels in accordance with the Hillsborough County noise code limit of 60 dBA during the daytime in a residential area. The majority of construction will take place during daylight hours and no significant noise impact is expected at the surrounding residences from onsite construction activities. Most bird and animal species located near the site are expected to have adjusted to the existing sound levels resulting from Units 1, 2 and 3 operation. Although birds and animals nearest the plant may experience periodic "startle reaction" and move away from the noise source, no measurable effects of construction noise levels on organisms occurring near or beyond the immediate site location are anticipated. The area wide effect of construction and operation on wildlife and vegetation is not expected to be significant. Appropriate steps have been proposed to minimize the environmental impact of construction and operation of Unit No. 4.

    
    

18. The Florida Public Service Commission has determined that there is a need in the State of Florida for the electric power to be produced by proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4.

    
    

19. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has generally concluded that there are no over-riding objections to the proposal for Unit No. 4 so long as adequate steps are taken to mitigate problems associated with air and water pollution.

    
    

20. The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission has commented on the project and offered no objections to it.

    
    

21. The Division of Archives, History and Records Management concluded that the proposed coal fired power plant is unlikely to affect any archeological or historical sites.

22. The National Marine Fisheries Service has made several recommendations regarding once through cooling concerns including the use of fine mesh screens, but does not object to the overall project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns similar to those of the National Marine Fisheries Service and also does not object to the overall project.

    
    

23. The Department of Veteran and Community Affairs has concluded that the application is generally compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan.

    
    

24. The Department of Environmental Regulation has made no recommendation concerning the grant of denial of the variance requests from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Rules.

    
    

25. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Water Management District have all recommended certification of the proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4 subject to the stipulated conditions of certification which are attached to this Recommended Order.

    
    

26. At the conclusion of the site certification hearing, members of the general public were given the opportunity to comment upon the application for site certification. No public testimony was offered.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This proceeding was conducted pursuant to the "Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act," Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 17, Florida Administrative Code, to consider Tampa Electric Company's application for site certification of proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4. In accordance with Chapters 403 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-17, Florida Administrative Code, notice was given to all persons and parties entitled thereto, as well as to the general public.

   
   

2. The purpose of the site certification hearing was to receive testimony and evidence concerning whether the location and operation of the proposed facilities will produce minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and ecology of State waters and their aquatic life in an effort to fully balance the increasing demand for electric power plant location and operation with the broad interests of the public. Section 403.502, Florida Statutes.

   
   

3. The record of this proceeding establishes that all the necessary and required governmental agencies were parties to this proceeding and that all required reports and studies were completed and presented to the Department of Environmental Regulation. These include the report of the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs as to the compatibility of the proposed electrical power plant with the State Comprehensive Plan (Subsection 403.507(1)(a), Fla. Stats.), the Florida Public Service Commission's report as to the present and future need for the electrical generating capacity to be supplied by the proposed plant (Subsection 403.507(1)(b), Fla. Stats.), and the report of the Southwest Florida Water Management District as to its position on the impact of the proposed facility on water resources (Rule 17-17.04(5), Fla. Admin. Code). The record further establishes that the Department of Environmental Regulation conducted or contracted for the enumerated studies required by Section 403.507(2), Florida Statutes, and completed its report and recommendations with respect thereto.

   The Department of Environmental Regulation recommends certification of proposed

   Big Bend Unit No. 4 subject to the attached conditions of certification which have been accepted by the applicant Tampa Electric Company.

   
   

4. The oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrate that the operational safeguards for the proposed Unit No. 4 are technically sufficient for the welfare and protection of the citizens of Florida. If performed in accordance with the attached conditions of certification, the construction, operation and location of the proposed new unit are expected to 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. Certification is consonant with the premise of abundant, low-cost electrical energy. If certified pursuant to the attached conditions, proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4 will comply with pertinent State and federal regulations concerning ambient air quality, the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and the application of the "best available control technology."

   
   

5. The applicant's request for a variance from the DER's surface water quality standards for discharges of boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown, if carried out in accordance with page

   23 of the attached conditions of certification, is supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. This variance request should be granted for a period of two years.

   
   

6. In order to minimize damage to the proposed unit's steam turbine, it is necessary that TECO perform an operation known as steam blowing or steam venting. This operation may result in a violation of the noise level standards of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. The operation occurs only intermittently over a thirty (30) day period prior to the initial start up of Big Bend Unit No. 4. Provided that TECO agrees to engage in a prior public notification program to notify residents in the area of the steam blowing operation, TECO should be granted a variance from the Commission's noise level standards (Rule 1-10.04A) for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the commencement of the steam blowing operations.

   
   

7. There being no opposition to the variance request from the surface water quality standards of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, and the request being otherwise supported by the evidence adduced by the applicant (with the exception of the lead parameter), this variance request relating to general chromium, iron and arsenic standards should be granted for the life of the certification. The requested variance from the lead standard should be denied since the evidence failed to demonstrate that variance relief is necessary for that parameter.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the entire record of this proceeding and the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Tampa Electric Company be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of Big Bend Unit No. 4, the associated facilities and the directly associated transmission line, as proposed in the amended application and evidence in the record;

2. The certification be subject to the conditions of certification attached to this Recommended Order as Appendix I;

   
   

3. The variance request from the Department of Environmental Regulation's surface water quality standards be granted in accordance with the conditions of certification which are attached hereto;

   
   

4. The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Rule 1-10.04A governing noise requirements be granted for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the commencement of steam blowing operations, conditioned upon Tampa Electric Company's agreement to notify the affected members of the public prior to the steam blowing operation;

   
   

5. The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards contained in Rules 1-5.04,2. (general), 1-5.04,2.n (chromium), 1-5.04,2.q (iron), and 1-5.04,2r (arsenic) be granted for the life of the certification for Big Bend Unit No. 4; and

   
   

6. The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards pertaining to lead, Rule 1-5.04,2.p., be denied.

Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DIANE D. TREMOR

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1981.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lawrence N. Curtin

and Robert P. Murray Holland and Knight Post Office Drawer NW

Lakeland, Florida 33802

Louis F. Hubener Assistant General Counsel

Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Thomas E. Cone, Jr.

Blain and Cone, P.A.

202 Madison Street Post Office Box 399 Tampa, Florida 33601

C., Laurence Keesey Department of Veteran and

Community Affairs

Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Arthur C. Canaday General Counsel

Public Service Commission

101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Prentice C. Pruitt

Public Service Commission

101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Administrator, Power Plant Siting

Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

In the Matter Of: TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY POWER PLANT SITING

APPLICATION, BIG BEND STATION CASE NO. 80-1723EPP UNIT NUMBER 4 P.A. 79-12.

/

FINAL ORDER

The following persons were present and participated in the disposition of this matter:

Honorable Bob Graham Governor

Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State

Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General

Honorable Bill Gunter

Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner

Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller

Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture

Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education

FINAL ORDER ADOPTING HEARING D ZONING BY THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET:

The Governor and Cabinet, having heard presentations by the parties, reviewed the Recommended Order dated July 21, 1981, (attached and incorporated as Exhibit 1) as well as the special, and general conditions referred to therein and attached thereto as Appendix I, and being otherwise fully advised herein, it is,

ORDERED:

1. The Recommended Order is approved and adopted.

   
   

2. The general and special conditions referenced therein and attached thereto as Appendix I are approved and adopted, and the certification of Big Bend Station Unit Number 4 is made specifically subject to those general and special conditions.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 1981, subsequent to a vote of the Governor and Cabinet at a duly constituted Cabinet meeting of August 4, 1981.

FOR THE GOVERNOR AND FLORIDA CABINET:

BOB GRAHAM

Governor

Vote:

Docket for Case No: 80-001723

Orders for Case No: 80-001723