STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: Martin Coal Gasification/ ) Combined Cycle Project Power )
Site Certification Application, ) CASE NO. 90-0259EPP Florida Power & Light Company )
PA89-27 )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on March 30, 1990, in Indiantown, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Florida Power & Gary P. Sams
Light Company: Douglas S. Roberts
Hopping Boyd Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
For Department of Steven K. Hall Community Affairs: Senior Attorney
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
For Department of Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E. Environmental 2600 Blair Stone Road
Regulation: Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
For Martin County: Frederik W. Van Vonno
Assistant County Attorney 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue for determination is whether the proposed Martin Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle (CG/CC) Project site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of Martin County, Florida.
See Section 403.508(2), F.S. No party to the proceeding disputes that the site is consistent and in compliance.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Pursuant to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, Sections 403.501
- 403.519, Florida Statutes (F.S.), on December 29, 1989, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) filed an application for power plant site certification for the construction and operation of four combined-cycle generating units and associated coal gasification facilities at FPL's Martin Plant site. This
project is known as the Martin Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle (CG/CC) Project. (FPL Exhibit 1, T.22) The statutory scheme requires this land use hearing and a separate certification hearing, which will be held later.
At the hearing, FPL called William Yeager, of FPL, (T.16), who was accepted as an expert in power plant engineering (T.20) and Analee Moore (T.42), who was accepted as an expert in land use planning. (T.45) FPL offered twenty (20) exhibits, FPL Exhibits 1-16, 18, 19, 21 and 22, which were received into evidence. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) called no witnesses, but offered DER Exhibit 1, which was received into evidence.
The Department of Community Affairs called no witnesses and offered no exhibits. Martin County, which timely filed a notice of intent to be a party to these proceedings, called no witnesses and offered no exhibits. The Public Service Commission and the South Florida Water Management District, both statutory parties, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, which filed a notice of intent to be a party, did not appear at the hearing.
William C. Summers, a member of the public, testified.
Without objection, the minor clerical errata items described in Douglas Roberts' March 20, 1990, letter to the Hearing Officer are included in the certification application.
The transcript of hearing was filed on April 12, 1990.
Florida Power and Light Company's Proposed Recommended Order was filed on April 16, 1990. No other parties filed briefs or proposed recommended orders.
After a telephone conference conducted on April 27, 1990, the parties were permitted to file written comments or objections to those portions of Florida Power and Light Company's Proposed Recommended Order which appear to address the scope of the certification hearing. (See order dated April 27, 1990)
Responses were filed by Florida Power and Light Company, by the Department of Environmental Regulation and by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
Florida Power and Light Company's Proposed Recommended Order is substantially incorporated in this recommended order, except for proposed Conclusion of Law #31, which is revised to address the scope of the land use hearing, rather than the certification hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The DER published notices of this land use hearing on February 8, 1990, in the Palm Beach Post, on February 11 and February 12, 1990, in the Stuart News, and on February 14, 1990, in the Indiantown News. Notices of this hearing also were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 9, 1990 and February 23, 1990. The DER mailed notice of this hearing to the chief executives of the local and regional authorities with responsibility for zoning and land use planning whose jurisdiction includes the site. (DER Exhibit 1) The Applicant, FPL, posted a notice of this hearing at the proposed site. (FPL Exhibit 19)
The Martin Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle Project
FPL proposes to construct and operate combined cycle generating units with a total capacity of 1,600 megawatts and coal gasification units to supply coal gas to these combined cycle units. The four combined cycle units, known as Units 3, 4, 5, and 6, will consist of combustion turbines, heat recovery steam generators, and steam turbines, which will be used to generate electricity. The coal gasification units will produce a fuel gas from coal and oxygen. Sulfur and particulates will be removed from the fuel gas, and the clean gases will be sent to the combined cycle units. (T.28, FPL Exhibit 5) The proposed project also includes a natural gas pipeline that will connect at the main Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline near the Florida Turnpike and extend west and south to the proposed site. (T.23, FPL Exhibit 2) A new 230 kilovolt electrical transmission line circuit will be constructed within an existing FPL transmission line right- of-way between the proposed site and the FPL Indiantown substation. (T.23, FPL Exhibits 1 and 2)
The proposed CG/CC project will utilize the existing cooling pond as its source of cooling water. Coal for the project will be delivered over existing rail lines serving the site. A new coal rail loop and coal unloading equipment will be constructed on site. Within the rail loop, a coal storage pile and other facilities will be constructed. The slag by-product from the coal gasification process will be stored on a 550 acre parcel, occupying the northern portion of the project site. (T.26-27, FPL Exhibits 1, 4, and 6D)
The Martin CG/CC project will be developed in three phases. During the first phase, two combined cycle units, Units 3 and 4, will be constructed. The second phase will involve the construction and operation of the coal gasification and combined cycle units known as Units 5 and 6. In the third phase, gasification units will be constructed to serve Units 3 and 4. (T.31-32)
Ultimate Site Capacity for Martin CG/CC Project
The site for the proposed Martin CG/CC Project is a 2,192 acre tract located within the existing 11,300 acre FPL Martin Plant site located in western Martin County, Florida. (FPL Exhibits 1 and 2) This site lies approximately 22 miles west of Stuart, five miles northwest of Indiantown and five miles east of Lake Okeechobee. (T.22-23, FPL Exhibit 2) State Road 710 runs along the northeast side of the site. The St. Lucie Canal lies to the south of the site. (T.24, FPL Exhibits 2 and 3)
A portion of the Martin Plant site is occupied by two existing 800 megawatt natural gas and oil-fired units. (T.24) A 6,800 acre cooling pond is also located within the existing site. (T.24, FPL Exhibits 1 and 3)
The proposed alignment for the natural gas transmission line to serve the proposed CG/CC Project is within a 1,200 foot-wide corridor lying along the center line of State Road and County Road 714, running west from the junction with the Florida Turnpike. This corridor turns south at the junction with an existing FPL transmission right-of-way, and follows that right-of-way, becoming a 600 foot wide corridor, until it reaches the proposed CG/CC site. The permanent 50-foot wide right-of-way for the pipeline will be located within this corridor. (T.23, 25-26, FPL Exhibit 2) The proposed site for the electrical transmission line upgrade to be undertaken as part of this project is an existing FPL transmission line right-of-way running south and east from the Martin Plant site to an existing substation near Indiantown. (T.23, FPL Exhibits
1 and 2)
FPL proposes in its Site Certification Application (SCA) an ultimate site capacity of 1,600 megawatts of combined cycle generating capacity to be fueled by natural gas, coal-derived gas and fuel oil. FPL's SCA proposes certification in this proceeding for combined cycle Units 3 and 4 burning natural gas or fuel oil, and CG/CC Units 5 and 6 burning coal-derived gas, natural gas or fuel oil. Additionally, the SCA seeks an ultimate site capacity determination that would allow the later addition of coal gasification units to provide coal-derived gas to Units 3 and 4. (FPL Exhibit 1, (Section 1.5))
Presently, the Florida PSC is considering the need for Martin Units 3 and 4. The PSC pre-hearing officer determined that the PSC would not consider the need for Units 5 and 6 at this time. However, that order recognizes that FPL could still proceed to seek an ultimate site capacity certification for Units 5 and 6. (FPL Exhibit 22)
Consistency and Compliance of the Project Site with Local Land Use Plans
In August 1989, the Martin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) amended the April 1, 1982 Martin County Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation for the site of the proposed Martin CG/CC project from a land use designation of Agricultural to Industrial. This amendment was adopted in response to an application filed by FPL, along with a petition to change the zoning for the proposed site from A-2 (agricultural) to Planned Unit Development (industrial), or PUD(i), and to grant a height exception for structure heights greater than 60 feet. (T.47-50, FPL Exhibits 10, 13 and 14)
The 1982 Martin County Comprehensive Plan, as subsequently amended, was the local land use plan in effect on the date FPL filed this SCA. (FPL Exhibit 7) The Electric Utility Element of that plan encouraged the expansion of the power plant facilities located at FPL's Martin Plant Site. This element also encouraged future development at the site to occur under a planned unit development industrial zoning classification. (T.48, FPL Exhibit 7)
On August 8, 1989, the Martin County BOCC voted to amend its 1982 Comprehensive Plan to designate the proposed site as industrial. This adoption reflects the Martin County BOCC's determination that the proposed project is consistent with that Plan. (T.50, 53)
The proposed CG/CC project was also reviewed by the Martin County BOCC for consistency with Martin County's then developing 1990 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. The concurrent rezoning to PUD(i) was evaluated for consistency with the proposed Capital Improvement Element and the County's proposed 25% upland preservation policy. The project, as proposed, was found to be consistent with both of these policies. (T.56-58, FPL Exhibit 13 (Exhibit "C"))
The proposed site is designated for "major public utility" use on the Land Use Map adopted in February, 1990, by the Martin County BOCC as part of its 1990 Growth Management Plan. (T.58, FPL Exhibits 11 and 12)
Consistency of the Project Site with Local Zoning
On August 8, 1989, the Martin County BOCC rezoned the proposed CG/CC site to a planned unit development (industrial) zoning classification. (T.50, FPL Exhibit 13) The planned unit development, or PUD, zoning provides more
flexibility than traditional zoning in allowing a mix of different land uses and densities while still achieving objectives of land use compatibility and creation of open space. It is a performance-based zoning that typically involves a specific site plan and a set of performance standards for the proposed development. (T.63-64, FPL Exhibit 15)
The PUD(i) zoning criteria for the Martin CG/CC project are contained in a document titled "Martin Expansion Project Planned Unit Development Zoning Agreement" between FPL and the Martin County BOCC, dated August 8, 1989. This agreement refers to the proposed CG/CC project as the Martin Expansion Project. (FPL Exhibit 6)
The PUD Agreement establishes certain conditions and standards upon which construction and operation of the CG/CC project may be undertaken at the proposed site. The Agreement incorporates and references various other local regulations with which a project at this site must comply. (T.62) The PUD(i) zoning agreement also recognizes that final approval for the project will be obtained under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act and that the final development plan of approval contemplated by the Agreement would be obtained through this certification process. (T.62-66, FPL Exhibit 6)
The PUD(i) Agreement provides that FPL shall have the right to develop the project in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances and regulations; with the provisions and requirements of the Zoning Agreement; and with the Preliminary and Final Development Plans. (T.66, FPL Exhibit 6)
This vesting of rights is consistent with Section 1-12C of the Preamble of the subsequently-adopted Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Martin County which addresses vested rights. That section provides that development orders approved prior to the adoption of the 1990 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan shall not be considered to be in conflict with this plan provided the development is continuing in good faith, pursuant to its established timetable. (T.66, FPL Exhibit 11) The timetable for development included in the PUD(i) Agreement recognizes the site certification process as part of the timetable for this development. (FPL Exhibit 6 (Exhibit "E")).
Exhibit D to the PUD(i) Zoning Agreement is a Preliminary Development Plan for the CG/CC project. This exhibit provides a conceptual layout for the proposed project, but provides a level of detail that will accommodate changes to the actual site layout made during the licensing and final design processes. The CG/CC Project, as proposed in the SCA, is consistent with this Preliminary Development Plan. (T.30-31, 69-70, FPL Exhibit 6)
A development schedule for the proposed project is established in Exhibit E to the PUD(i) Agreement. This timetable contemplates and incorporates site certification by the Governor and Cabinet. (FPL Exhibit 6) FPL will be able to develop all 1,600 MW of CG/CC units as proposed in the SCA consistent with this timetable. (T.32-33)
Seventeen (17) Special Conditions are established for the Martin Expansion Project in Exhibit F to the PUD Agreement. (FPL Exhibit 6) FPL has committed to meet all of the Special Conditions (T.34-40) and its design, as developed to date and presented in the site certification application, is consistent and in compliance with all seventeen Special Conditions. (T.40,76-77) They are:
Permitted uses on the site are set out in Special Condition 1, allowing uses including combined cycle electric generating units, coal gasification facilities, coal handling and storage facilities, by-product storage area, and other associated facilities. A conceptual layout for a typical 1,600 megawatt coal gasification/combined cycle plant is shown on Attachment 1 to that Exhibit F, a plan that is subject to modification. (T.34,69-70, FPL Exhibit 6) The uses permitted are described in greater detail in attachment 2 to that Exhibit F. (FPL Exhibit 6)
Special Condition 2 allows development of the project with an interim potable water system, pursuant to a separate interim water system agreement, an agreement which is consistent with Martin County's interim water policy in article III, Division 2 of Chapter 31 of the Martin County Code. (T.35,71, FPL Exhibit 6 and 15) Special Condition 3 allows the use of an onsite aerobic treatment facilities for a sanitary waste water treatment system. (T.35, FPL Exhibit 6)
Special Condition 4 provides for 313 acres of upland preserve and restoration areas as shown on the approved development plans. This condition on upland preservation complies with the requirements of the 1982 Martin County Comprehensive Plan and was designed to meet the requirements of the upland preservation policy of the 1990 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. The upland preservation condition also satisfies the requirements of the Martin County Landscaping Code in Chapter 23, Article III, which requires that one-half of the open space requirements be met with native upland plant preserve areas. (T.71- 72, FPL Exhibits 6 and 15)
The size and dimension criteria of CG/CC facilities are governed by Special Condition 5, which references Attachment 1 to Exhibit F of the PUD Agreement, showing the relative sizes and dimensions of the planned facilities. (T.36, FPL Exhibit 6)
Special Condition 6 establishes performance standards which are consistent with the provisions of Section 33-581.44(G) and (H) of the Martin County Code. (T.73, FPL Exhibit 15) The performance standards establish limits on the density of smoke, size of particulates, emissions of odors, dust and dirt, and of obnoxious gases and fumes, set-backs for unenclosed buildings, fire protection measures, building heights, perimeter buffers adjacent to residential uses, and lighting. (T.36-37, FPL Exhibit 15) Several of these special performance standards provide additionally for compliance to be shown as part of the final certification order under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. (FPL Exhibit 6)
Special Condition 7 provides for a wetlands enhancement and restoration program to mitigate and compensate for loss of wetlands by the project's development. This condition complies with the wetlands exemption criteria for utilities under Section 4-3(b), Waivers of the Martin County Comprehensive Plan. (T.73, FPL Exhibits 6 and 7)
Under Special Condition 8, FPL is to pay $81,000 for community facilities in the Indiantown area in lieu of constructing a bike path along State Road 710. (T.77, FPL Exhibit 6)
A hazardous waste management plan, consistent with a hazardous waste management plan attached to the Zoning Agreement, is required by Special Condition 9.
Under Special Condition 10, the SCA, which constitutes the application for final development plan approval, is to show compliance with the Martin County Excavation and Fill Ordinance to the maximum extent practicable. These pertinent provisions of the Martin County Code are Sections 33-804, 805, 806, and 809. (T.38-39, 75, FPL Exhibits 6 and 15)
Landscaping around the administration buildings and parking areas is required by Special Condition 11. This condition satisfies the requirements of the Martin County Landscape Code, Chapter 23, Article III of the Martin County Code. (T.75, FPL Exhibits 6 and 15)
Special Condition 12 requires that plant operations not cause unreasonable levels of sound to reach the boundary of any existing adjacent residential district. FPL is to provide general public notice of any planned steamblows. No quantitative noise standards are established by Martin County. (T.76, FPL Exhibit 6)
Special Conditions 13 and 14 require that certain precautions be taken in the event that archaeological artifacts or endangered plants and animals are discovered on the site. (T.76, FPL Exhibit 6)
Under Special Condition 15, FPL is to phase the construction of the by- product storage area beginning from its western boundary and progressing eastward. FPL's proposed site layout demonstrates that the initial by-product storage cells will be constructed in the southwest corner of that area in order to comply with this provision. (T.39-40, FPL Exhibits 4 and 6)
Special Condition 16 requires FPL to avoid filling wetlands in the by- product storage area if the slag by-product is successfully marketed.
Under Special Condition 17, FPL is to make employment applications available in Indiantown area during periods of significant hiring.
These are project specific conditions proposed by the Martin County BOCC. (T.74-77, FPL Exhibit 6)
The CG/CC Project, as designed, committed to by FPL, and proposed in the site certification application, is consistent and in compliance with the foregoing provisions of the PUD(i) Zoning Agreement. (T.40, 78; FPL Exhibits 1 and 6)
Consistency and Compliance of the Electrical Transmission Line and Natural Gas Pipeline with Local Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances
Electrical transmission lines are permitted land uses in all land use classifications under the 1982 Martin County Comprehensive Plan and its Electric Utility Element. The 1982 Plan is silent concerning natural gas pipelines. (T.78-79, FPL Exhibit 7) The Martin County Zoning Code provides, in Section 35- 5.5(9), that normal distribution facilities, such as transmission lines and natural gas distribution lines, are excepted from the definition of those utilities that are treated as advertised conditional uses. Transmission lines and gas pipelines are, therefore, permitted uses in all zoning districts. (T.78- 79, FPL Exhibit 15) This conclusion is confirmed by the opinion of Michael F. Sinkey, the Martin County Zoning Administrator. (T.84, FPL Exhibit 18) Consistency and Compliance with Height Exception
On August 8, 1989, the Martin County BOCC adopted a special exception to allow heights in excess of 60 feet for facilities associated with the CG/CC project. The project, as proposed, is consistent and in compliance with the provisions of this height exception. The PUD(i) Zoning Agreement in Special Condition 6 establishes maximum heights of the various project facilities; and the proposed CG/CC project, as designed, committed to by FPL, and proposed in the site certification application, complies with all of them. (T.27,40, FPL Exhibits 6 and 14)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Section 403.508(1), F.S.
The sole issue for determination in this land use hearing is whether the project site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of Martin County, Florida. Section 403.508(2), F.S.
Consistency of the entire site is at issue here. That the Florida Public Service Commission may only consider need for Martin Units 3 and 4 at this time is not dispositive at this stage of the proceedings, because the Act provides for the land use hearing, which is the subject of this Recommended Order, to occur before the Public Service Commission's determination of need and report are due. Compare Secs. 403.507(1)(b) and 403.508(1), F.S.
Land use issues are not revisited in proceedings to review supplemental applications, so long as the supplemental proposals fall within the same site boundaries, fuel types and maximum generating capacity of an ultimate site capacity certification. Sec. 403.517(3), F.S.
The applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances are those adopted by Martin County in effect as of December 29, 1989, the date of FPL's site certification application. Section 403.508(2), F.S.
The applicable zoning ordinance for the Martin CG/CC Project site is the Martin Expansion Project Planned Unit Development Zoning Agreement as adopted by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners on August 8, 1989. That Zoning Agreement establishes performance-based zoning criteria which require consideration of both the proposed site and the proposed project in order to determine consistency and compliance with the Zoning Agreement. Therefore, consideration must be given to whether the proposed CG/CC Project is consistent and in compliance with local zoning ordinances as required by the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act.
FPL has established by competent, substantial evidence that that proposed power plant site, as the location for coal gasification/combined cycle facilities with an ultimate capacity of 1,600 megawatts, is consistent and in compliance with the 1982 Martin County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, with certain policies in the 1990 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Martin County, and with the zoning and other regulations for this site and project as embodied and incorporated in the Planned Unit Development (industrial) Zoning Agreement adopted on August 8, 1989 by the Martin County BOCC.
FPL's proposed electric transmission line upgrade and natural gas pipeline are permitted uses in all Martin County zoning districts and are not inconsistent with Martin County land use plans. Accordingly, their proposed sites are consistent and in compliance with Martin County land use plans and zoning ordinances.
The heights of facilities proposed by FPL in its design and site certification application are consistent and in compliance with the special height exception and related requirements of the PUD Agreement. Accordingly, they are consistent and in compliance with Martin County land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED
That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a final order finding that the proposed Martin Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle project and its site (including associated linear facilities), as proposed in the Site Certification Application, are consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Gary C. Smallridge Asst. General Counsel
DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Steve Hall, Esquire and Kathryn Funchess
Senior Attorney
Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
MARY CLARK
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1990.
John Fumero, Esquire
South Florida Water Mgmt District
P.O. Box 24680
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
Suzanne S. Brownless, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission Fletcher Building
101 East Gaines St., Rm. 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
Gary P. Sams, Esquire Douglas S. Roberts
Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314
Fred W. Van Vonno Asst. County Attorney 2401 SE Monterey Rd. Stuart, FL 34996
Dan Cary, Executive Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 3228 SW Martin Downs Blvd., Suite 205 Palm City, FL 33490
Roger G. Saberson
Attorney for Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
110 D. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444
Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E. DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: Martin Coal Gasification/ ) Combined Cycle Project Power ) Site Certification Application, ) Florida Power & Light Company, )
PA89-27.vs. ) CASE NO. 90-0259
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on November 5-7, 1990, in Indiantown, Martin County, Florida.
APPEARANCES
Florida Power & Light Gary P. Sams
Company (FPL) Douglas S. Roberts Hopping Boyd Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
State of Florida Gary C. Smallridge Department of Environmental Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E. Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Martin County Fred W. Van Vonno Assistant County Attorney Martin County
2401 S.E. Monterey Road Stuart, FL 34996
South Florida Water Frances Jauquet
Management District (SFWMD) South Florida Water Management
District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
Department of Transportation Vernon L. Whittier
Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
Treasure Coast Regional Roger G. Saberson
Planning Council 110 E. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and the Troup-Indiantown Irrigation District did not appear at the certification hearing.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
In this proceeding, FPL seeks approval to construct and operate Martin Units 3 and 4, fueled by natural gas and distillate oil, under the provisions of Section 403.511, F.S. Additionally, FPL seeks a determination that the proposed site of the three-phase Project and the attendant environmental resources have the capacity ultimately to accommodate all three phases of the Project consisting of a total 1600 MW of generating capacity fueled by coal-derived gas, natural gas or distillate oil. Such an ultimate site capacity certification may be granted pursuant to Section 403.517, F.S. and Rule 17-17.231, F.A.C.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This proceeding was held pursuant to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, (F.S.) and Chapter 17-17, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to consider Florida Power & Light Company1s (FPL's) application for site certification of the proposed three-phase
coal gasification/combined cycle (CG/CC) project (Project) at FPL's Martin site located in Martin County, Florida.
Pursuant to Subsections 403.508(1) and (2), F.S., a land use hearing was held before the undersigned hearing officer on March 30, 1990. By Order dated June 27, 1990, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, adopted the hearing officer's Recommended Order in toto, holding that the proposed CG/CC Project is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of Martin County, Florida.
Pursuant to Section 403.519, F.S., the Public Service Commission issued a determination of need for proposed Martin Units 3 and 4 on June 15, 1990. This determination of need applies only to the first phase of the Project.
After proper notice, a certification hearing as required by Section 403.508(3), F.S., was held in Indiantown, Florida, November 5-7, 1990. The general purpose of the certification hearing was to receive oral, written and documentary evidence, including that presented by members of the public, concerning whether, through available and reasonable methods, the location and operation of the proposed CG/CC project 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, in an effort to fully balance the increasing demands for electrical power plant location and operation with the broad interests of the public. Section 403.502, F.S.
At the hearing, FPL presented the oral or written testimony of 22 witnesses and its Exhibits WF-1 through WF-5, WO-6 through WO-12, WY-13 through WY-16, RS- 17, RS-18, WB-20 through WB-32, LS-37 through LS-42, HS-43 through HS-47, FS-48 through FS-53, AV-54, AV-55, JC-56 through JC-63, HF-68 through HF-71, AC-72 through AC-75, RC-76 through RC-79g, DF-87 through DF-118, BF-119, DC-120 through DC-130, DC-138 through DC-140, AL-131 through AL-137, KK-141, FPL-150 through FPL-162, FPL-200 and FPL-201 were received into evidence. Testifying on behalf of FPL were Bill Fries, FPL's Project General Manager for Martin Units 3 and 4, accepted as an expert in electrical power plant project management; Roberto Denis, FPL's Director of System Planning, accepted as an expert in power supply planning; Wayne Ondler, Principal Specialist of Environmental Resources and Planning with FPL, accepted as an expert in electrical power plant planning, siting, and licensing; Bill Yeager, FPL's Project Engineer for the Martin Expansion Project, accepted as an expert in electrical power plant engineering design; Rene Silva, FPL's Director of the Fuel Resources Department, accepted as an expert in electrical power plant fuel resources, including supply and transportation; Lee Schmoe, Program Manager for Coal Gasification with Bechtel Corporation, accepted as an expert in coal gasification; Armel Morvan, Engineering Manager for Pipeline Operations with Bechtel Corporation, accepted as an expert in pipeline design, construction and maintenance; Bill Bender, Project Engineer for the Martin Expansion Project with Bechtel Power Corporation, accepted as an expert in power plant engineering design, with specialization in environmental controls and alternatives; Fred Shanholtzer, an ecologist with Ebasco Environmental, accepted as an expert in terrestrial and wetlands ecology and the routing of linear energy facilities; Howard Searcy, Professional Engineer, accepted as an expert in surface water management and engineering and application of the stormwater standards of the South Florida Water Management District; Hal Frediani, Principal Environmental Engineer with Ebasco Environmental, accepted as an expert in the areas of power plant systems operation and surface water hydrology; Arch Campbell, an independent consultant, accepted as an expert in hydrogeology; Jose Coto, FPL's Supervising Engineer in the Substation Engineering Group within the Power System Engineering Department,
accepted as an expert in transmission line engineering and construction and substation engineering; Doug Fulle, Operations Manager and a Consulting Scientist with Ebasco Environmental, accepted as an expert in air quality impact analysis; Brad Floyd, Environmental Scientist with Ebasco Environmental, accepted as an expert in biology with specialization in terrestrial ecology; Rick Cardwell, Consulting Scientist in Aquatic Toxicology with Ebasco Environmental, accepted as an expert in toxicology, with specialization in aquatic toxicology; Analee Moore, President of Moore-Bowers, Inc., accepted as an expert in land use planning and socioeconomic analysis; Doug Coomer, Senior Associate with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., accepted as an expert in the field of transportation impact analysis, including both highway and rail systems; and Ken Kosky, accepted as an expert in the fields of air pollution control engineering, BACT analysis and air quality impact analysis. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties at the certification hearing, the testimony and exhibits of the following three witnesses were admitted by sworn affidavit following the hearing: Tom Adams, environmental noise specialist with Ebasco Environmental, accepted as an expert in environmental noise analysis, Exhibits TA-80 through TA-84; Fred Dietrich, Senior Engineer with Electric Research and Management, accepted as an expert in transmission line corona and field effects, Exhibits FD-64 through FD-67; and Joel Klein, an archaeologist with Ebasco Environmental, accepted as an expert in the fields of archaeology and cultural and historical resources, Exhibits JK-85 and JK-86. DER called Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E., who was accepted as an expert in the fields of power plant siting and environmental impact. DER Exhibit 2 was received into evidence and DER Exhibit 1 was received into evidence to show that DER, SFWMD, DCA and TCRPC fulfilled their obligations under Section 403.507, F.S., to prepare reports on the impacts of the project. DOT Exhibits 1 through 3 were received into evidence. SFWMD, TCRPC and Martin County called no witnesses and offered no exhibits. Eleven members of the general public testified on their own behalf.
Hearing Officer Exhibits 1 through 9, constituting stipulations between FPL and various agency parties, were received into evidence.
The transcript of proceedings was filed on `November 28, 1990. On December 7, 1990, a joint proposed recommended order was filed on behalf of FPL, DER, DOT and SFWMD. No other party filed a proposed order and none objected to the joint order. The joint proposed recommended order is adopted, in its entirety herein. Attachment A, conditions 3f certification, reflects the stipulations of the parties. Those conditions are adopted as part of this recommendation.
Having considered all testimony and evidence, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully apprised herein, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are entered.
References follow the following format:
Ondler Pr. 12 - refers to witness and page number in FPL's prepared written testimony. Ondler Tr. 12 - refers to witness and page number in hearing transcript.
SCA section 2.2 - refers to section of Site Certification Application, which is FPL's Exhibit 154.
H.O. Ex. 1 - refers to Hearing Officer exhibits.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Project Site and Vicinity
The site for the Martin Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle Project is a 2,192 acre parcel within the existing 11,300 acre FPL Martin Site. This site is located in western Martin County, Florida. Lake Okeechobee lies 5 miles to the west of the site and the unincorporated community of Indiantown is 7 miles to the southeast. (Ondler Pr. 4; SCA 2.1). The site is within the governmental jurisdiction of Martin County. (Moore Pr. 4; SCA 2.2).
The FPL Martin Site is bounded on the west by the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway and the adjacent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Canal L-65. To the south is the St. Lucie Canal. The northeast boundary is adjacent to State Road (S.R.) 710 and the CSX Railroad. (Ondler Pr. 4; SCA 2.1).
The FPL Martin Site contains an existing 6,800 acre cooling pond constructed to provide cooling water to electrical generating units at the Site. (Ondler Pr. 4; SCA 2.1). The cooling pond withdraws water from and infrequently discharges to the St. Lucie Canal. Two existing oil-fired electrical generating units with a total capacity of 1600 MW occupy about 300 acres of the Site. (Ondler Pr. 4; SCA 2.1; Yeager Pr. 3). Several existing transmission lines serve the Martin Site. The balance of the Site is undeveloped and, in part, leased for cattle grazing. (Ondler Pr. 4; SCA 2.1). The Barley Barber Swamp is a 400 acre freshwater swamp maintained by FPL on the western portion of the Martin Site as a nature preserve. (Moore Pr. 4; SCA 2.2.1).
The majority of existing land uses within 5 miles of the FPL Martin Site consist of agriculture, forested uplands or wetlands. The only nearby built-up area is the unincorporated community of Indiantown with a population of 5,850 in 1990. A total of 26 residences are found within a 2-mile radius from the Site. (Moore Pr. 4; SCA 2.2.3).
General Project Description
The Project ultimately will consist of 1,600 MW of combined cycle generating capacity, comprised of four units, fueled primarily by coal-derived gas produced at the Project site. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.1; Yeager Pr. 3). The Project will be undertaken in three phases. In Phase I, two 400 MW combined cycle units firing natural gas with distillate oil as a backup fuel, known as Units 3 and 4, will be constructed. Phase I also will involve construction of a
23 mile long natural gas pipeline, and the upgrading of an existing transmission line, together with the addition of a second 230 kV transmission line circuit to that upgraded line. In Phase II, combined cycle Units 5 and 6 will be constructed and operated along with the necessary coal gasification facilities to supply coal-derived gas to those two units. Associated coal handling, coal storage and by-product handling and storage facilities will be constructed during the second phase. During Phase III, additional coal gasification facilities will be constructed to supply coal gas to Units 3 and 4. Natural gas and distillate fuel oil will serve as backup fuels to these two phases. (Yeager Pr. 3-6). Because of limitations in the supply of natural gas available to FPL, the high cost of distillate oil, and the high forecasted cost of additional natural gas, coal is FPL's economic fuel of choice for Phases II and III.
(Fries Pr. 7; FPL Ex. 156, pp. 24-25)
The four combined cycle units and coal gasification facilities, along with water treatment facilities and transmission switchyards, will be located south of and adjacent to existing Units 1 and 2. There are no facilities shared between the new and existing units, with the exception of the main access road, rail facilities, cooling pond, eastern perimeter drainage ditch, and electrical transmission system. The coal, limestone and byproduct handling facilities will be located east of the new units and the main access road. A new on-site railroad loop will be constructed in this area to facilitate materials handling (Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.2.) The slag byproduct will be stored on a 550 acre parcel north of the on-site existing transmission lines and southwest of SR 710 and the CSX Railroad which border the Site. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA Figure 3.2.0-1).
Site Selection
The FPL Martin Site was selected as the site for the Project as the result of detailed siting efforts. In 1979, FPL undertook a siting study for a 1,400 MW coal-fired power plant. Potential sites in south and central Florida were screened, evaluated and rated. That study identified the Martin Plant Site as the preferred location for such a plant. However, the plant was not built because the need was met by the St. Johns River Power Park Project and a purchase power agreement with the Southern Company. (Ondler Pr. 4-5; FPL Ex. WO-7).
In 1985, FPL's ongoing electric power studies identified the need for additional generating capacity in southeast Florida. (Ondler Pr. 5). In 1987, a progressively more complex screening and evaluation process again identified the Martin Site as the preferred location for both natural gas-fired and coal gas-fired combined cycle units, plus coal gasification facilities. (Ondler Pr. 5-8). The Site was selected based on the lack of significant environmental constraints, the presence of a cooling pond with available capacity, significantly better economics, competitive modes of fuel delivery, sufficient available land, minimal required transmission line improvements and its location within FPL1s southeast Florida load center. (Ondler Tr. 46-47).
PSC Need Determination
The determination of need for Units 3 and 4 of the Martin CG/CC Project was made by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) in Order NO. 23080 issued on June 15, 1990. (FPL Ex. 156). This order established the need for
385 megawatts of capacity by December 1993, and an additional 385 megawatts of capacity by December 1994, which are to be satisfied by Units 3 and 4 at the Martin Site. Recognizing the importance of the proposed December 31, 1993 in- service date for Unit 3, the Order specifically noted that a one-year delay of the Project would cause "an unacceptable reliability risk to FPL's ratepayers." (FPL Ex. 156, P. 5). Accordingly, the PSC found that FPL "would suffer an unacceptable level of risk should Martin Units 3 and 4 not be approved." (FPL Ex. 156, P. 5). The PSC also examined the technical feasibility of, and fuel supply to, Martin Units 3 and 4. Noting that FPL has firm gas supply and transportation contracts in place to provide adequate fuel for the two units, the PSC found "that there is no significant risk of fuel interruption." (FPL Ex. 156, P. 7). The PSC concluded that, in light of the environmental, economic and demographic uncertainties facing FPL and the electric utility industry, Martin Units 3 and 4 are appropriate generating alternatives to meet the need for electricity in 1994 and 1995. (FPL Ex. 156, P. 9). Moreover, the PSC recognized that FPL's planned later addition of coal gasification units allows
the flexibility in the future to retrofit Units 3 and 4 to burn gasified coal, thereby ensuring fuel availability for those units after termination of the firm natural gas contracts. (FPL Ex. 156, P. 7).
Basis for Ultimate Site Capacity Certification
FPL seeks a determination in this proceeding that the Martin Site has capacity ultimately to accommodate Units 3, 4, 5 and 6 burning coal-derived gas produced at on-site coal gasification facilities. (Ondler Pr. 12). FPL's site certification application presented and analyzed the capacity constraints and environmental effects of all four units operating on coal gas, natural gas and oil at this site. (Ondler Tr. 48). Wherever a possible range of environmental effects was identified, a conservative or "worst case" philosophy was employed in studying the Project1s impacts. (Ondler Pr. 15). Such a comprehensive approach to all three phases, assuming "worst case" conditions, a11owed FPL to present a comprehensive evaluation of the Project's expected impacts to state, regional and local environmental licensing agencies. (Ondler Tr. 49; Oven Tr. 291-92). Such an approach permitted FPL and the regulatory agencies to make the most of their time and resources in comprehensively evaluating the Project and its impacts. (Ondler Pr. 13). An ultimate site capacity determination will permit later supplemental applications for approval of Phases II and III to be reviewed under expedited statutory procedures that would shorten the overall regulatory process from three years to cane year. (Ondler Pr. 13; Oven Tr. 290).
FPL's integrated coal gasification program requires the assurance that necessary land, water and air resources be available to support the program's development. (Ondler Pr. 15). An ultimate site capacity determination for the Project at the Martin Site will reduce both costs and uncertainties in forecasting future customer needs by reducing the permitting lead times for additional generating units. Such a determination also leads to a more orderly development of FPL's transmission and fuel delivery systems. (Denis Pr. 11-12).
Project Schedule, Costs and Employment
Construction of Phase I of the Project is scheduled to begin July 1991. The 29 month construction schedule for Unit 3 will place that unit in commercial operation in December 1993. Unit 4 is scheduled to commence commercial operation in December 1994 after a 35 to 42 month construction schedule. (Fries Pr. 6). However, Unit 4's construction schedule is being managed to allow that unit to begin commercial operation in May 1994 given uncertainties in the demand for the electricity from that unit. (Fries Tr. 35). Phase I's estimated total cost is $676 million including the required natural gas pipeline and transmission line upgrade. (Fries Pr. 6-7).
Construction of Phase II, consisting of Units 5 and 6 with coal gasification facilities, is currently projected to begin in December 1994. Following a 36 month construction schedule, these two units would be placed into service in December 1997. These two units and coal gasification facilities are expected to cost $1.739 billion, although FPL will seek to reduce this cost during the design and contracting processes. (Fries Pr. 9-10).
The construction of coal gasification units for Units 3 and 4, the Project's third phase, will be undertaken when that becomes economically justified. (Fries Pr 9, Tr. 36).
The Project's construction work force will average about 600 workers, potentially peaking at 1,200 workers in 1996 during construction of Units 5 and 6. (Fries Pr. 10, Tr. 36).
Up to 800 permanent jobs will be created by the Project. Phase I will require up to 200 operations employees; Phase II, potentially up to 400 additional employees; and Phase III, up to 200 more employees. (Fries Pr 10).
Project Design
The electrical generating units for th( Project will consist of four combined cycle units. Each unit will consist of two advanced combustion turbines (CTs) plus two heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) and a single associated steam turbine to serve the two CT/HRSG systems in each unit. (Yeager Pr. 4). These advanced combustion turbines can achieve greater efficiencies than conventional CTs, generating more power per pound of fuel burned, resulting in fewer emissions per unit of electrical output. (Bender Tr. 93).
In the CTs, intake air is compressed and introduced to the combustor where the fuel is burned. The resulting hot, high-pressure gases expand through a turbine casing the turbine to rotate and, in turn, to drive an electrical generator. The exhaust gas from the CT flows through the HRSG, producing steam. This steam is used to drive a steam turbine (ST), generating additional electricity. (Bender Pr. 6-7). The Project ultimately will consist of eight advanced CTs, eight HRSGs and four STs. (Bender Pr. 9).
Exhaust gases will exit each CT/HRSG combination through a main exhaust stack for a total of eight stacks. (Bender Pr. 9). These stacks will be the primary sources of air emissions from the Project. (Bender Pr. 4, 60; SCA
3.4.1.1).
The secondary air emission sources from the Project will be the incinerator stacks and flare stacks for the gasification plants, oxygen plant vents, two auxiliary boilers, two emergency diesel generators, the fuel oil tanks, and the materials handling systems. (Bender Pr. 60).
The combined cycle units will be capable of burning natural gas, fuel oil and coal-derived gas. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA
3.1.2).
The coal gasification facilities will convert raw coal into a low sulfur, medium-BTU fuel gas for use in the combined cycle units. (Bender Pr. 10-11). While the specific gasification process for the Project has not been selected yet, the three advanced gasification processes under consideration by FPL are sufficiently similar to permit their emissions, effluents and solid waste rates to be enveloped for purposes of a worst case analysis of the processes' environmental impacts. (Schmoe Pr. 7; Yeager Pr. 7). Such an approach allows selection of any one of the gasification processes while still meeting the proposed emission rates for the Project. (Schmoe Pr. 7).
While basic coal gasification technology has been in commercial operation for many years, the Project's proposed gasification process represents a "second generation" coal gasification facility. Such facilities can be operated at commercial scale, capable of achieving reliable operating capacities with demonstrated abilities to meet modern air, water and solids emissions regulations. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.1.1).
In the gasification facilities, coal is combusted at high temperatures in the presence of oxygen and steam within a pressurized vessel. (Schmoe Pr.
4, Tr. 67-68). The hot synthetic gas, or syngas, produced is cooled to recover some of the heat in the form of steam for use elsewhere in the facility, maximizing overall plant performance. (Schmoe Pr. 8, Tr. 68).
One of the significant advantages of coal gasification is the ability to remove the particulates and sulfur in the syngas before the gas is burned in the CTs. The particulates, or fly ash, remaining in the syngas are removed either by a cyclone or by a wet scrubbing process, or both. Sulfur compounds are then removed, typically in a three-step process. First, the syngas is contacted with a liquid solvent which absorbs the sulfur in the syngas. This solvent containing the sulfur is processed to drive out the sulfur containing gases. These gases are converted to elemental sulfur in a sulfur recovery unit through a series of chemical reactions that are highly efficient in recovering sulfur. In the third step, the remaining tail gas containing some sulfur is processed through a tail gas treating system which returns the remaining sulfur compounds to the sulfur recovery units to achieve a higher recovery of sulfur. The remaining gases containing small amounts of sulfur are then incinerated. (Schmoe Pr. 9-14, Tr. 70-73). The recovered elemental sulfur is expected to be readily marketable and will require only temporary on-site storage in either a molten or solid state. (Silva Tr. 62).
In the initial gasification step, much of the ash in the coal is converted to a molten product which flows out the bottom of the gasifier and is cooled to form a dense, granular slag that resembles black sand. (Schmoe Pr.
5; Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.7.1.7). The slag and fly slag will be stored on-site in the event that markets for these materials are not found. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.7.1-7). Potential markets for this byproduct include such uses as concrete and cinder block manufacturing and as feedstock to asphalt production. (Silva Pr. 15).
The Project will generate various wastewater streams that will be collected, treated in on-site facilities and recycled, evaporated or discharged to the cooling pond. Project wastewater sources will include discharges from the water pretreatment and treatment systems, coal pile runoff and other miscellaneous sources which will be collected neutralized and clarified in the wastewater treatment system. (Bender Pr. 4, 32-33; SCA 3.6.2.10). The initial coal gasification facilities will utilize a zero discharge industrial wastewater treatment system and, thus, will not produce a liquid non-thermal wastewater discharge unless and until it can be shown that such a stringent environmental control strategy is unnecessary. (Bender Pr. 4, 32; SCA 3.1.1; Ondler Pr.
16). This is achieved through an evaporation/crystallizer system that removes solid contaminants and recycles treated water within the gasification facilities. The recovered solids, if hazardous, will be disposed offsite in a permitted hazardous waste landfill. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.6.3.3). A separate sanitary wastewater treatment system will be constructed to provide aerobic treatment of sanitary wastes in compliance with Chapter 17-600, F.A.C., Domestic Wastewater Facilities. (Bender Pr. 46-48).
Coal and limestone will be delivered to the Project Site by rail. Coal will be unloaded in an enclosed rotary car dumper. From the dumper, the coal will travel by covered conveyor to either a 3-day active coal pile (which is utilized daily) or a 90-day inactive pile (which is utilized on a weekly or monthly basis). The piles will be a maximum of 60 feet high with an average height of 35 feet. Coal will be reclaimed from the piles by a traveling
stacker/reclaimer that conveys the coal to the gasification facilities (Bender Pr. 4, 17; SCA 3.3.3.2). Limestone, used as a fluxing agent with certain coals, will be delivered by rail, discharged into a hopper, and conveyed to a storage pile. (Bender Pr. 4, 18-19; SCA 3.3.3.2).
Distillate oil will be delivered either by pipeline or by truck and unloaded at an on-site unloading station. Each of the four units will be served by a 3-day storage tank (holding 1.5 million gallons). These tanks will be designed to comply with Rule 17-61.060, "Stationary Tanks and Rule 17-762, "Stationary Aboveground Tank System" to include overfill protection and treatment systems, leak detection systems and corrosion protection. (Bender Pr. 15-16; Silva Tr. 60). Natural gas will be supplied to the Project by a new natural gas pipeline lateral. (Bender Pr. 14).
Soil and Foundation Stability
The subsurface soil conditions at the FPL Martin Site have been investigated approximately a dozen times in the past 20 years. Investigative borings at 43 locations in the area of the Project Site show that the predominant soil type is sand to 100 feet below ground level. The ability of the soil at the Project Site to bear the foundations of the proposed structures is not anticipated to be a problem. (Bender Tr. 103; SCA 2.3.1.4). However, during detailed design of the proposed facilities, a detailed subsurface investigation of soil conditions will be undertaken and the design can be modified to account for any findings. (:Bender Tr. 103-04).
Construction Activities
Construction of the various Project phases will involve installation of stormwater facilities, roads, and on-site railroads, clearing of land, construction dewatering and placement of fill for construction of footings. Cooling water intake and discharge structures will be installed in the cooling pond. During the second and third phases, the byproduct storage area will be constructed in stages to reduce irreversible impacts to the site, including to wetlands, in the event the byproduct is marketed for offsite use. Waste materials and oils, construction debris and hazardous wastes will be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. (Bender Pr. 4, 56-59; SCA 4.1.1).
Fuel Supply and Transmission Line$
A new natural gas pipeline lateral will be constructed during Phase I to supply natural gas to the Project. The maximum 30-inch diameter, 23-mile long pipeline will connect the Project Site with the existing Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) pipeline near the Florida Turnpike and S.R. 714 in Martin County. (Yeager Pr. 7; SCA 6.21). The pipeline, capable of delivering 19.6 million standard cubic feet per hour, will be designed and constructed in compliance with 49 CFR, Part 192, which establishes minimum federal safety standards for gas pipelines. (Morvan Pro. 4-5). The pipeline will be hydrostatically tested upon installation and protected against corrosion with a cathodic protection system. Water for hydrostatic testing will be pumped from and returned to the existing Martin cooling pond. (Morvan Pr. 9, 33-37). All pipeline welds will be X-rayed to insure the integrity of the welds. (Morvan Tr. 83-84).
The pipeline will require a permanent 50-foot wide right-of-way with an additional 25 feet required temporarily during construction. (Morvan Pr. 13). The final right-of-way will be located within a 1,200-foot wide, east/west
corridor along S.R. 714 between the point of connection with the FGT pipeline and the intersection of S.R. 714 with an existing north-south FPL transmission line right-of-way. The corridor reduces to 660 feet and turns south to the Martin Site within this existing transmission line right-of-way. (Shanholtzer Pr. 30-31). The corridor crosses primarily pasture land and pine flatwoods, with several scattered single-family residences. (Shanholtzer Pr. 31-35; Moore Pr. 18-19). Construction and operation of the pipeline will have minimal environmental and land use impacts. The pipeline will be buried a minimum of 30 inches below grade. (Morvan Pr. 10-11, Tr. 80). During construction, top soil removed during trenching will be saved and spread back over the cleared area during restoration of the right-of-way. (Morvan Pr. 13). Where the hardpan beneath wetlands will be disturbed during construction, FPL will restore the confining function of the hardpan layer with low permeability material. (Morvan Pr. 3-4; FPL Ex. 58, Sufficiency Responses to SFWMD, Vol. 2 (May 8, 1990), Response to Comment NO. 80). Right-of-way maintenance will consist of periodic mowing to provide good visibility for pipeline inspection patrols and to remove trees and other large vegetation, the roots of which can damage the pipeline's protective coating. (Morvan Pr. 38-42).
The Project also will require the upgrading of an existing 12-mile long 230 kV transmission line between the Martin Site and an existing substation east of Indiantown during construction of Phase I. (Yeager Pr. 9). The upgrade will involve replacement of existing single circuit transmission line structures with new double circuit, concrete H-frame structures. The existing electrical circuit will be replaced and a second 230 kV circuit will be installed. (Coto Tr. 171; SCA 6.1.1.3). All structures will be located within an existing FPL transmission line right-of-way. (Coto Pr. 9). Existing access roads will be upgraded and new access roads built to provide access during construction and maintenance. (Coto Pr. 14). Where wetlands cannot be avoided, culverts or other drainage structures will be placed under access roads to maintain existing drainage flow. (Coto Pr. 15). The road building techniques to be used are those successfully used by FPL and reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies previously. (Coto Pr. 16). The transmission line will be designed and constructed in compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code and other applicable codes intended to protect public safety. (Coto Pr. 19-20).
The Indiantown Substation will be expanded through the installation of switches, circuit breakers and other electrical equipment required to accommodate the upgraded 230 kV line. (Coto Tr. 171). The existing right-of- way adjacent to this substation will be expanded by approximately 1,600 square feet to accommodate the upgraded line. (Coto Pr. 9).
Operation of the upgraded transmission line and Indiantown Substation will comply with the standards for electric and magnetic fields (EMF) established in Chapter 17-274, F.A.C. (Dietrich Pr. 22). Modeling of the upgraded line and substation undertaken in accordance with this rule demonstrates compliance with these standards. (Dietrich Pr. 12-14). For part of its route, the upgraded line will be co-located with existing transmission lines which existed before the EMF rule was adopted. The magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way adjacent to one of the existing lines exceeds the standard for new transmission lines; the magnetic field adjacent to the upgraded line will comply with the limits for new transmission lines. The upgraded line does not increase the edge of right-of-way magnetic field produced by the existing lines and may in fact reduce it. (Dietrich Pr. 22-23)
The upgraded transmission line will cross citrus groves, pasture grasslands, low growth flatwoods and a few small herbaceous wetlands. (Shanholtzer Pr. 35). These habitats are already stressed by agriculture and right-of-way maintenance and are of low ecological value. (Shanholtzer Pr. 35). The upgraded transmission line location is appropriate and will produce minimal adverse environmental and land use impacts. (Shanholtzer Pr. 35-36; Moore Pr. 19-20).
FPL has established the need to connect to, use and cross over the works and properties of the Florida Department of Transportation, including the Florida Turnpike (DOT), Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF), Martin County, Florida, and the Troup-Indiantown Irrigation District (District) under the terms and conditions set forth in stipulations between FPL and those agencies, which have been admitted into evidence, or (in the case of the District) as shown during the hearing. (H.O. Exs. 4, 5, 6 and 9; Moore Tr. 260-263; FPL Exs. 200-201). Specifically, FPL requires authorization to use, connect to, and cross over the works and properties of the DOT, TIITF and Martin County to construct the gas pipeline and the works and properties of DOT, Martin County and the District in upgrading the transmission line. Appropriate conditions of certification have been proposed or accepted by FPL to address the post-certification submittal of information to these agencies regarding use of their works and properties.
Waste Management
During Phases II and III, the slag byproduct resulting from coal gasification will be stored in a 550 acre area on-site to the extent offsite uses of the material are not found. (SCA 5.3.2; Bender Pr. 52, 90). The Project will generate 1.1 million tons of slag per year when both Phases II and III are in operation. The material is not expected to be hazardous. (Bender Pr 4; SCA 3.7.1.1). The inactive slag storage areas will be covered and seeded. Active areas of slag storage will be compacted and temporarily covered. (Bender Tr. 100). The slag will be stored in a series of cells. As part of an initial test cell program, the initial storage cells will be lined to collect runoff and leachate for treatment and testing to demonstrate compliance with water quality standards. At the conclusion of the 36-month test cell program, the long-term slag disposal plan will be evaluated, with DER approval required to determine what, if any, continued water quality protection measures are required. If water quality standards are shown to be exceeded, the program will be expanded to cover long-term slag disposal. (SCA 3.7.1.3; Bender Pr. 90-95). A groundwater monitoring plan will be undertaken to detect through periodic sampling any groundwater contamination from this area. (Campbell Pr. 19).
The other major byproduct generated by the gasification facilities in Phases II and III will be elemental sulfur, at a rate of 200,000 tons per year. (SCA 3.7.1.1; Bender Pr. 4). This material is readily marketable to the Florida phosphate industry. (Silva Pr. 17). The sulfur will be maintained in a molten state in on-site tanks or poured into crystalline slabs. These storage facilities will incorporate secondary containment features to prevent any leachate or runoff from reaching ground or surface waters. (SCA 3.7.1.2, 5.3.2; Bender Pr. 4). All sulfur handling and storage activities will comply with Rule 17-2.60(11), Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities. (Bender Pr. 95).
Other solid, non-hazardous wastes, including water and wastewater treatment solids, air filters, demineralizer resin beds, spent sulfur recovery material, and office wastes, will be properly disposed of on-site or offsite at appropriate facilities. (SCA 3.7.1; Bender Pr. 4).
The Project may generate wastes that are listed as hazardous or exhibit characteristics of hazardous wastes. These wastes could consist of non- thermal wastes and chemical product handling wastes from the combined cycle units and wastewater treatment wastes and sulfur recovery system wastes from the coal gasification facilities. If found to be hazardous, these wastes will be disposed of offsite by a licensed hazardous waste contractor. No hazardous wastes will be stored on-site for more than 90 days or such other period as regulations allow. (Bender Pr. 95-96; SCA 3.7.2).
Surface Water Management
Construction and operation of the Project will involve treatment, storage and management of surface water runoff resulting from rainfall. Existing drainage facilities in the vicinity of the Project Site consist of a series of canals, swales, culverts and water control structures that convey runoff from the Project Site and existing Units 1 and 2 to the large eastern
perimeter collection ditch which discharges to the St. Lucie Canal. (Searcy Pr. 6-7). Construction drainage for the Project will consist of a series of temporary and permanent basins which will meet the surface water quality and quantity criteria established by the South Florida Water Management District, as well as those of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. (Searcy Pr.
10). Operations drainage will consist of a series of permanent facilities in which runoff from potentially contaminated areas including equipment areas and coal storage areas will be collected, treated in a wastewater treatment facility and discharged to the cooling pond. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.8.5.2; Searcy Pr.
10-13). Initially, runoff from the slag byproduct storage area will be collected and tested to determine whether runoff from that area will meet water quality standards. If standards are not met, the runoff will be treated in a wastewater treatment facility and discharged to the cooling pond. If standards are met, the runoff will be routed, with prior agency approval, through two detention basins and discharged to the eastern perimeter ditch. (Searcy Tr.
140-141). Uncontaminated runoff from the power block areas and undeveloped portions of the site will be routed and detained for treatment as necessary before discharge to the eastern perimeter ditch. (Searcy Pr. 11-12). All of these facilities will meet the SFWMD's criteria for water quality treatment and quantity (Searcy Pr. 13).
Consumptive Water Use
The Project will utilize the existing on-site cooling pond as the source of cooling water for the combined cycle and coal gasification units and as a heat sink for the dissipation of cooling water heat. The cooling pond operates as a "closed circuit" system in which heated water loses heat as it is circulated within the pond and back to the plant intake. (Bender Pr. 19). Makeup water to the pond is withdrawn from the St. Lucie Canal as needed to replace net evaporation and seepage losses from the pond. (Bender Pr. 22). Predicted cooling water makeup needs for both the existing Units 1 and 2 and the 1600 MW Project are 32,000 acre-feet per year to replace net average yearly evaporation and 50,000 acre-feet per year far net maximum yearly evaporation. Such needs will comply with the existing agreement between FPL and SFWMD regarding allocation of cooling water to the pond and with SFWMD's regulations for consumptive water uses. (Bender Pr. 24-25).
Process water will be needed for fire protection water, service water, gasification process water, demineralizer regeneration water, and demineralizer makeup water. (Bender Pr. 4; SCA 3.5.4). To avoid impacts to the surficial
aquifer, FPL and SFWMD have agreed that the process water for Phase I will be obtained initially from the cooling pond at a maximum rate of 2.9 million gallons per day. (H.O. Ex. 2, Attachment A, P. 24; Bender Tr. 96-97). Upon completion of Phase II, process water for the Project will be obtained solely from the Floridan aquifer via approximately 1500-foot deep wells at a maximum withdrawal rate of 7.92 million gallons per day. (H.O. Ex. 2, Attachment A, P. 24).
Process water will be pretreated with chlorine and will be softened. Water requiring demineralization will be passed through activated carbon filters to remove chlorine and organics. This process water will then pass through either a reverse osmosis (RO) or an EDR unit to remove most of the dissolved solids. The final step will be a demineralizer system, resulting in a high quality water. (Bender Pr. 29-30; SCA 3.5.4).
Potable water will be obtained from a single surficial aquifer well at an average rate of 19.4 GPM or 28,000 GPD for the Project. Potable water will be chlorinated, softened (if necessary) and then filtered before use. (Bender Pr. 31). The potable water treatment system will be designed in accordance with Chapter 17-555, Part III, F.A.C., and will supply water to meet drinking water standards established in Rule 17-550.310 - .320, F.A.C. (Bender Pr. 31- 32).
FPL will utilize the lowest quality water necessary and available to meet the Project's non-potable water needs without adversely impacting water resources, other legal users or land uses. (Frediani Tr. 151).
Surficial Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
The principal surface water bodies at the site and in its vicinity are the FPL cooling pond, the St. Lucie Canal, the L-65 Canal and Lake Okeechobee. (Frediani Tr. 150; SCA 2.3.4.1). The cooling pond discharges to the St. Lucie Canal via an intake/discharge canal during twice-yearly spillway gate tests and excess rainfall releases. Seepage from the cooling pond also reaches the St. Lucie Canal and L-65 Canal through groundwater flow, or seepage. (Frediani Pr. 8-10). The other surface water discharge associated with the Project is the outfall of the eastern perimeter ditch into the St. Lucie Canal.
Thermal impacts on the St. Lucie Canal from cooling pond discharges will not be significant as only small volumes of water are discharged during gate tests and discharges during substantial rain events are diluted by the rainfall. (Frediani Pr. 10). Additionally, a 400-meter thermal mixing zone in the intake/discharge canal at the cooling pond, commencing with the operation of Phase I, has been recommended by DER with the requirement that the intake water pumps be operated during discharges to recycle discharged water to the cooling pond. (Prehearing Stipulation, Attachment A, pp. 6-7, Item 8.a, P. 12, Item B.2). The discharge will meet the DER established temperature limits at the edge of the mixing zone. (Prehearing Stipulation Attachment A, P. 5, Item A.3.).
Treated industrial and domestic wastewater will be discharged to the cooling pond where the evaporative cycle of the pond will concentrate the chemical constituents of both the treated effluents and the makeup water in the pond. (Frediani Pr. 11). While certain constituents in the cooling pond could exceed, in extreme circumstances, the Class III water quality standards applicable to the St. Lucie Canal, the infrequent, low-volume discharges from the cooling pond will meet water quality standards at the edge of the 400 meter
mixing zone in the existing discharge canal discussed in the preceding paragraph. (Frediani Pr. 12-15, Tr. 151).
Subsurface Hydrology and Impacts of Water Withdrawals
Construction and operation of the Project will involve short term and long term groundwater withdrawals for three activities. Aquifer performance tests and hydrogeologic modeling were undertaken to assess the impacts of these withdrawals. The results show that no offsite wells within five miles of the Site will be impacted by the three phases of the Project. (Campbell Tr. 164- 65). During construction of Phase II, deep excavation for the foundation of the coal car dumper, the limestone unloading facility and the coal conveyor tunnel will require dewatering within the surficial aquifer around the excavated areas. (Campbell Pr. 10). The necessary dewatering can be undertaken without adversely impacting nearby wetlands or existing water wells or increasing offsite surface water flows. Methods to be used include sheet pilings around the excavations, use of infiltration galleries to protect nearby wetlands, and routing of dewatering effluent to the cooling pond. (Campbell Pr. 9-12, Tr. 159-60; Frediani Pr. 9).
During Project operation, potable water will be obtained from the surficial aquifer at an average rate of 28,000 gallons per day (GPD) or 19.4 gallons per minute (GPM). (Bender Tr. 91-92; FPL Ex. WB-25). Such a withdrawal rate is within the estimated rate that could be obtained without impacting wetlands or other wells and will not compete with other potable water users or degrade the potable water resource. (Bender Tr. 96, 100; Frediani Tr. 151; Campbell Tr. 160). This potable water represents the Project's only use of groundwater that is of high quality. (FPL Ex. WB-25; Campbell Pr. 13-14).
Process water for Phases II and III will be obtained from the lower zone of the Upper Floridan Aquifer at a depth between 1,250 to 1,500 feet below ground level. While the water from this zone is highly saline, it is a productive zone without other known users and can produce water at the needed rates without impacting upper layers of the aquifers. (Campbell Pr. 13-15).
Groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site will be impacted by seepage from the cooling pond. It is predicted that seepage from the cooling pond will exceed state drinking water standards for sodium, chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS). (Frediani Pr. 12-14). A zone of discharge for groundwater seepage will extend horizontally to the boundary of FPL's property and vertically to the bottom of the Surficial Aquifer at approximately
150 feet. (Campbell Pr. 6; Prehearing Stipulation, Attachment A, P. 12, Item C.1). The seepage from the cooling pond is exempt from meeting secondary drinking water standards for the seepage constituents chloride, sulfate and TDS, under DER Rule 17-28.700(8)(h), F.A.C. (Campbell Pr. 16-17; Oven Tr. 288; Prehearing Stipulation, Attachment A, p.12, Item B.1)). Further, FPL has demonstrated prima faci entitlement to an exemption from primary drinking water standards for sodium present in the seepage pursuant to Rule 17-28.130(7)(b), F.A.C., because the Project is in the public interest; no potable wells are located or expected in the areas impacted; no means exist to treat the sodium exceedance; and no danger to public health, safety or welfare is expected as sodium is neither toxic nor likely to be consumed by humans due to taste.
Actual granting of this exemption is dependent on a future demonstration of need for it via groundwater monitoring. (Bender Pr. 86-87; Campbell Pr. 17-18, Tr. 162-63; Cardwell Pr. 10; Moore Pr. 9-10; Oven Tr. 288-89; Prehearing Stipulation, Attachment A., P. 12, Item C.2).
Impacts on Aquatic Biology/Toxicoloy
Aquatic ecological resources at the Project Site and in its vicinity consist of the St. Lucie Canal, the on-site drainage canals, wetlands and sloughs. (Shanholtzer Pr. 9-17). The aquatic resources on the Project Site are of relatively low quality due to cattle grazing, feral hog destruction of wetland soils, and the regional lowering of the groundwater table. Most on-site wetlands dry up completely during the dry season. (Shanholtzer Tr. 118-19).
No regionally important species are found in these aquatic habitats. (Shanholtzer Pr. 4; SCA 4.4.1.5). No acute or chronic toxic effects on aquatic life are expected to occur as a result of cooling pond discharges or seepage reaching surface waters. (Cardwell Pr. 6-11, Tr. 206-08).
Wetlands/Mitigation Efforts
Construction of the Project may result in the loss of up to 166 acres of isolated wetlands, if all of the byproduct storage area is utilized. (Shanholtzer Pr. 26). This determination of the extent of wetlands areas is conservatively large, based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional criteria. (Shanholtzer Tr. 122-23). Most of these wetlands are significantly stressed by the presence of cattle and feral hogs and other activities. (Shanholtzer Pr. 26). Most on-site wetlands impacts will occur during construction and operation of Phases II and III; few onsite wetlands will be impacted during Phase I. (FPL Ex. FS-52, p.16, Figure 4).
In compensation for these expected future wetlands losses during all three phases of the Project, FPL will undertake a wetlands restoration, enhancement aid preservation program on 556 acres of land during construction of Phase I. This program will be undertaken on two parcels of land in the Northwest Parcel, north of the cooling pond. The program will include restoration of the historical hydroperiod, removal of exotic vegetation, and removal of cattle and feral hogs on two separate tracts. A total of 317 acres of wetlands will be restored or enhanced by the program for a ratio of 2:1 to wetlands acreage lost; the balance of the 556 acres will serve as upland buffers to the wetlands.
Based on an evaluation of wetland functional values, the restoration program will result in a mitigation ratio of 3:1 to wetland functional values impacted on the Project Site. (Shanholtzer Pr. 26-28, Tr. 125; FPL Ex. FS-52).
The historical hydroperiod will be restored by the construction of a 250-foot long impoundment berm across theBlack Bottom Slough in the western parcel of the restoration area, to be constructed on an alignment that will maintain existing canopy cover which reduces exotic species invasion and maintains cooler temperatures in the slough. (FPL Ex. FS-52, pp. 32-35). The water elevation in the slough will be controlled at 24 feet. (Searcy Pr. 16). The water elevation in the eastern wetland restoration parcel will be controlled at 26.5 feet. (FPL Ex. FS-52, P. 39). Cooling pond seepage collected in onsite sumps will be diverted to the restoration area to provide water to the restored wetland systems. (Frediani Pr. 15-17). Any impact to adjacent and upstream landowners would be negligible as the result of a 25-year, 3-day storm event within the basin of the proposed improvements. (Searcy Pr. 16, Tr.
144).
Impact on Endangered Species and Other wildlife
Construction and operation of the Project, including the associated gas pipeline and the transmission line upgrade, are not expected to affect significantly any rare, endangered or threatened species. (Shanholtzer Pr. 4, 28, 33-34, 36; SCA
4.4.1.7, 5.1.2, 6.2.8.4). However, the gas pipeline right-of-way will be investigated for the presence of such species as part of the post-certification process. (Shanholtzer Pr. 33; Prehearing Stipulation, P. 48, 4.).
In addition to wildlife habitat improvement resulting from the wetlands restoration program, wildlife habitat Will also be enhanced by FPL's commitment to reserve additional areas for wildlife. FPL has agreed with the TCRPC to reserve the remaining area in the Northwest Parcel outside the presently contemplated wetlands restoration areas as the location for future ecological mitigation activities for this and other projects. FPL will also create a wildlife corridor along the west side of the cooling pond by discontinuing mowing and allowing natural vegetation to establish itself in this area. (H.O. Ex. 3, pp. 3-4; Shanholtzer Tr. 129-30). The wetlands restoration program also will create habitat for the wood stork and sandhill crane. (Shanholtzer Tr. 130-31; FPL Ex. FS-52, pp. 41-42).
Air Pollution Control/Impacts on Vegetation and Soils
Martin County has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DER as an attainment area for all six criteria air pollutants. (Fulle Tr. 175-76).
Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations provide that the Project will be subject to "new source review." This review requires that the Project meet New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be selected to control emissions of those pollutants emitted in excess of applicable PSD significant emission rates. (Bender Pr. 62-63; Fulle Pr. 4; SCA 10.1.5, PSD Application, pp. 41-48). The project will limit emission rates to levels far below NSPS requirements (Bender Pr. 63; Fulle Pr. 6). For the Project, BACT must be applied for the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2) sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), nitrogen oxides (NOx) particulates (PM10 and TSP), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, beryllium, mercury and inorganic arsenic. (Bender Pr. 64).
BACT is defined in DER Rule 17-2.100(28), F.A.C., as:
An emission limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree f reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. The primary purpose of BACT analysis is to minimize the allowable increases in air pollutants and thereby increase the potential for future economic growth without significantly degrading air quality. Such an analysis is intended to insure that the air emissions control systems for the Project reflect the latest proven control technologies used in a particular industry and is to take into consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of the Project. (Fulle Pr. 4; SCA 10.1.5, PSD Application pp.
47-48). The BACT analysis for the Project therefore evaluated technical, economic and environmental considerations of available control technologies and
examined BACT determinations for other similar facilities across the U.S. (Bender Pr. 63; Fulle Pr. 4; SCA 10.1.5, p. 71).
By stipulation, DER has determined final BACT for Units 3 and 4 firing natural gas and oil. Emission limitations and conditions concerning Phases II and III of the Project reflect a preliminary BACT determination for those phases, based on information furnished by FPL in order to support certification of ultimate site capacity and shall be determined finally upon review of supplemental applications. (H.O. Ex. 1).
For sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, lead, beryllium, mercury and arsenic emissions from the combined cycle Units 3 and 4, BACT has been determined to be efficient design and operation of the fuel combustor in the CT and the use of low-sulfur fuels, either natural gas or low sulfur oil (0.5 percent sulfur, maximum, 0.3 percent annual average). (Bender Pr. 65-70; H.O. Ex. 1, Attachment A, P. 5, Item 11). The most effective control strategy (BACT) for particulates and sulfuric acid mist is inlet air filtering, low sulfur fuels, clean combustion and steam injection. (Bender Pr. 67; H.O. Ex. 1, Attachment A, P. 3, Item 5).
For nitrogen oxide emissions, BACT for Units 3 and 4 has been determined to be the use of dry low NOx combustors capable of achieving emissions of 25 ppm when burning natural gas and 65 ppm when burning oil; limiting oil firing to an annual aggregate of 2,000 hours for the four CTs comprising Units 3 and 4; and limiting allowable NO;[ emissions from Units 3 and
4 to a total of 3,108 tons per year. (H.O. Ex. 1, pp. 1-2; Kosky Tr. 269- 70).
The DER staff initially proposed BACT for NOx emissions for Phase I to be selective catalytic reduction (SCR). However, after careful consideration, it was determined that greater overall benefits to ambient air quality could be achieved by the strategy ultimately determined to be BACT. (H.O. Ex. 1, P. 1). The annual NOx emissions cap of 3,108 tons per year is equivalent to the emission limitation originally proposed by DER. (Kosky Tr. 270).
For the coal gasification facilities to be built during Phases II and III, a preliminary BACT review was undertaken by FPL for purposes of demonstrating that the Project Site has the ultimate capacity and resources available to support the full, three-phase Project. For the sulfur recovery system, BACT for sulfur removal and recovery was preliminarily determined to be an acid gas removal system followed by a Claus-type sulfur recovery plant and a tail gas treating, a system which results in an overall sulfur removal efficiency of 95 percent. Preliminary BACT for control of NOx formed during tail gas incineration would be achieved through combustion temperature controls in the incinerator. Carbon monoxide and VOC emissions from tail gas incineration are insignificant. The water scrubbing particulate control system preliminarily represents BACT for the coal gasification units. Efficient design and operation of the gasification facilities were preliminarily identified as the only viable technology for controlling lead, beryllium, mercury and inorganic arsenic. (Bender Pr. 70-74).
Fugitive dust will be generated by various bulk material handling and transfer systems, particularly coal processing. Such facilities will be constructing during Phases II and III. These emissions will be controlled by several control technologies preliminarily determined to be BACT as follows:
Coal Unloading Enclosed with Dry Collection System
Limestone Unloading Surfactant Application
Conveyors and Transfer Points Enclosed Transfer Points with Dry Collection System. (Coal, Limestone, Conveyors Covered.
Slag)
Coal Storage Crusting Agent Application
(Inactive) (60% Control)
Coal Storage (Active) Surfactant Application
Coal Storage (Active) Surfactant Application and Reclaiming
Limestone Storage Crusting Agent Application Slag Transport to Paved Road, Covered
By-Product Storage Conveyor (95% Control) Area
Slag By-Product Topsoil Covered and Seeded Storage Area (100% Control)
(Inactive)
Slag By-Product Compaction, Temporary Storage Area (Active) Cover (Natural or Synthetic)
Sulfur Storage Stored in molten state in tanks or in crystalline slab arrangement
(H.O. Ex. 1, Attachment A, pp. 7-8).
Fugitive dust emissions generated during construction will be controlled by wetting or seeding of disturbed areas, by wetting temporary vehicular surfaces in traffic areas, by covered or moistened loads in open- bodied trucks, by wheel washing and by dust control systems on any onsite concrete batch plants. (Fulle Pr. 4; SCA 4.5.2).
Air emissions from the Project must also comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria pollutants and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments for three pollutants. (Fulle Pr. 6-8). Martin County and the contiguous counties are in a Class II area for PSD purposes, allowing moderate increases in concentrations of sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulates and nitrogen dioxide. (Fulle Pr. 8, Tr. 176-77). An air quality analysis, undertaken in accordance with monitoring and computer modeling procedures approved in advance by EPA and DER, demonstrated that the Project would not cause or contribute to any violations of state or national ambient air
quality standards. (Fulle Tr. 180-81). The analysis assumed a worst-case year for each pollutant concentration out of a five year database, using the Project's maximum capacity of 1,600 MW and National Weather Service meteorological data from West Palm Beach. (Fulle Tr. 179-83, Pr. 21-25).
The Project's predicted impacts also comply with the allowable Class II PSD increments for sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulates and nitrogen dioxide. (Fulle Tr. 184-85, Pr. 30).
An analysis of fugitive dust from passing coal trains indicated that any impact from such emissions will be small compared to ambient air quality standards, even under worst-case assumptions. (Fulle Tr. 186, Pr. 31-32). Maximum predicted coal dust impacts from operation of the coal pile will be within allowable standards at the site boundary and will result in no significant increase in ambient air particulate matter levels in the Indiantown area. (Fulle Tr. 187-88).
The Project is not predicted to cause any visibility impacts in the Everglades National Park, the nearest PSD Class I area. (Fulle Pr. 33-35). Air quality impacts from commercial, industrial and residential growth induced by the Project are expected to be small and well distributed throughout the area. (Fulle Tr. 186) No adverse impacts to area soils or vegetation are
expected to occur as a result of Project emissions. (Floyd Pr. 5-15, Tr. 200- 02).
Noise Impacts
A field survey and impact assessment of noise expected to be caused by the Project indicate that Project construction noise will be below current noise levels at the residences nearest the Project Site, with two exceptions. These two exceptions will result from pile driving operations and steam line blowouts, in which steam is blown through steam lines to remove scale and debris. (Adams Pr. 2, 10-11; SCA 4.6.2). FPL has committed to provide public notices of planned steam blows. The large Project Site and daytime construction schedule will further reduce construction noise impacts. (Adams Pr. 12-14). Noise impacts of Project operation also are predicted to be below both existing levels and recommended EPA noise guidelines of 55 dBA, with the exceptions of noise levels of 64 dBA at two residences adjacent to the FEC track when trains enter or exit the site. These houses were built since the existing FPL Martin units and railroad track were built, indicating that the residents were willing to accept minor noise impacts from the Martin Site and passing trains. (Adams Pr. 15).
Traffic
FPL presented transportation analyses of the Project's highway and rail traffic impacts to show that roadways, intersections and railroad crossings will not be significantly adversely impacted, if planned roadway improvements are completed. These analyses were undertaken in accordance with methodologies contained in the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and the TCRPC's transportation policies. (Coomer Pr. 6-7, Tr. ;251-253). FPL's analysis of traffic impacts from up to 800 operational employees at Project buildout, using these methodologies, indicates that all area roads will operate at acceptable levels of service through buildout of the Project, assuming that a scheduled DOT five-laning of S.R. 710 through Indiantown is completed. (Coomer Pr. 13-14; FP: Ex. DC-125). An analysis of highway traffic impacts during construction and operation of Phases I and II, using the DOT's methodology based
on the DOT 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, also demonstrated that area roadways and intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. (Coomer Pr. 14-15, Tr. 252-54; FPL Ex. DC-126). The five-laning of S.R. 710 through Indiantown is scheduled to be undertaken by DOT in the last three quarters of 1994. (FPL Ex. DC-139; DOT Ex. 3). FPL presented an analysis of the impacts of traffic for Phase I operation employees and Phase II construction employees, on S.R. 710, in the event Project construction overlapped the construction period for the road improvement. `the analysis indicated that the road segment to be improved would operate at an acceptable level of service even if the two construction schedules overlapped. (Coomer Tr. 254-255; FPL Ex. DC-139).
However, if construction schedules do overlap between the FPL Project and the DOT roadway improvement projects due to any advancement of FPL's commencement of construction of Phase II, FPL has agreed to undertake certain traffic flow maintenance procedures, commensurate with traffic impact, as deemed necessary by DOT to mitigate traffic impacts from Phase II construction. (H.O. Ex. 8, P.
4).
Pursuant to a stipulation with FPL, DOT has reviewed and approved the highway traffic analysis presented by FPL showing that there will be adequate highway capacity on S.R. 710 for the construction and operation of Phases I and II of the Project, subject to the traffic-related conditions of certification stipulated between DOT and FPL. Adequacy of highway capacity on S.R. 710 to serve the operation of Phase III of FPL's Project shall be addressed by FPL and DOT during the supplemental application review for final site certification of that Phase. (H.O. Ex. 8, p.5).
FPL is required to reconstruct an extension to the left-turn lane on State Road 710 at Plant Road to a total length of 600 feet to accommodate additional employees during plant operations. This activity shall be undertaken at FPL's expense, conforming to DOT Design Standards, as approved by the District Traffic Operations Engineer. DOT has agreed to process the permit application within 30 days of submittal. (Coomer Pr. 15, Tr. 245; H.O. Ex.
8, p.4).
Upon buildout, the Project will require approximately 5.5 million tons of coal annually, delivered in 11 weekly coal trains. One-half of this coal is most likely to be delivered via overland rail routes from domestic U.S. coal fields. The other one-half is most likely to be delivered by water borne transportation to Florida ports from either domestic or foreign sources and then shipped by rail to the Project Site. (Coomer Pr. 16-17, Tr. 246; Silva Pr.
11-14). The Project will increase existing rail volume by 1.5 trains per day over existing rail volumes which range from 1 to 30 trains on current rail routes. (Coomer Pr. 19, Tr. 247; FPL Ex. DC-128). The increased rail traffic would result in an increased average vehicle delay at rail crossings of between
0.1 and 0.4 seconds daily, which would be imperceptible to the average motorist. Average daily total vehicle waiting time per rail crossing would increase between 1.5 and 3.7 minutes. (Coomer Tr. 247-49; FPL Ex. DC-129; FPL Ex. DC- 130). The Project is not expected to result in any significant increase in road traffic congestion due to rail delivery of coal. (Coomer Pr. 23).
Because rail traffic is primarily associated with the operation of Phases II and III, FPL and DOT each have reserved the right to take any position with respect to any question of the impacts of rail traffic on highway traffic in supplemental application proceedings for the certification of Phases II and III for construction and operation. (H.O. Ex. 8, P. 6).
Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Resources
A survey of the Project Site discovered no historic or archaeological sites within the Project Site. (Klein Pr. 3, 5; SCA 2.2.6 and 10.5.2). Two prehistoric archaeological sites were discovered in the Northwest Parcel but will remain undisturbed by the Project. (Klein Pr. 5-6). In the event archaeological or historic sites are discovered during construction of the Project or pipeline, adequate procedures to protect such finds have been accepted by FPL as conditions of certification. (Klein Pr. 7).
Land Use Planning/Socio-Economic Impacts
The proposed site is an appropriate location for the 1,600 MW CG/CC Project, representing minimal adverse land use impacts. (Moore Tr. 235). The existing cooling pond with excess capacity can accommodate the new units. Necessary infrastructure and services exist or will be available concurrent with development at the site. Adequate rail and highway access exist. The Project will be located at an existing power plant site surrounded by agricultural land uses. While rural in location, the site is close enough to population centers to have an ample supply of construction and operations employees. (Moore Pr.
14-16, Tr. 234). The Project facilities will be consistent visually with other facilities at the site. (Moore Tr. 234). Adequate visual buffers will be provided along property boundaries, including those adjacent to residences, in compliance with the requirements of Martin County and the Planned Unit Development (industrial)(PUD(i)) agreement between FPL and Martin County. (Moore Pr. 16-18).
The Project is generally compatible with the goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Treasure Coast Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan, and complies with the Martin County PUD(i) agreement for the Project which in turn was the result of a complete and thorough review of the Project for compliance with the Martin County Comprehensive Plan and applicable regulations. (Moore Pr. 20-29; Yeager Pr. 16).
The Project will result in a substantial beneficial impact on the area economy and local tax revenues. Peak construction employment of 1,200 direct jobs will generate a $25 million annual payroll and indirect employment of 715 individuals with a $9.3 million payroll. Construction period personal property taxes paid to Martin County will amount to $280,000 annually. (Moore Pr. 11).
Permanent employment of up to 800 employees during operation of the Project will produce an annual payroll of $21.3 million in 1987 dollars. Indirect employment of 1,544 jobs will be created, with an annual payroll of
$20.1 million. Local property taxes for Phases I and II of the Project are estimated to generate for Martin County $16.5 million in excess revenues over public expenditures annually during the life of the Project. (Moore Pr. 10- 13). The local taxing district which includes Indiantown will annually receive approximately $835,000 of the property tax payments for local community improvements, a 134% increase over current total revenues for the taxing district. (Moore Pr. 11-14).
Agency Positions and Stipulations
The participating agencies to this certification proceeding have determined that the Project can be certified, including certification of ultimate site capacity, subject to the conditions of certification attached to this recommended order. The Department of Environmental Regulation prepared its
report on the three-phase Project and its full-range of impacts, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, F.S. (Oven Tr. 291-92; DER Ex. 1). In that report and a separate stipulation (H.O. Ex. 1), DER recommended certification of the Project subject to the conditions of certification.
DER concurs that ultimate site capacity certification can be granted for the full Project, subject to a PSC determination of need for later phases and submittal of supplemental applications for certification. (Oven Tr. 278, 289-90; DER Ex. 1, pp. 98-99). A supplemental application would address any changes in the Project and be evaluated based on monitoring of the then-existing facilities. (Oven Tr. 290).
The South Florida Water Management District prepared its report on matters within its jurisdiction and, pursuant to that report and a stipulation with FPL, recommends certification of the Project, subject to the proposed conditions of certification, which will comply with the applicable, nonprocedural standards of SFWMD. (H.O. Ex. 2; DER Ex. 1).
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepared its required report as to the compatibility of the Project with the State Comprehensive Plan (DER Ex. 1). DCA recommends certification of the Project subject to the conditions of certification agreed to between DCA, FPL and the other agencies. (H.O. Ex. 7).
Pursuant to the request of the DER, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) has prepared a report on the Project as to matters within its jurisdiction. (DER Ex. 1). Pursuant to a stipulation between TCRPC and FPL, TCRPC does not object to certification of the Project subject to jointly proposed conditions of TCRPC, FPL and the other agencies. (H.O. Ex. 3).
The Department of Transportation (DOT) pursuant to stipulation with FPL, has resolved disputed issues between DOT and FPL and recommended conditions of certification that have been incorporated. (H.O. Exs. 5, 6 and 8).
Martin County, Florida, became a party to this proceeding and has agreed with FPL to recommend a condition of certification incorporating the PUD(i) agreement into the certification order. (H.O. Ex. 9).
Martin County, DOT, including the Florida Turnpike Authority, and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund have each entered agreements with FPL recommending conditions of certification to address the post-certification review of crossing of those agencies' works by the natural gas pipeline and the upgraded transmission line. (H.O. Exs. 4, 5, 6 and 9).
The Troup-Indiantown Irrigation District was made a party to this proceeding for the purpose of the transmission line crossing works of that agency. (DOAH Order, dated July 9, 1990). The District did not appear at the certification hearing. However, the evidence establishes that the conditions of certification incorporated into the attached conditions concerning the crossing of that District's roads and canals will adequately protect the interests of the District and FPL. (Moore Tr. 260-63).
FPL and the agency parties have agreed on a set of conditions of certification for the Project. Those conditions are attached to this recommended order. FPL has committed that it will implement and meet all of the conditions. (Yeager Tr. 57).
Public Comments
Eleven members of the public testified during two scheduled opportunities within the hearing. The public testimony focused on the environmental and economic impacts of the Project on western Martin County. (Public Hearing Tr. 2-77). Included in the environmental concerns were the impacts of air emissions from the Project; dust from coal delivery, handling and storage; water quality and supply impacts including impacts to neighboring wells; the impacts of slag byproduct storage; drainage; opportunities for passage of wildlife through the Site area; and highway and rail traffic impacts on Indiantown. The concerns over air emissions and coal dust have been addressed in Findings of Fact 62 to 75. Impacts to surface and ground waters have been addressed in Findings of Fact 44 to 55. The measures to be taken in the byproduct storage program are addressed in Findings of Fact 39 through 42. Drainage precautions have been addressed by Findings of Fact 43 and 59. A corridor for passage of wildlife has been addressed by Finding of Fact 61. Highway and rail traffic impacts are addressed in Findings of Fact 77 through
The other public comments focused primarily on the economic benefit the Project would provide to Indiantown and western Martin County. This subject is addressed by Findings of Fact 85 and 86.
Concerns with regard to conservation of energy relate to need for the project, an issue which was addressed by the PSC as to units 3 and 4 in its June 15, 1990 order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 Martin Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle Project 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.
In accordance with Chapters 403 and 120, F.S., and Chapter 17-17, Florida Administrative Code, proper notice was given to all persons and parties entitled thereto, as well as to the general public. All the necessary and required governmental agencies were parties to this proceeding, and all required reports and studies were completed and presented including:
The report from DER as required by Section 403.504(8), F.S.;
The report from DCA concerning the compatibility of the Project with the State Comprehensive Plan;
The PSC's report as to the present and future need for electrical generating capacity to be supplied by Phase I of the Project;
The report of the South Florida Water Management District as to the impact of the Project on water resources; and
The report of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council on the Project's compatibility with the Council's Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, as requested by DER.
The purpose of the certification hearing was to receive testimony and other evidence concerning whether the location and operation of the proposed Martin CG/CC Project will produce minimal adverse effects on human health, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of the state waters and their aquatic life, in an effort to fully balance the increasing demands for electrical power plant location and operation with the broad interests of the public. Section 403.502, F.S.
The record of this proceeding consists of all pleadings and papers filed with the Hearing Officer, including the site certification application, as amended, responses to agencies' sufficiency comments, the transcripts of all hearings, all orders entered by the Hearing Officer and the Siting Board in this proceeding, all stipulations entered into between the parties, and all evidence, exhibits and prepared written testimony properly admitted to the record.
Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented at the certification hearing, the Applicant (FPL) has met its burden of proving that the Martin CG/CC Project is entitled to certification as described more particularly below. Competent substantial evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the construction and operational safeguards for the Martin CG/CC Project are technically sufficient for the welfare and protection of the citizens of Florida and are reasonable and available methods to achieve that protection. The proposed Project, if constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with this order and the attached recommended conditions of certification, 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. Certification of Phase I for construction and operation is consistent with the premise of abundant, low-cost electrical energy and will effect a reasonable balance between those minimal environmental impacts which will occur and the PSC-determined need for Phase I of the Martin CG/CC Project.
The Florida Public Service Commission has certified the need for the electrical generating capacity to be supplied by Phase I (Units 3 and 4). Upon supplemental application, determination of need by the PSC shall be a prerequisite to certification of future phases.
The Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, sitting as the Siting Board, have determined that the proposed site of the Martin CG/CC Project is in conformity with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the other participating agencies1 either have recommended, or do not object to, certification of Phase I (Units 3 and 4) for construction and operation and certification of the FPL Martin Site as ultimately having the capacity to accommodate the 1600 MW Martin CG/CC Project, subject to this order and the attached conditions of certification.
The Martin CG/CC Project, if constructed and operated in accordance with this order and the attached conditions of certification, generally is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, the TCRPC Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, and the Martin County Comprehensive Plan.
The Martin CG/CC Project, if a surface water mixing zone and a groundwater zone of discharge are granted as set forth in the recommended conditions of certification, and if constructed and operated in accordance with this order and the attached conditions of certification, will comply with applicable non-procedural requirements of all agencies involved in the certification process with jurisdiction over the Project, including DER, DCA, PSC, SFWMD, TCRPC, and Martin County.
A mixing zone and a zone of discharge for discharges into surface waters and groundwater, respectively, are necessary for the operation of the Martin CG/CC Project and should be granted in accordance with the recommended conditions of certification.
Certification of the Project will constitute permission for FPL to use, connect to, and cross over the works and properties of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (including the Florida Turnpike), the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Martin County, Florida, and the Troup-Indiantown Irrigation District subject to the terms and conditions of Findings of Fact 32 through 38 and the attached conditions of certification.
FPL's Martin Site has ultimate capacity for Phases II and III as described herein. Matters to be addressed in supplemental applications for certification of -the two subsequent phases for construction and operation shall be: the best available control technology (BACT) for each of those phases; the traffic issues reserved by DOT and FPL with respect to those phases; any necessary exemption from the primary drinking water standard for sodium; the continued compliance of those later phases with the then-applicable nonprocedural standards of state, regional and local agencies; and those phases' consistency with the determination of ultimate site capacity and the applicable conditions of certification in this order. Those supplemental application proceedings also must balance the need for each later phase, to be determined by the PSC, against the environmental impacts associated with that phase.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based upon the entire record of this proceeding and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
Florida Power & Light Company be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of Phase I (Units 3 and 4) of the Martin CG/CC Project, as proposed in the amended Site Certification Application and in accordance with the attached conditions of certification; and
Florida Power & Light Company's Martin Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle Project Site be certified for an ultimate site capacity of 1600 megawatts fueled by coal-derived gas, natural gas and fuel oil subject to supplemental application review pursuant to 403.517, F.S., and Rule 17-17.231, F.A.C., as described herein, and the attached conditions of certification attached hereto.
A mixing zone and a zone of discharge be granted in accordance with the conditions of certification attached hereto.
FPL shall have authorization to use, connect to and cross over the works and properties of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (including the Florida Turnpike), Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Martin County, Florida, and the Troup-Indiantown Irrigation District subject to the attached conditions of certification.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of December, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
MARY CLARK
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1990.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E. DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Gary C. Smallridge Asst.. General Counsel
DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Steve Hall, Esquire and Kathryn Funchess
Senior Attorney
Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Thornton Williams, Esquire Vernon Whittier, Esquire Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee St., M.S. 58
Tallahassee, FL 32399
John Fumero, Esquire Frances Jauquet, Esquire
South Florida Water Mgmt. District
P.O. Box 24680
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
Roger G. Saberson
Attorney for Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
110 D. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dan Cary, Executive Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 3228 S.W. Martin Downs Blvd., Suite 205 Palm City, FL 33490
Eugene McClellan, Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Natural Resources
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Gary Simmons Secretary-Treasurer
Troup-Indiantown Drainage District
P.O. Box 128 Indiantown, FL 34956
Fred W. Van Vonno Asst.. County Attorney 2401 S.E. Monterey Rd. Stuart, FL 34996
Suzanne S. Brownless, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman
P.O. Box 6507
Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507
Susan Clark, General Counsel Michael Palecki Esquire
Florida Public Service Commission Fletcher Building
101 East Gaines Street, Rm. 212 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Douglas S. Roberts Gary P. Sams, Esquire
P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314
William C. Summers
P.O. Box 575 Indiantown, FL 34956
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
Allparties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. Allagencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which tosubmit written exceptions. You should contactthe agency that will issue the 1 final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this
Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: Martin Coal Gasification/ ) Combined Cycle Project Power Site )
Certification Application, Florida ) CASE NO. 90-0259 Power & Light Company, PA89-27 )
)
CORRECTION TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 22I-6.032, F.A.C., the following correction is made to the Recommended Order in the above styled action, filed on December 28, 1990:
Appendix, Conditions of Certification, page 61, add a footnote:
Due to a scrivener's error, the paragraphs were misnumbered, and no paragraph 4 exists.
DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1991 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
MARY CLARK
Hearing Officer
Division of Aministrative Hearings The Desoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 199l.
COPIES FURNISHED:
HAMILTON S. OVEN, JR., P.E. DER-TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG. 2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2400
GARY C. SMALLRIDGE ASST. GENERAL COUNSEL
DER-TWIN TOWERS OFF ICE BLDG. 2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2400
STEVE HALL, ESQUIRE AND KATHRYN FUNCHESS
SENIOR ATTORNEY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100
THORNTON WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE VERNON WHITTIER, ESQUIRE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING
605 SUWANNEE ST., M.S. 58
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399
JOHN FUMERO, ESQUIRE FRANCES JAUQUET, ESQUIRE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MGMT. DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 24680
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33416-4680
ROGER G. SABERSON
ATTORNEY FOR TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
110 D. ATLANTIC AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444
DAN CARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL 3228 S.W. MARTIN DOWNS BLVD., SUITE 205 PALM CITY, FL 33490
EUGENE MCCLELLAN, ASST. GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD.
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399
GARY SIMMONS SECRETARY-TREASURER
TROUP-INDIANTOWN DRAINAGE DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 128 INDIANTOWN, FL 34956
FRED W. VAN VONNO ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY 2401 S.E. MONTEREY RD. STUART, FL 34996
SUZANNE S. BROWNLESS, ESQUIRE OERTEL & HOFFMAN
P.O. BOX 6507
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32314-6507
SUSAN CLARK, GENERAL COUNSEL MICHAEL PALECKI, ESQUIRE
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FLETCHER BUILDING
101 EAST GAINES STREET, RM. 212 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
DOUGLAS S. ROBERTS GARY P. SAMS, ESQUIRE
P.O. BOX 6526 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32314
* NOTE: Attachement to the Recommend Order contain maps and other documents which are available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 28, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 20, 1991 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 28, 1990 | Recommended Order | 3-phase coal gasification/combined cycle power plant consistent with land use plans and site certification approved with stipulation of parties |
