The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. ITID is an independent water control special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross easements and roads, and pass under canals, owned by ITID. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street North, while Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta, Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05-2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05- 2980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05-2982) did not appear at the final hearing. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Background On December 15, 2004, the County filed its application with the Department for an individual permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system (Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project (Project) and will be approximately 41,050 feet long and comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20-inch force main and 18,700 linear feet of 30-inch force main (or nearly ten miles in length). A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water and wastewater service to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus. The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street North, where it turns east until it interconnects with existing facilities. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach (City), but the County owns between forty and forty-five percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated at the County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons per day. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis by the Department and the South Florida Water Management District determined that on-site treatment was not feasible because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The Scripps Project will include residential units, commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community Development District (which lies a few miles northwest of the Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies several miles south-southeast of the Village). At the time of the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose service area is located just southeast of the Village) to transport wastewater through the Transmission Line. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and the other users that will discharge to the Line. The County commenced construction of the Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not allow the Transmission Line to be used until it is pressure tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the Department. Such approval is given only after the County has given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission, treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.700. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the issuance of the Permit were filed by ITID and the individual Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable technical standards and criteria required under the Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's right-of-way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that the Project will be located within seventy-five feet from private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection; and that the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners (who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the location of the Transmission Line in relation to their private drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the restoration of their property to its original condition after construction is completed. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While the County acknowledges that it has already placed, and intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges that it also has the right to use those easements without an ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County, and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to decide property interests. Petitioners' Objections Domestic wastewater and pretreatment The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non- domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant, collection system, and the health of system workers and the general public. The Department administers a pretreatment program through which it requires a public wastewater utility to police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants. A central part of the pretreatment program is the local ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit, inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that potentially harmful wastes are rendered harmless before discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is occurring. Both the County and the City have pretreatment programs approved by the Department. The City has an ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any of these facilities that has caused adverse health or environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City pretreatment program for the East Central Regional Facility was approved in 1980. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials. Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission Line. Transmission Line Design The Transmission Line was designed in accordance with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater transmission lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which contain several of the standards used in the design of this project. These standards are recommended, but are not mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or her professional judgment in applying them in any particular case. The Transmission Line also meets the design standards promulgated by the America Water Works Association (AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C-905 design standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used in the project. The County has received written certification from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in AWWA C-905. The Transmission Line is designed with stub-outs, which will allow for future connections without an interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which allow the line to be shut down for maintenance. The Use of PVC Pipe There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the Department relies on the certification of the applicant and the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to accepted engineering standards. The only specification applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard, adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.300(5)(g). That document contains a general requirement that the material selected have a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures in wastewater transmission lines. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe to its thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner-walled pipes. This is not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one of its projects, and other local governments in the State have used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is typically conservative in requiring thicker-walled pipe, because most transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission lines built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On this project, however, the County determined that thicker- walled pipe would have been an over-design of the system because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the installation; therefore, the Director of the Water Utilities Department has waived that requirement. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is typically used in the County, it satisfies the Department's requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have failed. PVC has benefits over other transmission line material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior ability to absorb surges, such as cyclical surges, than ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre-stressed concrete pipe. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker- walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150 per square inch (psi) pressure test. He also opined that the pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to know whether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the project. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project. Unibell is a trade association that provides technical support for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr. Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe in this project. The AWWA C-905 standard uses a safety factor of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are at least twice their stated design strength. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that apply to PVC pipe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the material is in excess of 400 psi. The pipe also meets a 1000- hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and testing, the pipe will pass the two-hour 150 psi test required by the Department. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe would be more prone to breakage than ductile iron or thicker PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking, or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation, which occurs when PVC is flattened through pressure, will initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will become compacted and result in re-rounding of the pipe. The joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe, which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and leaking, and the use of mechanical restrained joints will further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally, there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three-feet of fill, which is the depth to which the Transmission Line pipe will be buried. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease speed rather than just turning on or off. In addition, the pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from different directions and emergency generators, which should lessen the chances of harmful surging. Testing the Installation The anticipated pressures in the Transmission Line will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. Also, the County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily. If problems with the installation arise later, the County has committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means digging up the line. During the hearing, ITID asserted that the Uniform Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well. This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi for PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the Department and is not an applicable Department permitting standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270 psi for at least 1,000 hours. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission Line would be pressure tested after the construction was complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the County's testing program is incorrect. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the technical aspects. She stated that the County has successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a single section of the line failed the test. Compaction The County has stringent backfilling and compaction requirements, which are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction of the fill material. The County plans and specifications provide that compaction must be to ninety-five percent of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for non-paved surfaces and one hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are sufficient. Mr. Farabee contended, however, that even though the standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not see how the testing could be done without digging many holes to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions, however, are incorrect. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred sixty-four compaction tests have already been done on the portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part of the installation failed the tests. The County has an inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests. The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadway, as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent to their property and on which construction has taken place, the Department requires that, before the work is certified as complete, non-paved roads must be compacted in accordance with AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate compaction of the fill material. The Sufficiency of the Application When an application for an individual transmission/ collection line permit is filed with the Department, the applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies with the Department's standards. However, not all of the details of the construction will be included in the permit application. The Department relies on the design engineer to certify that the materials used are appropriate. The application form is also signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. All plans submitted by the County, including the original, modifications, and final version, were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. After receiving the application, the Department requested additional information before issuing the permit, and the County provided all requested information. The original construction plans that were submitted with the application were changed in response to the Department's requests for additional information. The Permit issued by the Department indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error. ITID maintains that all of the technical specifications for the project must be included in the application, and because no separate engineering report was prepared by the County with the application, the County did not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the project will comply will all applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its application package, the County submitted construction plans, which contain the specifications required by the Department. Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings specify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which are also specifications sufficient to fulfill the Department's requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification of the technical aspects of the application was given by the County at the final hearing. At the same time, the Department engineer who oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for wastewater transmission and collection systems. The undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively straightforward permit such as this, the application and attachments themselves can function as a sufficient engineering evaluation. This is especially true here since the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project, which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow unless other wastewater facilities are permitted. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the County located public and private drinking water wells in the area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched the site plans for all of the properties along the route. No public wells were found within one-hundred feet of the Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private wells that are within seventy-five feet of the line. None of the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy- five feet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred to the wrong property." In order to protect the private drinking water wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.400(1)(b) requires that the County provide an extra level of protection for the wells that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level of protection by installing restrained joints that will restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained joints are epoxy-coated mechanical devices that reduce the tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County has used these restrained joints on its potable water and wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints will provide reliable protection of the private wells within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, then the County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints. Minimum Separation Distances The County has complied with all applicable pipe separation requirements in the installation of the Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than six feet horizontally from any water main and does not intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses. (However, the Department has no separation requirement for culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.) h. The M-Canal Crossing The Transmission Line must cross the M-canal, which runs in an east-west direction approximately midway between 40th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24- inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48-inch casing will be installed fifteen feet below the design bottom of the canal. The polyethylene is fusion-welded, which eliminates joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)2.-5. The depth of the subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing, exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)1. i. Flushing Protocol Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended two feet per second velocities. (Sufficient flow will not occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line during the first one to three years of operation.) Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a problem at the treatment plant and might leak out of the manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water which will raise the velocity to three or four feet per second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be temporarily set up at several locations along the Line. During the purging of the Line, sewage will collect in the pump stations until the purge is finished. There is sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrapes the sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long enough to flush both the 20-inch and 30-inch lines. Mr. Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately flush the lines. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed, however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a 20-inch to 30-inch to 36-inch pipe. The County has flushed other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary volumes to maintain a two-feet-per-second velocity in the 20- inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30-inch line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the Transmission Line will not accumulate solids that will cause undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per second. Other Requirements The construction and operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or residuals without providing proper treatment. It will not violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross- connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance of non-domestic wastewater that has not been properly pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission Line will be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The record drawings will be available at the Department's district office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel. Finally, concerns by the individual Petitioners that the County may not restore their property to its original condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department represented that the County would cooperate with the individual property owners to assure that these concerns are fully addressed. Reasonable Assurance The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, installation of equipment, and other information that the construction and installation of the Transmission Line will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should issue a final order granting certification to Progress Energy Florida (“PEF”), to construct and operate a new 530 megawatt (“MW”) natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Polk County, Florida. The proposed site for the Project is located at PEF’s existing Hines Energy Complex, southwest of Bartow, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Progress Energy Florida, previously known as Florida Power Corporation, is an electric utility that provides electricity in a 35-county service area in Florida. This service area stretches from the Panhandle through the center of the state and includes the western coast of Florida north of Tampa Bay. PEF currently serves approximately 1.5 million customers in this service area. PEF has been providing electric service in Florida for over 100 years. PEF’s current generating capacity is 9,174 megawatts. The Company currently operates 14 different power plant facilities in the state. PEF has a customer growth rate of 1.7 percent per year. (Hunter, Tr. 14- 15; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 2). The PEF Hines Energy Complex is located in the southwest portion of Polk County, Florida, approximately 3.5 miles south of the city of Bartow. The community of Homeland is located one mile northeast of the Hines site. County Road 555 runs through the Project site. The Hines site contains approximately 8,200 acres of reclaimed phosphate mine lands. The area around the larger Hines site has been dominated by phosphate mining operations, including mines, settling ponds, sand tailings, gypsum stacks, and chemical beneficiation plants. The adjacent land uses consist almost entirely of active phosphate mining or mined and reclaimed lands. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 5-6; PEF Ex. RZ-2; PEF Ex. 1 at 2-1). In the late 1980’s, PEF began planning to meet the needs of future growth in customer demand for electricity and decided to identify a site that allowed for a wide variety of possible generation technologies, while at the same time meeting the ecological and regulatory requirements for building new generation. PEF solicited the help of a team of local community, educational, and environmental leaders to evaluate over 50 potential sites in Florida and South Georgia. This two- year process culminated in 1991 with the selection of the Hines site, then known as the Polk County site. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 4). In January 1994, the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Siting Board, certified the Hines Energy Complex for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity fueled by either natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil, and also granted certification for the construction and operation of an initial 470 MW combined cycle unit known as Power Block 1. Power Block 1 began operation in 1999. In 2001, the Siting Board also granted certification for the construction and operation of Hines Power Block 2, a 530 MW combined cycle unit. Power Block 2 began operation in 2003. In 2003, certification was granted by the Siting Board for Power Block 3, which is currently under construction, and expected to be in service by late 2005. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 5; PEF Ex. 1, Preface at 1-2; FDEP Ex. 2 at 1). The original certification proceeding that culminated in the 1994 certification included extensive evaluations of the worst case capacity constraints and potential environmental effects of the operation of the expected 3,000 MW of capacity. Those evaluations included assessments of air quality impacts, water quality and wildlife impacts, water use, noise impacts, socioeconomic impacts and benefits, traffic impacts of construction and operation, and other impacts of the entire planned capacity of 3,000 MW. This original evaluation significantly reduces the time and expense for processing the Supplemental Site Certification Application and allows PEF to respond more quickly to the growth in demand for electrical generating facilities. The ultimate site capacity determination assures PEF that the Hines Energy Complex site has adequate air, water, and land resources to accommodate additional electrical generating facilities. The 1994 certification also established that the full 3,000 MW of generating capacity and the Hines site are consistent with the local land use plans and zoning regulations of Polk County. (PEF Ex. 1, Pre-1 to Pre-2 at 2.4 to 2.5). The Hines Energy Complex contains a number of existing facilities and is divided into several major areas. The plant island is the location for the existing and future power generation facilities. It is approximately 704 acres. A 722- acre cooling pond, that is being expanded to approximately 1200 acres, has been constructed on the site, along with a 311-acre brine pond. A buffer and mitigation area has been created along the eastern portion of the Hines site containing approximately 2,498 acres. These areas serve as a wildlife corridor as well. Approximately 3500 acres of the site are designated for water crop areas to supply captured rainfall for use in the power plant. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 3; PEF Ex. JJH-4; PEF Ex. 1 at 2- 1). The Hines Energy Complex is interconnected to the electrical grid through multiple existing electrical transmission lines. A new 20 mile long 230 kV transmission line to connect the Hines Site to the existing PEF West Lake Wales Substation is being permitted separately. Natural gas is delivered to the Hines Energy Complex by two existing natural gas pipelines, which will serve Power Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Fuel oil is also burned in the existing units and is delivered by truck and stored in an onsite storage tank. A new fuel oil unloading station and a new fuel and storage tank will be added to serve Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 6, 8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-1; Tr. 17). Project Overview The Hines Power Block 4 is a 530 MW combined-cycle power plant to be fueled primarily with natural gas. Fuel oil will be used as a backup fuel. The proposed Power Block 4 will be located entirely within the existing Hines Energy Complex site. The unit will be located west of Power Blocks 1, 2 and 3. All construction activities for Power Block 4 will occur within an approximately 5-acre portion of the plant island. (PEF Ex. 1, at 3-2, 4-1; PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 5; Exs. JMR 4 and 5). Need for Power Block 4 On November 23, 2004, the FPSC issued a Final Order determining the need for the PEF’s Hines Power Block 4 Project. The FPSC determined that the Hines Power Block 4 will be needed by 2007 to maintain electric system reliability and integrity for PEF. This was based upon an evaluation of PEF’s load forecast and maintenance of its required 20 percent reserve margin of generating capacity above the firm demand of PEF’s customers. Power Block 4 adds to the diversity of PEF’s generating assets in terms of technology, fuel, age, and functionality. Operational flexibility is provided by Power Block 4’s dual fuel capability. The FPSC also found that the Hines Power Block 4 will contribute to the provision of adequate electricity at reasonable cost. The FPSC concluded that PEF, in proposing the Hines Power Block 4, had identified the least cost alternative compared to other options, including outside proposals from third parties. There are no cost-effective conservation measures available that might mitigate PEF’s need for Hines Power Block 4. In conclusion, the FPSC determined that PEF met the statutory requirements under Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, for the Commission to grant the determination of need for Hines Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 3). Project Schedule and Construction The proposed Power Block 4 is similar to the existing Hines Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3, which exist or are currently under construction at the Hines site. The proposed combustion turbines for the new unit are two advanced General Electric 7FA combustion turbines, designed for dual fuel operation. Engineering of the units will commence in December 2005 and on- site construction will begin no later than the first quarter of 2006. The new unit is proposed to be in service by December 1, 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4, 13-14). Construction activities will be initiated by the preparation of the five-acre site for construction. This will include mobilization of contractors and subcontractors along with plant construction project management personnel. Existing construction laydown and parking areas will be utilized for Power Block 4. On-site construction will begin with the installation of the circulating water piping and pilings for structural foundations. Power Block 4 will be mechanically complete by June 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 14). The construction workforce for Power Block 4 is expected to average about 145 employees over the two-year construction period. Peak construction employment is estimated at 350 employees. The construction payroll is expected to be $15 million annually. Based upon prior experience during construction of Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3, it is expected that most construction workers will be drawn from the Polk County and Central Florida areas. Construction employees are expected to commute daily to the job site. Traffic improvements have already been made in the vicinity of the Hines Energy Complex. Traffic impacts related to construction of Power Block 4 will not require additional road improvements. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-16 to 4-17). No new roads will be required to support construction of Power Block 4 as the existing plant access road will be used during construction. Major project components will be delivered to the Hines site by rail or by truck. No off-site upgrade of rail or road facilities is expected to be necessary. All oversized deliveries will receive necessary Florida Department of Transportation (“DOT”) approvals. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-20, 4-3; PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 14-15). Most major earthwork activities for construction for the Power Block 4 construction area were performed during initial site development activities that were completed in 1996. There are no expected impacts to land in the Project area except for minor grading, installation of foundation systems and infrastructure piping, the new control/administration building, and the new fuel oil tank. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-1). Heavily loaded and structural foundation loads such as the heat recovery steam generators, combustion turbines, steam turbines, and step-up transformers will be supported by deep foundations. These foundations will include deep foundations such as pilings similar to those used for Power Blocks 1, 2, and Lightly loaded foundations will use spread foundations. Construction dewatering will occur primarily at excavations for the circulating water intake structure and the discharge head wall in the cooling pond. Other additional limited dewatering may occur, depending upon the amount of rainfall and the depth of other excavations onsite. Dewatering would be performed using well points or open pit sump pumps, which have a very localized impact area. Dewatering effluent will be routed to the existing on-site stormwater collection ditches for return to the existing cooling pond. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12-13; PEF Ex. 1 at 4-7). The entire Project area is outside the 100-year flood zone. There will be no construction impacts to either on-site or off-site water bodies or wetlands as a result of construction activities. (PEF Ex. 1 at 2-2, 4-5). On-site construction activities will not have any measureable adverse ecological impacts. The five-acre Project area has already been cleared and graded in anticipation of construction of Power Block 4 and other future units. The Power Block 4 area is primarily bare soil, with very sparse weedy vegetation of low-ecological functional value. This habitat is suitable for few animals and exhibits low plant species diversity. It will not support populations of threatened and endangered species or species of special concern. There are no jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands that would be impacted by the development of Power Block 4 and the on-site portion of the new transmission line. Mitigation for wetland impacts on the Hines Energy Complex occurred as part of the original permitting process for the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 6, Bullock at 5-6; PEF Ex. 1 at 4-10 to 4-12). Construction noise impacts from construction of all phases up to the 3,000 MWs of ultimate site capacity were analyzed as part of the 1992 certification application. It was shown at that time that the applicable noise criteria would be complied with during construction of each future phase. An updated analysis of construction noise from Power Block 4 reaffirmed the earlier analysis and demonstrated no adverse impacts from construction noise. The nearest residences are approximately 2.9 miles from the plant site. The Project construction noise levels will be less than the existing noise levels measured near these residences. Construction noise will have an insignificant effect on noise levels. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 15-16; PEF Ex 1 at 4-17 to 4-19). During construction, the most prevalent construction air emissions will be fugitive dust, generated by site grading, excavation, vehicular traffic, and other construction activities. Dust control measures will be used and will typically require moisture conditioning of construction areas and roadways. Disturbed areas will also be stabilized by mulching or seeding as soon as practical. Crushed rock may also be used in high traffic areas. It is not expected that these air emissions from construction will present any significant air quality problems during the construction period. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-14 to 4-16). Project Description Power Block 4 will be similar to the existing Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3 at the Hines site. Power Block 4 is a new combined cycle unit of approximately 530 MWs. It will consist of two advanced GE 7 FA combustion turbines (“CT”) designed for dual fuel operation, using primarily natural gas and low sulfur fuel oil as a backup fuel. Each CT will connect to an electrical generator, capable of generating approximately 170 MWs of electricity. Each CT in Power Block 4 will be paired with a heat recovery steam generator (“HRSG”) which will extract heat energy from the CT’s exhaust gas. The HRSG is essentially a boiler that turns heat in the CT’s exhaust, which would be otherwise wasted, into steam. The steam produced in both HRSGs is used to drive a single steam turbine, which will produce an additional 190 MWs of electricity. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4 to 5; PEF Ex. JMR-2; FDEP Ex. 2 at 1-10). The normal operating mode for Power Block 4 will be for both CTs to be in operation providing steam from their respective HRSGs to the single steam turbine. However, Power Block 4 can be operated in other ways, depending on the need for electricity. One CT can be operated at full load, producing steam from its HRSG that would power the steam turbine at half load while the other CT and HRSG are idle. The unit will be operated between 30 percent load and full load in the combined cycle mode while meeting its air emission permit requirements. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4-5). Natural gas will be the principal fuel used in Power Block 4. Gas will be delivered by two existing gas pipelines that serve the Hines Energy Complex. A new on-site gas pipeline will be constructed to supply natural gas to the new Power Block 4 from the two on-site natural gas meter regulation stations. Fuel oil will be delivered by truck to a new fuel unloading facilities and stored in a new on-site fuel storage tank adjacent to Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-4; Tr. 27). The existing on-site electrical switchyard will be expanded to provide electrical transmission interconnection for Power Block 4. The on-site segment of a new 230 kV transmission line between the Hines Site and the PEF West Lake Wales electrical substation is included in the project for certification. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 6; Tr. 17). Pursuant to the authorization under the 1994 site certification, a 10,000 gallon per day domestic wastewater treatment plant will treat additional on-site domestic and sanitary wastewaters from on-site showers, lavatories, toilets, and drinking fountains for Power Block 4. The treated effluent is directed to the on-site cooling pond as makeup water. Potable water is provided from an existing on-site approved potable water system which is adequate to support Power Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Potable water is supplied from well water and is treated and chlorinated for on-site uses such as drinking, washing, showers, and other uses. A new on-site water distribution line will be installed to support Power Block 4 and the new control and administration building. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-11 to 3-12). Solid wastes that may be generated by Power Block 4 include circulating water systems screenings, sanitary waste solids, water treatment filter backwash solids, and solid wastes produced in the course of operating and maintaining the unit. Office wastes are expected to be the biggest component of these wastes. These wastes will be disposed of in differing ways. Circulating water systems screenings and water filter backwash will be recycled on-site to the extent possible. All other solid wastes will be disposed of off-site in appropriate facilities. PEF has a corporate commitment to waste minimization. This includes extensive recycling of waste products, reduction at the source, and elimination of most hazardous waste storage. This corporate commitment will be implemented on a continuing basis at the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-18). Water Use and Supply The existing cooling pond will supply cooling water and other water needs for Power Block 4. Makeup water to the cooling pond is obtained from direct precipitation, reclaimed treated municipal effluent, on-site stormwater runoff, recycled plant blowdown and wastewaters, water cropping, and groundwater. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-7 to 3-9). The process steam in the steam turbine is cooled to the liquid state in a steam condenser. The rejected heat from the steam is transferred to water pumped from the existing cooling pond into the circulating water system and then returned to the cooling pond. The heat rejected from the power plant results in forced evaporation above and beyond the natural evaporation that occurs in the cooling pond. The circulating water system equipment for Power Block 4 will include two new circulating water pumps capable of pumping 60,000 gallons per minute. An additional intake structure will be constructed at the cooling pond to support these pumps. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 7-8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-9 to 3-10). All process water needs for Power Block 4 will be supplied from the existing cooling pond. Water is pumped from the pond to the water treatment area located east of the existing power blocks. The water is processed for use either as service water or as demineralized water. Service water is used for washdown of equipment and other uses. The higher quality demineralized water is used for makeup to the steam-condensate- feedwater cycle in the HRSGs to replace steam cycle losses. Demineralized water is also used when firing low sulfur fuel oil in the CTs to control NOx emissions. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 8- 9, Osbourn at 7; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-12 to 3-13). The reverse osmosis equipment in the demineralized water system produces a brine reject that will be pumped to the existing on-site brine pond for evaporation. The only other wastewater streams from Power Block 4 will come from the boiler blowdown and from floor drains located throughout the facility. Boiler blowdown results from removal of a portion of the water cycling in the HRSG to control the buildup of solids in that water. Boiler blowdown is collected and pumped back to the cooling pond without further treatment. Areas that contain lubricating oil equipment or where fuel lines run above ground will have containment curbs or walls. Wastewater streams from these areas that may contain oil will be routed to the existing oil water separator to remove oil contamination prior to being pumped to the cooling pond. Any collected oil is properly disposed. All wastewaters are collected and processed as appropriate and pumped back to the cooling pond. The cooling pond has no discharge to area surface waters. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 9-10; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-12 to 3-16; FDEP Ex. 2 at 13). The cooling pond at the Hines Energy Complex experiences both natural and forced evaporation. The forced evaporation is that additional evaporation above and beyond natural evaporation and is caused by the heat rejected from the power plant. The total annual average evaporation rate from the cooling pond from natural evaporation and from heat rejected by Power Blocks 1, 2, 3 and the proposed Power Block 4 is approximately 10 million gallons per day. This is an increase in evaporation of 2.2 million gallons per day for Power Block 4. This loss of water needs to be replenished to keep the cooling pond operating and keep the plant continuing in operation. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 7-8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-9). It has been determined that, over the long term, Power Block 4 will require an average annual daily water supply of 2.4 million gallons per day. This is needed to replace evaporation from the pond and to supply the process water needs for the new unit. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-8). The existing Conditions of Certification for the Hines Energy Complex authorize the use of up to 17.5 million gallons per day of groundwater beginning with the third generating unit at the Hines Energy Complex. The water needs for Power Block 4 will be supplied from these previously approved quantities of groundwater. The existing Units 1 and 2 utilize a mix of treated wastewater from on-site and off-site sources and captured rainfall to supply cooling and process water needs for Power Blocks 1 and 2. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-7 to 3-9; PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 7; FDEP Ex. 2, Appendix IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 7). Under the Conditions of Certification, no groundwater will be withdrawn to supplement the cooling pond until the operating level in the cooling pond falls to 160 feet. The proposed on-site withdrawals were previously evaluated as part of the initial certification proceeding in 1994 and were found to have no adverse impacts. The proposed on-site withdrawals of groundwater for Power Block 4 will not have any adverse impacts on existing legal users of water in the vicinity of the Project, on- and off-site wetlands, or to off-site land uses. PEF has investigated other reasonably obtainable sources of water in the region and found none that could meet the needs for Power Block (PEF Ex. 1, Vol. 2, Appendix 10.6; FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 8-9). PEF has undertaken several efforts to minimize the use of groundwater through the use of water conservation practices, as required by the Conditions of Certification in the 1994 site certification. These measures include the use of water conserving electric generation technologies, recycling of all wastewater streams, and the design of the power plant as a “zero discharge” facility. PEF is also continuing to investigate other sources of water supply for the Hines site. (FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 8). Power Blocks 1 and 2 are supplied water from the on- site water cropping system and on-site and off-site treated wastewaters. The capture and reuse of rainfall is an integrated part of PEF’s efforts to reduce dependence on the Upper Floridan aquifer as a source of water. In addition, recycled plant wastewaters, treated wastewater from the City of Bartow, and nearby industrial and power plants are the other primary sources of water for Hines Power Blocks 1 and 2. The City of Bartow currently provides approximately 2.0 million gallons per day of treated wastewater for use at the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 1, Hunter at 7; FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 6-8). Air Emissions The primary air pollutants emitted from Hines Power Block 4 will include nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), particulate matter (“PM”), and sulfur oxides such as sulfur dioxide. The primary cause of the air emissions from the new unit will be the combustion of natural gas and distillate oil in the CTs. Emissions of NOx and CO will result from the combustion process. Emissions of PM and sulfur dioxide result from trace impurities in the fuel itself. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 4-5; Tr. 35-37). Air emissions from Power Block 4 will be minimized through the inherent efficiency of the combined cycle technology, as well as the use of natural gas and light oil, use of combustion controls, and use of post-combustion control technology for nitrogen oxide emissions. Natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels and contains minimal amounts of impurities. Light oil is also very low in impurities and its use will be limited to up to 1,000 hours per year per combustion turbine. Natural gas and light oil burn very efficiently, thus minimizing the formation of air pollutants. Emissions are also minimized through the use of advanced combustion control technology in the combustion turbine, specifically dry, low NOx combustion controls for firing natural gas, and use of water injection when firing light oil. A post-combustion control technology, selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) will be used to further reduce NOx emissions from Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 5-6; Tr. 35). The Hines Power Block 4 is required to meet best available control technology (“BACT”) requirements, which limits air pollution emission rates. The Project must also comply with ambient air quality standards (“AAQS”) and prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) increment standards, which establish levels of air quality which must be met. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 6-7; PEF Ex. 1 at 3.5 to 3-6; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6, 17). Hines Power Block 4 is required to undergo PSD review because it is a new source of air pollution that will emit some air pollutants above the threshold amounts established under the PSD program. PSD review was required for air emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide, NOx, CO, and sulfuric acid mist because these emissions are greater than the established PSD thresholds. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 7). The BACT analysis for Hines Power Block 4 is part of the evaluation of air emissions control technology under the PSD regulations and is applicable to all pollutants for which PSD review is required. BACT is a pollutant-specific emission standard that provides the maximum degree of emission reduction, after taking into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 6-7; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6). For NOx, FDEP has preliminarily determined for this facility a BACT emission limit of 2.5 parts per million when firing natural gas, and 10 parts per million when firing low sulfur fuel oil. These emission levels will be achieved by the use of dry low NOx combustion technology when firing natural gas, use of water injection when firing fuel oil, and use of SCR technology. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 8; FDEP Ex. 2 at 9, 21, Table 4). Emissions of carbon monoxide will be controlled using good combustion techniques. Sulfur dioxide emissions, including sulfuric acid mist, will be controlled through the use of clean fuels. Particulate matter emissions will be controlled through the use of clean fuels, natural gas, and low sulfur fuel oil. Fuel oil firing will be limited to a maximum of about 1,000 hours per year. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 7-9; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 15; Tr. 36-37). The air emissions from Power Block 4 cannot be permitted at a level that would cause or contribute to a violation of federal and state AAQS for the six criteria air pollutants or PSD increments for sulfur dioxide, NOx, and PM. The PSD increments refer to the amount of incremental air quality deterioration allowed from a new air pollution source. Polk County is classified as a Class II area for PSD purposes. The nearest Class I PSD area within which limited increases in air pollutant concentrations are allowed is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 9-11; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6-8, 16-17). Air emissions from Power Block 4 were principally analyzed for emissions from fuel oil firing as representing the maximum air quality impact. The air quality impact analysis was performed using approved air quality models and five years of historical hourly meteorological data. This analysis indicated that Power Block 4 will not cause any violations of federal or state AAQS and will comply with applicable PSD Class II and Class I increments. The maximum impact of the Project was estimated to be well below the applicable PSD Class II increments. Maximum ambient air impacts were also estimated to be well below the applicable AAQS. Using worst case air emissions during oil firing, it was shown that the Project impacts would be less than the PSD Class I increments, as well as less than the Class I significant impact levels, and therefore were concluded not to be significant in the PSD Class I area. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 8-14, Exs. SO-3 and SO-4; FDEP Ex. 2 at 7-8, 16-17). Air emissions from Power Block 4 are not expected to have any impact on vegetation or to cause any growth-related air quality impacts. The results of the visibility impact analysis of the Project’s emissions in the nearest PSD Class I area demonstrated no adverse impact on visibility at that location due to Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 14-15; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6-7, 17). Noise Noise impacts during operation of Power Block 4 were shown not to be significant. Noise monitoring was originally conducted at various locations around the Hines Energy Complex site prior to construction and operation of Power Block 1. Additional noise monitoring was conducted at these locations in 2000 and 2004 during the permitting of Power Blocks 2 and 4, to determine any changes since the original permitting. There are only a few isolated rural residences in the land area surrounding the site. The nearest residence is about 2.5 miles from the proposed Power Block 4. Industrial activities in the surrounding area result in considerable traffic on nearby roads, causing noise levels to exceed the EPA guideline of 55 dBA. Without the area traffic, ambient noise levels meet the EPA guidelines. (PEF Ex. 1 at 2-65 to 2-72). Using a conservative approach which tends to overstate the Project impacts, noise impacts due to operation of Power Block 4 would increase by less than 2 dBA at the nearest receptor and will not be significant. Therefore, the Project will meet applicable noise criteria and no significant noise impacts will occur as a result of the Project. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 15-16; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 23; PEF Ex. 1 at 5-9 to 5-12). Land Use and Socioeconomic Impacts The Plant Island, where Power Block 1 is in operation and where Power Block 4 will be constructed, is located near the southern end of the site. The northern boundary of the Plant Island is about two miles south of CR 640. The western limit of the City of Fort Meade is about 3.9 miles east of the Plant Island, and the unincorporated community of Homeland is more than 3.5 miles northeast of the Plant Island. The nearest residential use is three homes located approximately 2.5 miles from the southern boundary of the Plant Island. Otherwise, the entire area surrounding the proposed power plant site consists of existing or former phosphate mines. The site is buffered from surrounding populations at Homeland and Fort Meade by an extensive buffer area on the eastern perimeter of the site. There has been almost no change in land use and very little change in the landscape in the area of the Hines Energy Complex since the original site certification. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 5- 6). There have not been any changes in the area surrounding the Hines Energy Complex that would change the land use and socio-economic conclusions reached in the Final Order of Certification issued for the site by the Siting Board on January 27, 1994. The most significant change has been the completion of another nearby power plant approximately three miles southeast of the Hines site. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 6). No land use or socio-economic impacts will be associated with construction of Power Block 4 that were not previously addressed in the Final Order of Certification for the Hines Energy Complex in 1994. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 6-8). The land use impacts from development and construction of Power Block 4 will be quite minimal, and the economic benefits will be substantial. Current operating employment at the Hines Energy Complex is 29. The staffing level at the plant is expected to increase by six employees with the addition of Power Block 4. Annual payroll was $2.7 million in 2002. The annual payroll will increase by about $493,000 when Power Block 4 becomes operational in 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 8). The estimated increase in property taxes for Power Block 4 is $5.0 million. Over one-half of this revenue goes to support the Polk County school system. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 8; PEF Ex. 1 at 7-1). Agency Positions and Stipulations The FDEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the FDOT, and the SWFWMD each prepared written reports on the Project. (FDEP Ex. 2). Each of these agencies either recommended approval of Hines Power Block 4 or otherwise did not object to certification of the proposed power plant. The FDEP has proposed a series of Conditions of Certification for the Project that incorporate the recommendations of the various reviewing agencies. At hearing, the FDEP added one additional condition related to air emissions monitoring. (Tr. 54-55). PEF states that it can comply with these Conditions of Certification in the design, construction, and operation of the Hines Power Block 4. (Tr. 21, 56). No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the Project or has otherwise objected to certification of the Project. (PEF Ex. 4). Subject to compliance with the proposed conditions of certification, the proposed design of Hines Power Block 4 offers reasonable assurance that the standards of the FDEP and other affected regulatory agencies will be met and that the operation safeguards are technically sufficient for the protection of the citizens of the state. The Hines Power Block 4, as proposed, minimizes through reasonable and available methods the 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. (FDEP Ex. 1 at 28; Tr. 57-59).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting certification to PEF to construct and operate a new 530 MW natural gas-fired electrical power plant (Hines Power Block 4 Project) in Polk County, Florida, in accordance with the Conditions of Certification, FDEP Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Michael Duclos, Esquire Polk County Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 James V. Antista, Esquire Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Craig Varn, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Wm. Cochran Keating IV, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Steven Palmer Siting Coordination Office Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Procedural Matters. Filing of the Application and Notices. FPC filed the DWS transmission line Application on July 2, 1992. The Notice of Receipt of Transmission Line Certification Application, the Notice of Certification Hearing on Proposed Transmission Line Corridor, and the Reminder Notice of Certification Hearing were published in newspapers of general circulation in Volusia and Seminole Counties, and in the Florida Administrative Weekly in accordance with the requirements of Section 403.527, Florida Statutes (1991), and Rule 17 Florida Administrative Code Stipulations. DCA, GFWFC, ECFRPC, DOT, Volusia County, Seminole County, City of Lake Mary, and City of Sanford have entered into stipulations with FPC regarding the certification of the DWS transmission line. These state, regional, and local agencies have agreed that the location of the DWS transmission line corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line as set forth in the Application will, under the provisions contained in the stipulations, comply with the nonprocedural standards of each agency and/or be consistent and in compliance with the local government comprehensive plans and land use regulations of the local governments. It was further agreed that the Siting Board should adopt Conditions of Certification substantially in compliance with those set forth in Attachment A to this Recommended Order. No party filed an alternate corridor for consideration in this proceeding. Summary of Need for DWS Transmission Line. The Determination of Need for the DWS transmission line was issued by the PSC pursuant to Section 403.537, Florida Statutes, by Order No. 24993, dated August 29, 1991. The several reasons cited in the Determination of Need Order for why the DWS transmission line is needed in the Central Florida area are summarized below: First, the DWS transmission line is needed to enable FPC to continue to meet its reliability criteria in the Greater Orlando area. Specifically, the DWS transmission line is needed to maintain reliability in case of a single contingency outage of either the Sanford-North Longwood 230 or the North Longwood-Winter Springs 230 Secondly, the DWS transmission line is needed for transmission of electrical power if additional generating units are added to the FPC DeBary power plant site or, in the absence of new generating units, to facilitate the flow of power from north of the DeBary power plant south to the Greater Orlando area. Project Design. The DWS transmission line will consist of a single overhead 230 circuit and will proceed from the FPC DeBary power plant site located in Volusia County south to the Winter Springs Substation in Seminole County. The total length of the DWS transmission line corridor is 19.1 miles. The transmission line corridor extensively follows existing transmission line rights-of-way, roadways, and other linear facilities. From the St. Johns River south to the Winter Springs Substation, the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line or be located within an existing transmission line right-of- way. The transmission line corridor ranges in width from 350 feet to one mile. As part of this certification, FPC is seeking approval for the conversion of the Lake Emma Substation located in the City of Lake Mary from 115-kV to 230 kV to 230 from the DWS transmission line. An entire detailed site plan review package for the Lake Emma Substation was included as Appendix C to the Application. Location of the Preferred Corridor, Land Use, and Biophysical Environment. DeBary Power Plant to St. Johns River The proposed corridor begins in the vicinity of the FPC DeBary power plant in Volusia County and proceeds south to Konomac Lake, the cooling pond for the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Sanford power plant. The corridor is approximately 0.5 miles wide along this portion and follows the CSX Railroad and two existing transmission line rights-of-way in this area. At the southern end of Konomac Lake, the corridor expands to one mile wide to encompass several linear facilities, including U.S. Highway 17/92 and several existing transmission line rights-of-way. South of the FPL Sanford plant, the corridor follows the existing FPC Turner-North Longwood (TNL) transmission line right-of- way to the St. Johns River. From the FPC DeBary power plant to the St. Johns River, the corridor crosses unincorporated portions of Volusia County. Predominant land uses in this portion of the corridor are characterized by utilities such as the FPC DeBary power plant, a wastewater treatment plant, and the FPL Sanford power plant. This portion of the corridor also includes numerous linear facilities, including the CSX Railroad, U.S. Highway 17/92, and numerous transmission line rights-of- way. Low and medium-density residential housing, including a portion of the Orlandia Heights Subdivision, is also located along this portion of the corridor. The types of natural land cover in the portion of the corridor from the DeBary power plant to the St. Johns River include areas of sand pine scrub, pine flatwoods, wet prairies, and improved pastures. Much of the natural land cover has been disturbed by development. Major waterbodies crossed by the corridor in this area include Konomac Lake, which is a manmade cooling pond, and the St. Johns River. St. Johns River to the Winter Springs Substation. After the corridor crosses the St. Johns River, it enters Seminole County. From the St. Johns River, the corridor proceeds south and crosses U.S. Interstate 4 (I FPC TNL transmission line right-of-way along this portion of the corridor. Land uses in this portion of the corridor include undeveloped land, low-density residential development, transportation corridors, and utilities. Just south of the St. Johns River, the natural land cover is composed of cypress and cleared marsh and pasture. Where the corridor approaches the I there are some areas of mixed wetland hardwood forest. The St. Johns River is the only major waterbody in this area of the corridor. After the corridor crosses I a portion of the City of Sanford. The corridor widens to 2,500 feet in this area to allow flexibility for siting around the proposed Seminole Mall and the I corridor include undeveloped land, utility corridors (FPC DeBary-Altamonte Springs/DeBary-North Longwood (DA/DL) and TNL transmission line rights-of-way), transportation corridors (I Pine/mesic oak, citrus groves, improved pasture, and xeric oak comprise the natural land cover in this portion of the corridor. No major waterbodies are crossed in this portion of the corridor. The corridor enters the City of Lake Mary after it crosses 25th Street (CR 46A). Just south of 25th Street, the corridor narrows to 600 feet to avoid existing and proposed development and follows Rinehart Road south to Lake Mary Boulevard. The predominant land uses in this portion of the corridor are utilities (DA/DL and TNL transmission line rights-of-way and the Lake Emma Substation) and transportation (Rinehart Road). Other land uses include commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. Natural land cover is comprised of improved pasture, longleaf pine/xeric oak, and xeric oak communities. The corridor crosses Lake Emma and some other small, unnamed waterbodies in this portion of the corridor. South of Lake Mary Boulevard, the corridor enters unincorporated Seminole County. The corridor follows Rinehart Road, and then the FPC DA/DL and TNL transmission line rights-of-way south to the area of the FPC North Longwood Substation. In the vicinity of the North Longwood Substation, the corridor widens to 3,800 feet to allow flexibility in siting the DWS transmission line around the substation area. Land uses in this portion of the corridor include transmission line rights-of-way, commercial, industrial, and residential development. Remnants of a mixed hardwood forest make up the predominant natural land cover in this area. No major named waterbodies are crossed by the corridor in this area. After exiting the FPC North Longwood Substation area, the corridor narrows to approximately 800 feet, turns southeast, and proceeds along the northern portion of the City of Longwood to U.S. Highway 17/92. Predominant land uses along this portion of the corridor are the FPC North Longwood Substation, several transmission line rights-of-way, industrial development, undeveloped land, and some low-density residential development. Natural land cover is characterized primarily by small areas of wetland hardwood forest that are located on the edge of the Spring Hammock Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) property. No named waterbodies are crossed by the corridor in this area. From U.S. Highway 17/92, the proposed corridor turns south and proceeds through portions of the Cities of Winter Springs and Casselberry, and then turns east and proceeds to the Winter Springs Substation, the termination point of the proposed corridor. The corridor ranges in width from 350 to 400 feet in this area and follows the North Longwood-Rio Pinar (NR) 230 transmission line. FPC intends to locate the proposed DWS transmission line on a structure with the NR transmission line along this portion of the corridor. Because the corridor is relatively narrow in this area, the existing NR transmission line is the predominant land use within this portion of the corridor. Other land uses adjacent to the existing transmission line include a wastewater disposal facility, medium and high-density residential development, and some industrial development. The types of natural land cover along this portion of the corridor include small areas of sand pine, improved pasture, disturbed pine flatwoods, and disturbed oak. Gee Creek is the only named waterbody crossed by the corridor in this area. Exclusion Areas. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S agreed to exclude certain areas within the proposed corridor from consideration when locating the DWS transmission line right-of-way. A map showing the general location of these "exclusion" areas is set forth in Appendix 5 to the Conditions of Certification. (See Attachment A to the Recommended Order.) Proposed Design, Construction, and Maintenance of the DWS Transmission Line. Structures. Four typical structures will be used for the DWS transmission line. Double-circuit, single-pole structures with conductors in a vertical configuration will be used where the transmission line will be collocated with another transmission line or be designed to have a double- circuit capability. A single-pole structure with conductors in a vertical configuration will be used where only a single-circuit structure is required for the DWS transmission line. A triple-circuit, single-pole structure with the upper transmission line conductors in a vertical configuration and the underbuilt transmission line conductors in a delta configuration will be used where the DWS transmission line will be located on the same structure with two other transmission line circuits. Typical span lengths between structures will range between 600 to 1,000 feet. Typical structure heights will range from 80 to 135 feet where the DWS transmission line is either located in a single- circuit configuration, designed to have a double-circuit configuration, or located in a double-circuit configuration with one other transmission line circuit. Where the DWS transmission line is located with two other transmission line circuits, structure heights will range from 160 to 170 feet. Collocation of the DWS Transmission Line. From the DeBary power plant site to the southern portion of Konomac Lake, the DWS transmission line will be constructed within or immediately adjacent to an existing linear facility such as transmission line or railroad rights-of-way. From the southern portion of Konomac Lake to the St. Johns River, the DWS transmission line will be within or immediately adjacent to an existing linear facility right-of-way or will replace an existing transmission line which will be removed. From the St. Johns River to the North Longwood Substation, the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line which will be removed. From the North Longwood Substation to the Winter Springs Substation, the DWS transmission line will be located with one or more existing transmission line circuits on a single transmission line structure. Phases of Construction. Construction of the DWS transmission line will take place in several phases: right-of-way clearing, access road and structure pad construction, dismantling of existing transmission lines (where applicable), foundation placement, structure erection, conductor and shield wire stringing, and clean-up. Clearing. Very little clearing will be required for the DWS transmission line since the majority of the right-of-way will be within or adjacent to an existing transmission line or other linear facility rights-of- way. Where clearing is required, rotary mowers will be used in upland, non- scrub habitats. In upland scrub habitats and wetland areas, restrictive clearing will be used. Restrictive clearing will be done using hand-clearing tools or low-ground pressure machinery. Restrictive clearing includes the removal of vegetation from areas extending from the transmission line centerline to 15 feet on each side of the outer conductors and in work areas approximately 100 feet by 150 feet around structure sites. In addition, where access from an available adjacent road is required, a path approximately 20-25 feet wide may be cleared for such access. Access Road and Structure Pad Construction. While access roads and structure pads are required for the construction and maintenance of the DWS transmission line, no new access roads are anticipated for the proposed transmission line. Access to the DWS transmission line will be from adjacent public roads or via existing access roads. Some of the existing access roads may need upgrading. In particular, the access road south of the St. Johns River will need to be upgraded. In some wetland areas, temporary construction matting in lieu of access road upgrade can be used. Design requirements for access roads and structure pads are described generally in the Application and Condition of Certification S Dismantling Existing Transmission Lines. Where the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line, dismantling of the existing transmission line will be required. Dismantling of the existing transmission line involves removing the conductors and shield wires, disassembling the insulator assemblies, and removing the existing transmission line structure. Foundation Placement. Depending on the soil conditions at structure sites, three types of foundations are possible for the DWS transmission line structures. Direct embedded foundations are constructed by augering a shaft in the ground, placing the foundation in the ground, and backfilling around the foundation shaft with either crushed rock or concrete. Concrete-filled caisson foundations are constructed by augering a hole, placing reinforcing steel and anchoring bolts in the shaft, and filling the shaft with concrete. Vibratory- driven foundations are constructed by driving the foundation pole into the ground with a vibratory hammer. Any excavated material from foundation construction will be dispersed around the foundation site or, if in a wetland area, removed and disposed of in a suitable upland area. Structure Erection. Transmission line structures will be assembled on the ground and then placed into the foundations using cranes and other support vehicles. Once the structures have been raised, insulator assemblies and hardware components will be attached. Conductor and Shield Wire Stringing. Standard wire pulling and tensioning equipment will be used to string the conductors and shield wires on the DWS transmission line structures. Clean-up. Clean-up activities will take place through all phases of the construction process. Duration of Construction. Along a typical mile of the DWS transmission line, each phase of construction is expected to last one to two weeks. The entire construction of the DWS transmission line should take approximately 18 months. Transmission Line Load Design. The DWS transmission line is designed for a nominal operating voltage of 230,000 volts with a maximum operating voltage of 242,000 volts. The maximum current rating (MCR) for the DWS transmission line is 1,980 amperes. Transmission Line and Right-of-Way Maintenance. Transmission lines typically require minimal maintenance. Annual inspections of the DWS transmission line will be made by air or ground to ensure the safe operation of the transmission line. Maintenance activities in the right-of- way will be consistent with the initial clearing, if any, of the right-of-way. Restrictive clearing practices will continue to be used to maintain the right-of-way in upland scrub and wetland areas. Herbicides approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be used on targeted species and will be applied by a licensed applicator pursuant to Condition of Certification S Compliance with Codes and Engineering Standards. Construction of the DWS transmission line will comply with applicable construction and material codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code (Ed. 1990), the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide (May 1990), and the electric and magnetic field standards of Chapter 17 line will also comply with applicable engineering and material standards issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Testing Material (ASTM), and the American Concrete Institute (ACI). Construction of the Lake Emma Substation. The DWS transmission line will provide power to the existing Lake Emma Substation. This connection will require that the Lake Emma Substation be converted from 115 capacity. Conversion of the Lake Emma Substation will involve relocation of the boundary fence, followed by foundation construction and equipment installation. The site plan review package for the Lake Emma Substation conversion was included in the Application and approved by the City of Lake Mary and the SJRWMD, agencies with jurisdiction over the Lake Emma Substation site. The SJRWMD has agreed that the stormwater management system as proposed to serve the Lake Emma Substation conversion is consistent with the applicable nonprocedural standards of the District. Construction on the Lake Emma Substation conversion will last approximately nine months. Stipulations Concerning the Design of the DWS Transmission Line. FPC entered into stipulations with DER, DCA, GFWFC, DOT, DNR, ECFRPC, Seminole County, Volusia County, the City of Casselberry, the City of Lake Mary, and the City of Sanford regarding Conditions of Certification applicable to the location and construction of the proposed transmission line and Lake Emma Substation conversion. All of the Conditions of Certification regarding the design or location of the proposed transmission line and Lake Emma Substation construction are encompassed within the ranges of design and location proposed in the Application. Appropriate Conditions of Certification affecting the location and construction of the DWS transmission line and Lake Emma Substation are included in Attachment A to this Recommended Order. Impacts of the DWS Transmission Line Upon the Public. Impacts on Existing Land Uses. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will have minimal impact upon adjacent land uses. South of the St. Johns River, the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line or be located within existing transmission line rights-of-way. North of the St. Johns River, the DWS transmission line will be either within or adjacent to an existing linear facility right-of-way, or replace an existing transmission line. Collocation of the DWS transmission line will minimize the need for additional right-of-way and minimize disruption to existing land uses. To further minimize the impact to adjacent land uses, FPC has agreed to exclude certain areas of the proposed transmission line corridor from consideration for right-of-way location and transmission line construction. These exclusion areas, which are set forth in Condition of Certification S include certain residential developments, community facilities, public lands, and environmentally sensitive areas. There are no known significant archaeological sites within the corridor. To ensure that significant archaeological artifacts are not disturbed, a survey of archaeologically sensitive areas will be conducted prior to the construction of the DWS transmission line. Construction Noise: Noise from the construction of the DWS transmission line will be that typically associated with trucks and other construction equipment. Construction activities will be scheduled to take place during daylight hours only. Transmission Line Noise. During fair weather, the DWS transmission line will not emit audible noise above ambient noise levels. During wet weather, including heavy fog, when water droplets may form on the DWS transmission line conductors, audible noise may be emitted from the transmission line. Where the DWS transmission line is located alone within a right-of-way, the maximum audible noise level at the edge of the right-of-way will be approximately 42.5 dBA. Where the DWS transmission line is located with one or more other transmission lines, the audible noise at the edge of the right-of-way will vary between 36.7 dBA to 47.3 dBA depending on the number of transmission lines and the width of the right-of-way. The noise from the proposed DWS transmission line in foul weather will be similar to the sound of rain falling in a field. Therefore, transmission line noise may be masked by the rain during foul weather. The audible noise from the DWS transmission line will comply with the noise ordinances of Seminole County, the City of Casselberry, and the City of Longwood. The City of Sanford has a unique noise standard which establishes individual noise standards at different octave bands. Audible noise from the DWS transmission line will, in foul weather, exceed the standard in the four highest octave bands set forth in the noise standard; however, the sound of rainfall during foul weather also will exceed the standard at those four frequency bands. Furthermore, there is no practical way for the proposed transmission line to comply with the City of Sanford noise standard. Therefore, FPC seeks and is entitled to a variance from this portion of the Sanford noise standard. Radio and Television Interference. The proposed DWS transmission line will not interfere with frequency- modulated (FM) radio reception or the audio portion of television, which is transmitted on FM frequency. Amplitude-modulated (AM) radio transmission and the video portion of television transmission may be susceptible to interference from the DWS transmission line. The amount of interference is dependent upon the strength of the signals from the radio station and television station transmitters and the strength of the interference from the transmission line. During fair weather, radio transmission from over 90% of the Type A AM radio stations would be received without interference along the edge of the right-of-way. At a distance of 10 feet or more from the edge of the right-of- way, 100% of the transmissions from Type A stations would be received without interference. Sixty-three percent of the weaker Grade B AM radio stations would be received at a distance of 10 feet or greater from the edge of the right-of- way, and 97% of the Grade B stations would be received at a distance of 15 feet or more from the edge of the right-of-way. Natural radio interference from foul weather will mask any increase in interference from the transmission line during foul weather conditions. Transmission line interference with the video portion of television reception is very rare. The proposed DWS transmission line will not interfere with the audio or video television reception from either Grade A or Grade B television transmissions at the edge of the right-of-way in either fair or foul weather. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S complaints of radio and television interference and will take appropriate corrective action for impacts to audio or television interference caused by the proposed transmission line. Other Communications Equipment. The transmission line will not cause any interference with cable television, telephone, or cellular telephone reception. Electric and Magnetic Fields. The DWS transmission line, like all electrical equipment, will produce electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields from transmission lines are measured in kilovolts per meter (kV/m) and magnetic fields are measured in milligauss (mG). Standards for electric and magnetic fields produced by transmission lines are set forth in Chapter 17 Those standards limit the electric field for a 230 more than 8 kV/m within the right-of-way and 2 kV/m at the edge of the right-of- way, and the magnetic field to no more than 150 mG at the edge of the right-of- way. Calculations to demonstrate compliance with the standards in Chapter 17 at the edge of the right-of-way and calculations for magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way are made using the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) computer program. The electric and magnetic fields are calculated based on the design of the transmission line, the maximum operating voltage of the transmission line, the maximum current rating for the transmission line, and the minimum conductor-to-ground clearance. The DWS transmission line will comply with the electric and magnetic field standards in Chapter 17 detailed design of the DWS transmission line will not be finalized until the right-of-way is identified following certification, electric and magnetic field calculations for 14 typical and other probable transmission line configurations were performed for the proposed DWS transmission line. These calculations are included in Appendix G to the Application. All of the transmission line configurations for which calculations are reflected in Appendix G of the Application will be below the electric and magnetic field limits established by Chapter 17 Condition of Certification S developed during the final design of the DWS transmission line that is not included in Appendix G to the Application at least 90 days prior to the start of construction. Impacts of the DWS Transmission Line Upon the Environment: Water Resources, Vegetation, and Wildlife. Water Quality. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the water within or adjacent to the proposed corridor. Location of the DWS transmission line adjacent to or within existing cleared rights-of- way minimizes construction and clearing activities which could contribute to erosion and turbidity. Water quality treatment is currently provided for some existing access roads by roadside swales. Additionally, where required, turbidity barriers and revegetation will be used to control erosion and turbidity from placement of poles and associated construction. Finally, pursuant to Condition of Certification S water quality treatment methods if necessary to comply with state water quality standards. Water Quantity. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will not have an adverse impact on water quantity. No new access roads will be constructed using methods which could impact water quantity or water flow. Where existing access roads are upgraded, specifically south of the St. Johns River, culverts will be used to maintain or improve the existing flows, and compensating storage will be provided for any fill placed in the 10 or 100-year floodplain area. Consumptive Use. No groundwater or surface water withdrawals are anticipated which exceed the SJRWMD's permitting thresholds for consumptive use of water. Should such groundwater withdrawals occur, they will comply with the consumptive use requirements of Chapter 40C Navigation. Where the DWS transmission line crosses the St. Johns River, the height of the structures will ensure that there are no impacts to navigation since the conductor clearance will be consistent with that of the existing transmission line, which is being replaced in this area. Management and Storage of Surface Waters. The management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) system proposed for the DWS transmission line consists primarily of culverts and roadside swales where access road construction will take place. The system contains appropriate components which have been determined to meet the criteria and standards set forth in Chapters 40C-4 and 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the MSSW system will comply with the nonprocedural requirements of the SJRWMD. It will also operate effectively and not increase any potential for damage to offsite property nor endanger life, health, or property. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S professional engineer that it complies with the construction standards required by the Conditions of Certification for this transmission line. Lake Emma Substation. The construction of the Lake Emma Substation conversion will not adversely impact water resources adjacent to the site. Stormwater runoff from the driveway and substation site will be conveyed by curb and gutter to two separate retention areas. Both retention areas exceed the retention volume and recovery time criteria as required by the nonprocedural regulations of SJRWMD. SJRWMD and the City of Lake Mary, the two agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the Lake Emma Substation site, have reviewed the Lake Emma Substation Site Plan Review Package included as Appendix C to the Application and agree that the conversion construction of the Lake Emma Substation will meet all applicable nonprocedural requirements. Vegetation. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line will have a minimal impact upon the vegetation within the proposed corridor. Because the proposed transmission line will be located adjacent to or within existing rights-of-way, little new clearing will be required. Additionally, no new access roads are planned, further minimizing impacts due to access road construction. Where scrub habitat is found, restrictive clearing practices will be utilized if clearing is necessary. Wetlands. Impacts to wetlands from the location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line will also be minimal. No new access roads will be built which could result in loss of wetland areas. Furthermore, since existing rights-of- way will be utilized for the DWS transmission line, little, if any, clearing will be required. Where clearing is required in wetlands, restrictive clearing practices will be utilized. Wildlife Habitats. The location, construction, and operation of the proposed DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will not adversely affect wildlife or the conservation of any fish or wildlife habitats. The use of existing rights-of-way, and in some cases existing structures, greatly reduces any potential impacts to wildlife habitats. If clearing is needed, sensitive wildlife habitats such as scrub and wetland habitats will be cleared using restrictive clearing techniques, pursuant to Condition of Certification S Threatened and Endangered Species. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line will not result in harm or harassment to any threatened or endangered wildlife species. Other than the manatee habitat in the St. Johns River, none of the wildlife habitats within the proposed corridor are essential for the survival of any threatened, endangered, or other listed species. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S a survey for threatened and endangered species prior to the construction of the DWS transmission line. If any threatened or endangered species are determined to be present in the transmission line right-of-way and to be impacted by the construction of the transmission line, FPC will consult with DER, GFWFC, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the appropriate steps for minimizing, avoiding, or otherwise addressing those impacts. Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies. Attachment A to the Recommended Order sets forth the Conditions of Certification agreed to by the parties to this proceeding. Appendix 4 to the Conditions Certification sets forth the list of nonprocedural requirements applicable to the certification of the DWS transmission line, including the conversion construction of the Lake Emma Substation. Copies of these regulations were introduced into evidence by FPC at the certification hearing. Agencies, including DER, DCA, DOT, GFWFC, SJRWMD, ECFRPC, Volusia County, Seminole County, City of Sanford, and the City of Lake Mary, either through written stipulation or testimony, have agreed that the DWS transmission line will conform to these nonprocedural requirements if located, constructed, and maintained as set forth in the Application and in conformance with the Conditions of Certification. Furthermore, the City of Lake Mary and SJRWMD, the two agencies with jurisdiction over the Lake Emma Substation site, have agreed that the conversion construction at the Lake Emma Substation will comply with the nonprocedural requirements applicable to that facility if constructed in conformance with the site plan review package set forth as Appendix C to the Application. FPC and the agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the DWS transmission line have identified certain variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief from the nonprocedural requirements that may be needed for the location, construction, and maintenance of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor. These variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief are identified in Appendix 4 to the Conditions of Certification. Evidence admitted at hearing, including the location of the proposed corridor and the design and construction of the proposed DWS transmission line, together with the Conditions of Certification attached as Attachment A to this Recommended Order, support the issuance of the necessary variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief. It is also the position of DER that these variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief are appropriate and should be granted by the Siting Board. Compliance with Comprehensive Plans. The applicable comprehensive plans for Volusia County, Seminole County, City of Sanford, City of Lake Mary, City of Longwood, City of Casselberry, and the City of Winter Springs were introduced at the certification hearing. The location of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line are consistent with these local government comprehensive plans.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving FPC's DeBary-Winter Springs 230 Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Attachment A to this Recommended Order, and grant the variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief identified in Appendix 4 to the Conditions of Certification that may be necessary for the location, construction, or maintenance of the DWS transmission line. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela I. Smith, Attorney at Law Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, FL 33733-4042 Representing Applicant Richard W. Moore Carolyn S. Raepple Attorneys at Law 123 South Calhoun Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6526 Representing Applicant Richard Donelan Gary C. Smallridge Assistant General Counsels Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Representing DER Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Representing PSC Lucky T. Osho Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsels Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Representing DCA M. B. Adelson IV Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. MS-35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Representing DNR William H. Roberts Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Representing DOT James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Clare E. Gray Kathryn Mennella Assistant General Counsels St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32078 Representing SJRWMD Robert A. McMillan, County Attorney Lonnie A. Groot Assistant County Attorney Seminole County Services Building 1101 East First Street Sanford, FL 32771 Representing Seminole County Douglas M. Weaver Assistant County Attorney 123 West Indiana Avenue Deland, FL 32117 Representing Volusia County Gerald S. Livingston Attorney at Law Kreuter & Livingston, P.A. 200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150 Orlando, FL 32801 Representing East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Kenneth W. McIntosh, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, FL 32772-4848 Representing City of Casselberry Ned N. Julian, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, FL 32772-4848 Representing City of Lake Mary Gretchen R. H. Vose, City Attorney 2705 W. Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Representing City of Longwood William L. Colbert, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, FL 32772-4848 Representing City of Sanford Frank C. Kruppenbacher, City Attorney Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, FL 32801 Representing City of Winter Springs Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner is MCI Telecommunications Corporation, whose business address is Suite 400, 400 Perimeter Center Terrace NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30346. The Respondent is State of Florida, Department of General Service, whose address is 614 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The Intervenors are Microtel, Inc., whose address is 7100 West Camino Real, Suite 311, Boca Raton, Florida 33433, and United States Transmission Systems, whose business address is 320 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. MCI, Microtel, AT&T, Southland, and USTS are all interexchange carriers authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide, among other things, interstate WATS. MCI, AT&T, Southland, and Microtel are all interexchange carriers certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide, among other things, intermachine trunks and intrastate WATS. The interexchange carriers who participated in the November 5, 1987, negotiations were not advised prior to 9:00 a.m. on that day that the negotiations would consist of three rounds of price quotations with the prices quoted and each round being posted immediately on the board for review by the other carriers. The posting by the Division of Purchasing between 3:00 p.m. on November 2, 1987, and 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1987, of a draft memorandum from William Monroe to Glenn Mayne was not a bid tabulation. The State of Florida provides a communications system to state agencies, local governments, and public school districts through the SUNCOM Network. The SUNCOM Network consists of switches, access lines, and transmission facilities such as Intermachine Trunks, Interstate WATS, and Intrastate WATS. On the SUNCOM Network, long distance calls from one SUNCOM user to another SUNCOM user are completed on IMTs. Intrastate WATS facilities are used to place in-state long distance calls from a SUNCOM user to a party not a member of the SUNCOM Network. Interstate WATS facilities are used to complete out-of-state long distance calls. The Division of Communications desired to migrate the data users of the SUNCON Network from an analog environment to a digital environment. In order to do that, there had to be changes to the SUNCOM switching facilities and changes to the transmission facilities. In 1984, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for the switches. As a result of the RFP, the network went from 5 to 11 switches on December 1, 1986. The Division of Communications decided to utilize digital transmission facilities for both IMTs and Interstate WATS facilities on the newly configured network. In 1985, the Division of Communications negotiated a contract with MCI for the provision of the Interstate WATS. MCI made no protest to being awarded the contract by negotiation. AT&T was selected to provide the IMTs. The selection of AT&T and MCI was an interim measure to give the Division of Communications time to evaluate the transmission facilities for changes after the new network had stabilized. At the time of the final hearing, AT&T was the current provider for the IMTs and Intrastate WATS and MCI was the current provider for the Interstate WATS. On March 1, 1987, the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing sent a letter to seventeen suppliers of transmission facilities. The letter advised the suppliers that the Division of Communications was beginning an evaluation process to determine the viability of replacing some or all of the SUNCOM Network completion facilities with different suppliers. The suppliers were advised that a potential supplier did not have to service all routes or provide all facilities in order to be considered. Suppliers were requested to provide information concerning their transmission facilities. It was contemplated that the transmission facilities would be tested for approximately 90 days, during which time there would be consideration of reliability, maintainability, cost, and billing. The evaluation process also contemplated consideration of corporate viability and status, network typology, and references from existing customers similar in size to the State of Florida. The suppliers were cautioned that their participation in the evaluation process did not guarantee a contract and that it was possible that the evaluation process might not result in any contract. The suppliers were also advised that any contract would be negotiated. The March 18, 1987, letter is a request for information and was so considered by the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing. By April 9, 1987, the Department of General Services had received ten responses to the March 18, 1987, letter. A five member evaluation team was formed to review the April 9 responses from the suppliers, conduct the oral presentations, conduct the 90-day test and make recommendations. The evaluation committee was comprised of five employees of the Division of Communications. Division of Purchasing personnel did not actively participate on the evaluation committee because they wanted to remain impartial in the event the Division of Purchasing would later have to decide what method of procurement to use. Each potential supplier was scheduled for an oral presentation in late April or early May of 1987. Additional information about the proposals was obtained at those presentations. The suppliers were asked during oral presentation if their prices were open for negotiation. Ed Martinez of MCI said that MCI was open for negotiation. Of the carriers that survived the technical evaluation process, MCI had submitted the lowest price for all of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services. An in-service test of the ten suppliers was conducted from July 10 to September 30, 1987. One supplier, Lightnet, disconnected its transmission facility prior to the end of the test period. Robert Davis, chairman of the evaluation committee, used a numerical rating scheme to assist in evaluating the suppliers. The numerical point system was used as a way to make the evaluation process more objective. Additionally, when the evaluation was begun, the evaluation committee did not know whether contracts would be awarded through a formal acquisition process or through negotiation. The committee thought that an orderly ranking of the participants based on a rating scheme would be beneficial to Mr. Mayne in determining the method of acquisition. Mr. Mayne was unaware that a numerical point system was being used to evaluate the responses until he read the report prepared by the evaluation committee. On October 16, 1987, the evaluation committee issued the "Report on Alternate Suppliers for SUNCOM Network Transmission Facilities." The report outlined the evaluation process, presented the findings of the committee in the areas of pricing, billing, reliability-maintainability, corporate viability and general compliance by the suppliers, and made recommendations based on their findings. The evaluation committee concluded that, based on the prices submitted by the suppliers, it was possible for the state to reduce the cost of the operation of the network by over $368,000 per month. In considering the corporate viability of a supplier, the evaluation committee did not intend to conduct an indepth financial analysis. The evaluation committee wanted to determine whether the suppliers would have the ability to survive in a competitive environment for the contract period of three years. Both DGS' staff and MCI's financial analysis expert agreed that ITT, MCI, Microtel, AT&T and Southland were in a position to maintain their corporate viability for the contract period. The evaluation committee recognized that there was an opportunity to further reduce the cost of the network transmission facilities. The committee recommended that the IMTs, Interstate WATS and Intrastate WATS not be provided by one supplier. It was also recommended that Sprint, Digital Signal, and Lightnet be eliminated from further consideration. The report did not recommend specific suppliers. The committee recognized that if the point evaluation were used that the ranking would change as the result of further negotiations. They felt that if a decision was made not to use the point evaluation, then low cost would determine the suppliers. The report was presented to Glenn Mayne for his consideration. Based on his review of the report, Mr. Mayne determined that the State was currently paying far too much money for the transmission facilities; the State desired to have more than one supplier for the transmission facilities; and there was a group of potential alternate suppliers who could supply the State with transmission facilities which would be acceptable for the SUNCOM Network. As soon as Mr. Mayne became aware of the enormous potential savings to the State (and probably because of that awareness) things began to happen very quickly. A copy of the evaluation report was given to Bill Monroe. Mr. Mayne and Mr. Monroe discussed the report and Mr. Mayne expressed some concerns relating to the Division of Communications' need to migrate data signals to the network. Monroe asked that those concerns be put in writing. Mr. Mayne complied by memorandum dated October 28, 1987, in which he expressed his concerns relating to the discontinuance of Telpak and the Division of Communications' plans to migrate data to the voice network. The desire to address these concerns in the negotiations was due primarily to an AT&T proposal submitted in the late summer or early fall of 1987, which addressed these concerns. The Department had made no effort to obtain proposals similar to AT&T's from the other suppliers prior to requesting authority to negotiate from the Division of Purchasing. The Division of Purchasing deemed the October 28 memorandum to be the Division of Communications' formal request for the authority to negotiate. Mr. Monroe authorized the Division of Communications to negotiate contracts for the transmission facilities and services for the SUNCOM Network. The authorization to negotiate was granted because the providing of transmission facilities and services was a regulated portion of the telephone industry; the participants were limited to those which met Florida Public Service Commission guidelines for facility based operations; an indepth evaluation of the suppliers had been performed; and the delay incident to using any other procurement method would result in a substantial monetary loss to the State. The most significant factor in the decision to negotiate was the monetary loss which would result from delay. The authorization memorandum recommended that the negotiation be handled as a joint venture between the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing, and that the Division of Purchasing participate in development of the criteria for final selection of a supplier. Mr. Mayne discussed the method of negotiations to be used with Mr. Monroe and his staff. Based on his past experience with one-on-one negotiations, Mr. Mayne felt it would be fairer to put up everyone's prices on the board so that all suppliers could see each others prices. Mr. Mayne suggested that there be two verbal rounds of pricing and a final round in writing. Mr. Monroe concurred with Mr. Mayne's suggestion. It was felt this method of negotiations would result in better pricing for the State; could be done quickly and easily; and would reduce the chance of one supplier being favored over another. The intended decision of the Division of Purchasing to authorize the negotiation was posted in the Division of Purchasing beginning November 2, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. The posting was in the form of a post-dated, unsigned memorandum from the Division of Purchasing Director to the Division of Communications Director. Stamped at the bottom of the draft memorandum was the language required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, indicating that the failure to file a timely protest would constitute a waiver of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, proceedings. In large letters at the top of this posting was the word DRAFT. Each of the ten suppliers was notified that the Division of Purchasing had authorized negotiations and that this decision would be posted beginning November 2 through November 5, 1987. On November 2, 1987, Cherrie McClellan, a purchasing specialist for the Division of Purchasing, called MCI's Ed Martinez to advise him that the authorization for the Division of Communications to negotiate for the procurement of the SUNCOM Network alternate suppliers would be posted from 3:00 p.m. November 2, 1987 to 3:00 p.m. November 5, 1987. Ms. McClellan was unable to reach Mr. Martinez and left the message on his recording machine. On November 3, 1987, Mr. Martinez called Ms. McClellan to confirm the message. She told him that the posting was for the authority for the Division of Communications to negotiate and she assumed that the Division of Communications would be contacting him. In giving the telephone notification to MCI, the Division of Purchasing did not specifically advise MCI that its failure to file a timely protest of the Division of Purchasing's decision would waive MCI's rights to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On November 3, Mr. Martinez also called John Fain, a purchasing specialist supervisor with the Division of Purchasing. Mr. Fain advised Mr. Martinez that the Division of Purchasing had received a request for authority to negotiate from the Division of Communications, final negotiation could not begin until after the conclusion of the posting at 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1987, and he did not know if there would be another posting. On November 2, 1987, Mohammed Amirzadeh Asl, an electrical engineer with the Division of Communications, called Ed Martinez between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.; invited him to the negotiations on November 5; told him to bring his best prices for IMT routes and personnel who could make a decision; advised him he would have access during the negotiations to a phone but he had to use his credit card for any calls; and told him that DGS would be faxing him additional information concerning the negotiations. Mr. Amirzadeh also advised the other suppliers on November 2 of the negotiations and told them the same thing he had told Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez called Mr. Amirzadeh on November 3 and 4 with questions concerning the negotiations. On November 4, DGS faxed a memorandum to the suppliers concerning the criteria for the negotiations and the prices which had been quoted thus far to the Division of Communications. The memorandum advised the suppliers that preliminary discussions would start at 9:00 a.m. on November 5 at the Division of Communications and official negotiations would not start until 3:00 p.m. When Mr. Martinez, the MCI representative, came to the negotiations, he expected the Department to negotiate first with MCI to attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement for the solicited telecommunications facilities and services, and he expected the Department to negotiate with other suppliers only if the negotiations with MCI were unsuccessful. These expectations were based on MCI's status as one of the incumbent suppliers, on the fact that the Department appeared to very satisfied with MCI's performance, and on the fact that MCI had submitted the lowest price proposals for all of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services in its April 9, 1987, submittal. These expectations were unwarranted. The negotiations began at 9:00 a.m. on November 5,1987. Glenn Mayne started out the negotiations by discussing the criteria which had been faxed to the suppliers on November 4. The suppliers were also given copies of the evaluation committee report. The suppliers were advised that there would be three rounds of negotiations The first two rounds would be preliminary. The last round of negotiation was to take place prior to 5:00 p.m. There were some assumptions that the suppliers were given to use in presenting their prices. The suppliers' prices were to be for one T-1 on each route, and the costs were to include access charges. Additionally, if there was any difference between the quoted and actual access charges the difference would be the responsibility of the supplier. The format used by the Division of Communications for the negotiations on November 5, 1987, was not normally used by the Department. The first round of pricing was at 11:00 a.m. Each supplier gave its price orally and as the price was given it was written on a board in the room. An objection was raised by one of the suppliers that the method used could give the last supplier an advantage because he would have seen all of the other suppliers' prices prior to giving his price. The second round was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. The method of receiving prices was changed to accommodate the objections at the first round. In the second round each participant wrote his prices on a piece of paper, all the papers were picked up, the papers opened, and the prices were written on the board. Between the second and third rounds, each supplier was given an opportunity to meet with Mr. Mayne and his staff. Mr. Martinez met with Mr. Mayne and his staff at 3:00 p.m. During the meeting, Mr. Mayne advised Mr. Martinez that DGS would like two separate fibers for each T-1 route for IMTs. The price for IMTs given by Microtel was approximately $9.50 per mile month. The corresponding price for MCI was around $15 or $16 per mile month. Mr. Mayne advised Mr. Martinez that, in order for MCI to be considered for a portion of the IMTs, MCI's price needed to be around $10 per mile month. Mr. Mayne did not reference access charges when he discussed the $10 per mile month. One of the assumptions of the pricing for the negotiations was that all prices would include access charges. During the meeting, Mr. Mayne told Mr. Martinez that MCI's price for IMTs was almost twice as much as the other suppliers. Additionally during the 3:00 p.m. meeting between Mr. Mayne and Mr. Martinez, Mr. Mayne explained to Mr. Martinez that the suppliers would reconvene at 4:00 p.m. and report their final responses and the last round of pricing would be before 5:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the clear explanation of when the suppliers would have their last opportunity to give their final prices, Mr. Martinez was apparently confused because he thought (albeit erroneously) that he would have another opportunity to offer a price after the third round. Because he thought that as an incumbent supplier MCI would have another opportunity to offer a price after all of the other suppliers had given their final prices, Mr. Martinez made a judgment call not to offer MCI's best price during the third round of the negotiations. The best price that Mr. Martinez was authorized to offer on the interstate WATS was slightly higher than the best price actually offered by another supplier. Mr. Martinez appears to be the only one who was confused about the finality of the third round of negotiations. It would not have been fair to the other suppliers to have afforded MCI an opportunity to submit further prices after the third round. No one from the Department of General Services advised Mr. Martinez that he would be given an opportunity to present further pricing after the other suppliers had given their best and final prices. The suppliers reconvened at 4:00 p.m. A supplier inquired whether the prices could be given before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mayne asked the other suppliers whether they were ready and no one objected to giving the prices before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mayne emphasized the third round was the last round. The suppliers gave their final prices at 4:19 p.m. The suppliers were asked to sign the sheets which contained their prices for the last round. Microtel submitted the lowest price for IMTs at $8.89 per mile. MCI's price for the IMTs was $12.52 per mile. ITT submitted the lowest price for Interstate WATS facilities at $.1249 per minute. MCI submitted $.1285 per minute for the Interstate WATS facilities. MCI submitted the lowest price for Intrastate WATS facilities at $.1133 per minute. Microtel submitted $.1139 per minute for the Intrastate WATS facilities. At the conclusion of the final round of pricing, AT&T indicated that they had additional pricing which was contained in a proposal submitted to Mr. Mayne in late summer or early fall of 1987. Mr. Mayne thought that AT&T had submitted its final prices during the last round and he advised AT&T that he would not consider the prices that were not contained on the sheets submitted by AT&T during the last round. John Fain, representative for the Division of Purchasing at the negotiations, also stated that prices not placed on the board could not be accepted. Mr. Mayne advised the suppliers at the end of the negotiations that the Division of Communications would try to reach a decision by the close of business on November 6. At the end of negotiations on November 5, 1987, the Division of Communications returned to AT&T its proposal which had formed part of the basis for the Division of Communications' request for authority to negotiate after AT&T claimed pricing information contained in that proposal was proprietary. At the beginning of the negotiation session on November 5, Mr. Mayne was satisfied that each of the participants could provide the solicited transmission facilities and services. Since the AT&T proposal would not be considered, Mr. Mayne determined that the contract should be awarded based on lowest cost for each of the transmission facilities. Prior to acting on this determination, Mr. Mayne discussed the matter with the Division of Purchasing. The Division of Purchasing concurred in the decision to award on the basis of lowest cost. The contract awards were based on low price and not the total points assigned to the providers based upon the numeric rating system used by the evaluation committee in the evaluation report. Mr. Amirzadeh telephoned Mr. Martinez on November 6, 1987, to inform MCI that the Department intended to award the Intrastate WATS facilities to MCI. Mr. Martinez advised Mr. Amirzadeh that the prices submitted by MCI were package prices. MCI later contacted the Department and advised the Department that the MCI price for Intrastate WATS was a package price. MCI withdrew its offering for Intrastate WATS. On being advised that MCI was withdrawing its offer for the Intrastate WATS facilities, the Department decided to award the Intrastate WATS facilities to the next lowest provider, which was Microtel. On November 10, 1987, the Department issued Communications Service Authorizations (CSAs) to Microtel for the Intrastate WATS facilities and IMTs, and to ITT for the Interstate WATS facilities. These CSAs are the only contracts to be executed by the State of Florida for the solicited telecommunications services and facilities. The CSAs were signed by the Division of Communications. By contracting with Microtel for IMTs, Mr. Mayne estimated there would be a cost savings of $216,000 per month. The cost savings associated with contracting with Microtel for the Intrastate WATS is approximately $98,000 a month. It is estimated the State will save approximately $105,000 per month by contracting with ITT for Interstate WATS. MCI filed a notice of intent to protest the contract awards on November 12, 1987. MCI filed its formal written protest on November 23, 1987. In acquiring these transmission facilities the Department is leasing spaces on the supplier's fiber optic cable. The spaces within the cable are analogous to time envelopes, which may carry information or no information, being shot down the fiber optic cable. The Department leases the spaces in multiples of T-1s. A T-1 represents 1.544 million spaces per second. When the Department leases a T-1, the Department has a dedicated physical connection and the information that will be contained in the spaces or time envelopes will always appear in the same space and in the same time. The Department leases the fiber facilities on a 24-hour-a-day basis, because it is more economical than leasing for shorter periods of time. While the space is being leased to the State, no other customer of the transmission facilities supplier can use that space. The functions of the facilities can also be described as follows. The interstate WATS service, the intrastate WATS service, and the IMT service for which the Department contracted, involve the receipt by the carrier of an originating call from a SUNCOM switch and the transmission of that call over the carrier's owned or leased facilities, including access facilities leased by the carrier from the local exchange company, to its destination either outside or inside the State of Florida or to another SUNCOM switch. In addition to the lease of spaces, the Department will be acquiring maintenance and billing services and, in the case of the WATS facilities, it will also be procuring management reports concerning the location of calls. For the facilities used to provide interstate WATS service, intrastate WATS service, and IMT service, the State of Florida will not have physical access to, the ability to monitor traffic over, maintenance or repair responsibility for, or rights to use particular components of those facilities. This applies to both the carriers' facilities and the access facilities leased by the carrier from local exchange companies to connect the SUNCOM switches and the carriers' facilities. For the facilities used to provide interstate WATS service, intrastate WATS service, and IMT service, the long distance carrier will have the responsibility for maintenance and repair of those facilities, the right to replace or upgrade those facilities in a fashion transparent to the State, and the right to determine the physical path through those facilities over which information from the State of Florida would be transmitted. This applies to both the carrier's facilities and the access facilities leased by the carrier from the local exchange companies to connect the SUNCOM switches to the facilities. The Department interprets Rule Chapter 13C-2, Florida Administrative Code, to apply to the acquisition of nonregulated communications equipment. The forms referred to in Rule 13C-2.008 are forms which State agencies use in requesting approval from the Division of Communications for the purchase or lease of nonregulated communications services or equipment. Rule Chapter 13C-1, Florida Administrative Code, has been interpreted by the Department to deal with a regulated environment. The procurement at issue in this proceeding is in a regulated environment. The criteria and procedures described in Chapter 13C-2, Florida Administrative Code, were not used in this procurement of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services. The negotiation process itself was negotiated in a fair and equitable manner. Each supplier was advised at the beginning of the negotiation session that there would be three rounds of pricing. There has been no claim by MCI that any of the suppliers had knowledge prior to 9:00 a.m. on November 5, 1987, of the actual negotiation process that would be used. When an objection was made by one of the suppliers to the method of accepting pricing in round one, the method of accepting prices was changed so that no supplier would have an advantage over another. It was made clear that the third round was the last round in which the suppliers could submit their best and final offers. The Department did not consider offers which were not submitted during the third round. The Department attempted to provide competition in the negotiation process by having the suppliers compete against each other in the pricing rounds. No supplier was treated more favorably than another. MCI was never told that it would be awarded the contracts. MCI made no protest or objection to the negotiation process prior to or on November 5, 1987.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5338BID The following are my specific ruling on all of the findings of fact proposed by all of the parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: All generally accepted, but some details have been omitted as either subordinate or unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19: Accepted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 26 and 27: Accepted. Paragraph 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: Rejected a subordinate and unnecessary Paragraphs 31 and 32: Accepted: Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39: Accepted. Paragraphs 40 and 41: Rejected because the analogies fail. Paragraph 42: Accepted. Paragraph 43: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Findings proposed by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18: Accepted. Paragraph 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: First sentence accepted. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 46: First four sentences accepted. Last sentence is a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 47 and 48: Accepted. Findings proposed by the Intervenors: Paragraph 1: Rejected as statement of position rather than proposed finding. Paragraph 2 and 3: Accepted. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10: Some of the details proposed in these paragraphs have been included, but most are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, details. Paragraphs 12 add 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 16 and 17: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Some of the details proposed in these paragraphs have been included, but most have been rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 28: Accepted. Paragraph 29, 30, 31 and 32: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38: Accepted. Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 50 and 51: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 52 and 53: Accepted. Paragraph 54: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 55: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 56: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 57, 58 and 59: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 60 and 61: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Kirkland, Esquire Sandra D. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Richard D. Melson, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Patrick K. Wiggins, Esquire Wings Solcum Benton, Esquire Ranson & Wiggins 325 West Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 1657 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue In this proceeding, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) seeks approval to construct and operate 470 MW of natural gas-fired advanced design combined cycle (NGCC) generating capacity at its proposed Polk County Site. Additionally, FPC seeks a determination that the Polk County Site has the environmental resources necessary to support an ultimate capacity of 3,000 MW of combined cycle generating capacity fueled by a combination of natural gas, coal-derived gas and distillate fuel oil. Such an ultimate site capacity certification may be granted pursuant to Section 403.517, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Project Site and Vicinity FPC's proposed Polk County Site is located on approximately 8,200 acres in southwest Polk County, Florida, in an area dominated by phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site is approximately 40 miles east of Tampa, 3 miles south of Bartow and 3.5 miles northwest of Fort Meade. Homeland, the nearest unincorporated community, lies about one mile to the northeast of the site boundary. The Polk County Site is bounded on the north by County Road (CR) 640 and along the southeast and south by a U.S. Agri-Chemical Corporation (USAC) mine. CR 555 runs north-south through the site. The Polk County Site is comprised of land in four different phases of mining activity: mine pits, clay settling ponds associated with phosphate mining, land which has been mined and reclaimed, and land which has yet to be mined. Approximately one-half of the Polk County Site is subject to mandatory reclamation. Land uses adjacent to the Polk County Site consist almost entirely of phosphate mining activities. One mobile home is located at the intersection of CR 640 and CR 555 approximately 2 miles from the proposed location of the principal generating facilities. General Project Description The initial generating capacity at the Polk County Site will be NGCC units. Under what has been designated as the Case A' scenario, ultimate site development will consist of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, for a total of 3,000 MW. Under the alternative Case C scenario, the ultimate site capacity would consist of 3,000 MW of all NGCC capacity. The Case C scenario was initially developed as the worst case scenario for the socioeconomic impact analysis (i.e., the one that would produce the least amount of economic benefit.) The combined cycle units which initially burn natural gas can be modified to burn coal gas if necessary to meet changes in fuel supply or pricing. However, under the proposed ultimate site capacity, CGCC generating capacity will be limited to a maximum of 2,000 MW out of the total of 3,000 MW. At ultimate buildout the major facilities at the Polk County Site will include the plant island, cooling pond, solid waste disposal areas, and brine pond. The plant island will be located on mining parcels SA-11, SA-13 and the northerly portion of SA-12. The plant island ultimately will contain the combined cycle power block, oil storage tanks, water and sewage treatment facilities, coal gasification facilities, coal pile and rail loop, and coal handling facilities. The cooling pond at ultimate buildout will be located in mining parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, with a channel through N-11C. Mining parcels N-11C, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes and P-2, if not used as a solid waste disposal area, will be used as water crop areas to collect rainfall for supplying the cooling pond. The brine pond will receive wastewater reject from the reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment system and will be located on mining parcel SA-9. Two solid waste disposal areas (SWDA) are planned for ultimate development of the Polk County Site. The SWDAs will be mining parcel SA-8 initially and mining parcel P-2 in later phases, if necessary. Coal gasification slag will be the predominant solid waste to be disposed of in the SWDAs. Other areas included within the Polk County Site are mine parcels N- 11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East, Tiger Bay, the northerly 80 acres of N-9, SA-10 and the southerly 225 acres of SA-12. Along with providing a buffer for the Polk County Site facilities, these parcels also will provide drainage to Camp Branch and McCullough Creek. Linear facilities associated with the initial 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site will include a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. Site Selection A comprehensive process was used to select the Polk County Site. The goal of that process was to identify a site which could accommodate 3,000 MW of generating capacity and offer characteristics including: (1) multi-unit and clean coal capability; (2) technology and fuel flexibility; (3) cost effectiveness; (4) compatibility with FPC's commitment to environmental protection; (5) ability to comply with all government regulations; and (6) consistency with state land use objectives. The site selection process included the entire State of Florida. Participants in the site selection process included a variety of FPC departments, environmental and engineering consultants, and an eight-member Environmental Advisory Group (EAG) composed of environmental, educational, and community leaders. In October, 1990, with the concurrence of the EAG, the Polk County Site was selected. The ultimate basis for the selection of the Polk County Site was the disturbed nature of the site as a result of extensive phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site also is compatible with FPC's load center and transmission line network, and is accessible to rail and highway transportation systems. PSC Need Determination On February 25, 1992, the PSC issued Order No. 25805 determining the need for the first 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site. The PSC concluded in its order that the first two combined cycle units (470 MW) at the Polk County Site will contribute to FPC's electric system reliability and integrity. It also concluded that the first two units would enable FPC to meet winter reserve margin criteria and to withstand an outage of its largest unit at the time of system peak demand. The PSC stated that it was important for FPC to secure a site to meet future needs and that the first two units would contribute toward this goal. Basis for Ultimate Site Capacity The Site Certification Application (SCA), including the Sufficiency Responses, addressed the impacts associated with 3,000 to 3,200 MW of generating capacity under several scenarios. FPC eliminated or modified several of the scenarios by filing a Notice of Limitations which addressed the capacity and environmental effects of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity at the Polk County Site. Throughout the SCA, Sufficiency Responses and Notice of Limitations, the capacity constraints and environmental effects were analyzed under a worst case scenario, i.e., the maximum environmental effects that could be expected at ultimate site capacity. An ultimate site capacity determination will significantly reduce the time and expense associated with processing supplemental applications for future units at the Polk County Site under the expedited statutory procedures of the Power Plant Siting Act. This will allow FPC to respond more quickly to changes in growth and demand. An ultimate site capacity determination also provides FPC the assurance that the Polk County Site has the land, air and water resources to support future coal gas-fired generating capacity. Project Schedule and Costs Construction of the initial 470 MW of NGCC generating capacity is scheduled to begin in 1994. These units will go into operation in 1998 and 1999. Based on current load forecasts, it is expected that approximately one 250 MW unit will be added every other year to the Polk County Site. Under this schedule, ultimate site development of 3,000 MW would occur about 2018. Capital investment for the Polk County Site is expected to be approximately $3.4 billion for the 1,000 MW NGCC/2000 MW CGCC Case A' scenario and approximately $1.7 billion for the all NGCC Case C scenario. Project Design Generating units for the Polk County Site will be advanced design combined cycle units firing natural gas and/or coal gas, with low sulfur fuel oil as backup. Each combined cycle unit will consist of one or two combustion turbines (CT), a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) for each CT and one or two steam turbines (ST). The first 470 MW of generating capacity will consist of two CTs firing natural gas, two HRSGs and one or two STs. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will consist of 12 CTs, 12 HRSGs, and 6 to 12 STs. A combined cycle unit is a generating system that consists of two sequential generating stages. In the first stage, the natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil is burned to operate the CT. Hot exhaust gas from the CT is passed through the HRSG to produce steam to operate the ST. The CT and steam from the HRSG can be arranged to drive individual generators or a single generator. In later phases of the Polk County Site, up to 2,000 MW of combined cycle generation may be fired on coal gas. The combined cycle units that were initially constructed to operate on natural gas can be modified to operate on coal gas. Under the Case A' scenario, two coal gasification plants would be built to produce coal gas for the combined cycle units. Associated with the coal gasification phase of the project will be the expansion of the plant island to accommodate the storage and handling of coal. Coal will be transported onsite by railroad. A rail loop for coal trains will be constructed on the plant island. It will be sized to accommodate a 100-car coal train. The coal storage area and limestone stockout will be located within the coal loop. Limestone is used in the coal gasification process as a fluxing agent to improve the viscosity of the coal slag, a by-product of the coal gasification process. The coal storage area, including the coal piles and emergency coal stockout system, will be lined with an impervious liner, and runoff from the coal storage area will be recycled to the coal gasification plants. The cooling pond for the Polk County Site will be located north and east of the plant island. Water from the cooling pond will be used for producing steam and condenser cooling. The cooling pond will be constructed initially in mining parcel N-16 and then in parcels N-15 and N-11B for later phases. These areas are mined-out pits which are surrounded by earthen dams. These dams will be upgraded where required to provide stability equivalent to the requirements of Chapter 17-672, Florida Administrative Code, for phosphate dams. Soil and Foundation Stability To evaluate the existing soil conditions at the Polk County Site, more than 165 test borings were made. The plant island is an existing mine pit which has been partially filled with sand tailings from phosphate mining operations. Underlying the sand is the Hawthorn formation which is often used as the base for deep load bearing foundations. Foundations for the heavier loads of power plant facilities will require pile foundations or similar types of deep foundations that will extend into the Hawthorn formation. The potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site was investigated by reviewing historic sinkhole records, aerial photographs, well drillers' logs, and by drilling three deep borings at the site. The investigation demonstrated that the potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site is low and acceptable for this type of construction. Construction Activities Construction of the Polk County Site will be phased over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. The development of the Polk County Site is expected to take place in seven phases. Changes in the scope or sequence of the individual phases may occur depending on capacity needs over time. During Phase I, the initial earthwork and dewatering activities required for the construction of the plant island and cooling pond will take place. The initial cooling pond and plant island area will be dewatered and fill will be placed in SA-11 and SA-13 for the initial power plant construction. Water from the dewatering activities will be conserved by storage in mining parcels SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, N-15 and the northerly part of SA-12, except for quantities used in IMC's recirculation system. Clay consolidation will commence for other parcels, such as N-11A, N-11B, N-11C, N-13 and N-9B. Phosphate mining and related operations will still function in parcels P-2, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes, and N-9. The initial vertical power plant construction for the first 470 MW of generating capacity will take place in Phase II. Water stored in Phase I, along with reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, will be used to fill the cooling pond in parcel N-16. Any excess reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, if necessary, will be stored in the eastern portion of N-16. Mining parcels SA-10, the southerly part of SA-12, and a portion of the offsite Estech Silver City plant site will be configured for drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek. Mining parcel SA-8 will be prepared to receive solid waste and parcel SA-9 will be prepared to receive wastewater from the RO system and neutralization basin. Wildlife habitat creation and enhancement will begin in parcels N-9B and N-13. Phase III of the Polk County Site represents the operation of the power plant from 235 MW to 1,500 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. The plant island, which will contain the generating units, will be located on mining parcels SA-11 and SA-13. The cooling pond will be located in N-16 and will receive reclaimed water from the City of Bartow and water crop from mining parcels P-3, Phosphoria, P-2, Triangle Lakes, N-15, N-11B, N-11C, the northerly end of SA-12 and the east end of N-16. Phase IV will encompass the development of the Polk County Site from 1,500 MW to 2,000 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. In conjunction with the additional generating units onsite, the cooling pond in N-16 will be enlarged to 1,219 acres. Other portions of the Polk County Site would remain the same as in Phase III. During Phase V, coal gasification is projected to be introduced to the Polk County Site. Generating capacity will be increased to 2,250 MW of which 1,000 MW are projected to be NGCC and the remaining 1,250 MW will be CGCC. To accommodate the coal gasification facilities, the northerly portion of SA-12 would be filled. The balance of the site would remain as described in Phase IV. During Phase VI, the generating capacity at the Polk County Site is projected to increase from 2,250 MW to 3,000 MW. This generating capacity will be a combination of 1,000 MW on NGCC and 2,000 MW on CGCC. During this phase, the cooling pond will be enlarged to 2,260 acres and will include parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, and a channel through N-11C. Earthwork will be required in N-15 and N-11B to repair and improve dams, and add slope protection on the dam inner faces and seeding on the exterior faces. Phase VII will be the final phase of the Polk County Site. During this phase, if the solid waste disposal area in mining parcel SA-8 were to become full it would be closed and mining parcel P-2 would be prepared to receive solid waste from the power plant operations. Parcels P-3 and Phosphoria will be available for mitigation, if necessary, as a result of activities in parcel P-2. This phase might not occur if coal slag is successfully recycled. Fuel Supply Fuel for the initial 470 MW of combined cycle generation will consist primarily of natural gas, with light distillate fuel oil as backup. Natural gas will be delivered by pipeline to the Polk County Site at a rate of 3.75 million cubic feet per hour. FPC currently plans to receive natural gas from the proposed Sunshine Pipeline for which certification is being sought in a separate proceeding. The Application for the Sunshine Pipeline was filed with DEP in August 1993. The other source for natural gas will be the backup natural gas pipeline which is being certified in this proceeding as an associated linear facility. Fuel oil will be delivered to the site by tanker truck, and enough fuel oil will be stored onsite for three days of operation for each combined cycle unit. At ultimate development, three 4-million gallon oil tanks will be located on the Polk County Site. All fuel handling and storage facilities, including unloading areas, pump areas, piping system, storage tanks, and tank containment areas will meet the requirements of DEP Chapter 17-762, Florida Administrative Code, and applicable National Fire Prevention Association Codes. At ultimate site development, the combined cycle units would use both natural gas and coal gas as primary fuels, and fuel oil as a backup fuel. As with the initial phase of operation, natural gas will be supplied by pipeline. At 1,000 MW of NGCC capacity, six to eight million cubic feet per hour of natural gas will be required. Coal for the coal gasification units will be delivered by railroad. For 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 tons of coal a day will be required. Linear Facilities The initial 470 MW of NGCC generation includes three associated linear facilities: a 230-kV transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. 230-kV Transmission Line The 230-kV transmission line will be routed from the existing FPC Barcola Substation within the Polk County Site to the FPC Ft. Meade Substation adjacent to CR 630. The transmission line corridor is approximately 1,000 feet wide within the Polk County Site boundary and narrows to 500 feet as the corridor leaves the site. The transmission line corridor follows several linear facilities including an existing transmission line right-of-way, CR 555 and CR 630. Land uses along the corridor are primarily phosphate mining, agricultural and industrial. Wetlands within the transmission line corridor are minimal and are associated primarily with roadside ditches. Where the transmission line crosses McCullough Creek, the creek will be spanned. The 230-kV transmission line will be constructed using single shaft tubular steel poles with a double circuit configuration for two 230-kV circuits. The transmission line structures will range in height from 110 feet to 145 feet. The conductor for the transmission line is a 1590 ACSR conductor that is approximately 1.54 inches in diameter. Conductor span lengths between structures will range from 500 to 900 feet. The transmission line will be constructed in six phases. During the first phase, the right-of-way will be cleared. Clearing in upland areas will be done using mowers and other power equipment. Clearing in wetlands, if necessary, will be accomplished by restrictive clearing techniques. After the right-of-way has been cleared, existing structures which will be replaced with new transmission line structures will be removed by unbolting them from their foundations and removing the structures with a crane. Foundations for new transmission line structures will be vibrated into the ground using a vibratory hammer or placed into an augured hole and backfilled. After the foundations are in place, new structures will be assembled on the foundations using a crane. Insulation and pole hardware will be mounted on the structures after erection. In the fifth phase of construction, conductors will be placed on a structure by pulling the conductors through a stringing block attached to the structure. During the final phase of construction, the structures will be grounded and any construction debris will be removed from the right-of-way. The construction of the 230-kV transmission line is estimated to require approximately 17 weeks. Construction of the transmission line will meet or exceed standards of the National Electrical Safety Code; FPC transmission design standards; Chapter 17- 814, Florida Administrative Code; and the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, where applicable. Electric and magnetic fields from the 230-kV transmission line will comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 17-814, Florida Administrative Code. Audible noise from the transmission line should occur only during rainy weather and will not exceed 39.1 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. Since the transmission line is not located near many residences, interference to television and AM radio reception should be minimal. If interference does occur, it can be identified easily and corrected on an individual basis. Backup Natural Gas Pipeline The backup natural gas pipeline will originate at the Florida Gas Transmission pipeline in Hillsborough County at CR 39. The backup pipeline corridor runs generally east for 18 miles until it enters the Polk County Site at the western boundary of the plant island. The pipeline corridor is 1,000 feet wide and it generally follows linear facilities such as Jameson Road, a Tampa Electric Company transmission line, the CSX Railroad, Durrance Road, and Agricola Road. Several subalternate corridors are proposed in Polk County where the backup natural gas pipeline crosses phosphate mining land. The subalternate corridors, all of which are proposed for certification, are necessary to maintain flexibility in routing the backup natural gas pipeline around active mining operations. The uses of land crossed by the backup natural gas pipeline corridor consist primarily of phosphate mining and some agriculture. There are only two areas of residential land use along the corridor, one along Jameson Road in Hillsborough County, and the other near Bradley Junction along Old Highway 37 in Polk County. Ecological areas crossed by the natural gas pipeline corridor include a portion of Hookers Prairie in Polk County, some isolated wetlands associated with phosphate mining activities, and the South Prong Alafia River near CR 39 in Hillsborough County. The backup natural gas pipeline will consist of a metering facility, a scraper trap for pipeline cleaning, a maximum 30-inch buried pipeline made of high strength steel, a pressure regulating station, a cathodic protection system for corrosion control, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor and operate the pipeline. The pipe to be used for the natural gas pipeline will be manufactured in accordance with standards specified in 49 CFR 192 and the industrial standards referenced therein. Pipe thickness will vary depending on the population of the area crossed. External corrosion control for the pipe will be provided by an external coating around the pipe and a cathodic protection system designed to prevent electrochemical corrosion of the pipe. Pipeline sections will be hydrostatically tested before leaving the factory to 125 percent of the design pressure. Activities associated with the construction of the backup natural gas pipeline will include survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, stringing of the pipe, bending, lineup welding and nondestructive testing, ditching, lowering in of pipeline sections, backfilling, tying in pipeline sections, testing and right-of-way restoration. Construction of the pipeline will take place typically within a 75 foot-wide right-of-way. A wider right-of-way may be required where specialized construction activities, such as jack and bore methods, are used. After construction, the natural gas pipeline will have a permanent 50-foot right-of-way. Where the pipeline crosses federal and state highways or water courses, directional drilling or jack and bore construction methods will be used to minimize disturbance. Where the pipeline crosses the South Prong Alafia River, directional drilling will be used to locate the pipeline underneath the river bed. Pipeline welding will be done by highly skilled personnel who have been qualified in accordance with 49 CFR 192. Pipeline welds will be visually inspected and a percentage of the welds will be x-rayed for analysis. Once the pipeline is constructed, buried and tie-in welds completed, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested. Hydrostatic testing will use water with a minimum test pressure of 125 percent of maximum operating pressure. Water for hydrostatic testing will be pumped from and returned to the Polk County Site cooling pond. Construction of the pipeline will comply with Title 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipelines: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; Chapter 25-12, Florida Administrative Code; Safety of Gas Transportation by Pipeline; and the FDOT Utility Accommodation Guide. After construction of the backup natural gas pipeline, the right-of- way will be restored and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way will be maintained. Line markers will be located along the pipeline at regular intervals and warning signs will be posted where the pipeline crosses roads, railroads, or stream crossings. The estimated cost for the pipeline construction is $611,100 per mile, or $11.2 million for the 18.2 mile pipeline route. Reclaimed Water Pipeline The reclaimed water pipeline will run from the City of Bartow to the cooling pond near the eastern side of the Polk County Site. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor follows the CSX Railroad and U.S. Highway 17/98 south from the southerly Bartow city limit turning west toward the Polk County Site just south of Homeland. Land uses along the corridor include phosphate mining, commercial sites, rural residences and recreation. The corridor does not cross any environmentally sensitive habitats. The reclaimed water pipeline consists of a buried pipe, 24 to 36 inches in diameter, butterfly valves about every mile along the pipeline, and a flow meter. Pumping of reclaimed water will be provided by the Bartow Sewage Treatment Plant. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is similar to that of the natural gas pipeline and includes the following activities: survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, ditching or trenching construction, stringing of the pipe and pipe installation, back filling, hydrostatic testing, and right-of-way restoration. Where the pipeline crosses state or federal highways or railroads, the pipe will be installed by using jack and bore construction. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is estimated to cost $500,000 per mile or $5,000,000 for the total length of the pipeline. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline will comply with the standards in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, and the EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Manual. The pipeline will be hydrostatically tested prior to operation. Corrosion control of the pipeline will depend on the material used for the pipeline and the soil conditions. If a polyethylene or a polyvinylchloride material is used, no corrosion control will be necessary. If ductile iron is used, the soil will be tested for corrosive properties and, if necessary, the pipeline will be protected from corrosion with a poly wrap material. Solid Waste Disposal Various types of solid waste will be generated by the operation of the Polk County Site. Depending upon the type of solid waste, disposal may be made in the onsite solid waste disposal areas or it may be disposed of offsite. Waste inlet air filters from the combustion turbines and general waste, such as office waste, yard waste and circulating water system screenings, will be recycled or disposed of offsite at the Polk County North Central Landfill. Solid waste from the well water pretreatment and blowdown pretreatment will be disposed of onsite in the solid waste disposal area to be constructed in mining parcel SA-8. Sulfur, a by-product of coal gasification, will be of marketable grade and will be stored in a molten state onsite and delivered to buyers by rail car or tanker truck. Slag, a by-product of coal gasification, will be the largest volume of solid waste generated at the Polk County Site. Slag is potentially marketable and FPC will make efforts to recycle this by-product as construction aggregate. If slag is not marketable, it will be disposed of in the onsite solid waste disposal areas initially in mining parcel SA-8 and later, if necessary, in parcel P-2. Low volume spent acidic and basic solutions produced in the regeneration of demineralizer resin bed ion exchanges during operation of the facility will be treated in an elementary neutralization unit to render them non-hazardous. Other potentially hazardous waste will be tested and if determined hazardous will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. Onsite disposal of slag, and well water and blowdown pretreatment solids will be made in the solid waste disposal areas to be constructed in parcels SA-8 and later, if necessary, P-2. These parcels are clay lined impoundments that have clays generally 20 to 40 feet thick. Prior to disposal of any solid waste in a clay settling area, that area will be drained and the clays consolidated. The clays will be probed and if the clay thickness is less than 10 feet it will be refurbished or patched with a synthetic liner. Additionally, a geotextile net will be installed to provide tensile strength to the upper layer of clay. Perimeter leachate collection piping will be installed. Leachate in the interior of the solid waste disposal areas will be monitored and collected by the use of well points to maintain the leachate head at no greater than 4 feet. The solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8 will be closed by installing a two-foot thick soil cover which will be seeded and graded to provide water crop to parcel N-16. At closure, the leachate level will be pumped down to minimize the residual leachate head. The clay which lines the base of the solid waste disposal areas decreases in permeability as it consolidates and the solids content of the clay increases. In the first 20 to 50 years of consolidation, the hydraulic gradient of the clay is reversed and water will drain upward. Analysis of the clay shows that it would take 60 to 100 years for leachate to seep through the clay liner. After closure and capping of the solid waste disposal area occurs and the leachate residual head is pumped out, leachate is not expected to break through the liner. Based on the design of the solid waste disposal areas and the analysis of the clay, the solid waste disposal areas in parcels SA-8, and later P-2, should provide equivalent or superior protection to that of a Class I landfill under Chapter 17-7.01, Florida Administrative Code. Industrial Wastewater The Polk County Site is designed to be a zero discharge facility. There will be no offsite surface water discharge of contaminated stormwater or cooling pond blowdown. Cooling pond blowdown will be treated first by a lime/soda ash softening pretreatment system. A portion of the softened effluent will be routed to the cooling pond and a portion will be treated further by reverse osmosis (RO). High quality water from the RO system will be reused in the power plant as process water. The reject wastewater from the RO system will be sent to the brine pond for evaporation. In later stages of the Polk County Site operation, the RO reject wastewater will be concentrated prior to disposal in the brine pond. The brine pond will be constructed in parcel SA-9, a waste clay settling pond. Parcel SA-9 has thick waste clay deposits which will act as a liner. A synthetic liner will be placed along the interior perimeter of the brine pond out to a point where the clay is at least 10 feet thick. The synthetic liner will prevent seepage of the brine through the embankment of the brine pond and will provide added protection near the perimeter of the brine pond where the clay liner is thinner. Groundwater Impacts/Zone of Discharge The brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will be located in waste clay settling ponds with thick clay liners. They will be constructed to minimize, if not eliminate, seepage of brine and leachate to groundwater. If brine or leachate should seep through the clay liner, dispersion and dilution will reduce chemical concentrations so that neither primary nor secondary groundwater quality standards will be exceeded at the boundary of the zone of discharge. A zone of discharge has been established for the solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8, the brine pond in parcel SA-9, and the cooling pond in parcels N-11B, N-15 and N-16. The zone of discharge will extend horizontally 100 feet out from the outside toe of the earthen dam along a consolidated boundary surrounding these facilities and vertically downward to the top of the Tampa member of the Hawthorn Group. A groundwater monitoring plan will be implemented to monitor compliance with groundwater standards at the boundary of the zone of discharge. Surficial Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The Polk County Site is located along the divide between the Peace River Drainage Basin and the Alafia River Drainage Basin. Water bodies near the site include McCullough Creek, Camp Branch, Six Mile Creek, Barber Branch, and South Prong Alafia River. Mining has disrupted or eliminated natural drainage patterns from the Polk County Site to these water bodies. Currently the only drainage from the Polk County Site to these water bodies is through federally permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. To assess the impact to the surficial hydrology of the Polk County Site and surrounding water bodies, the baseline condition was assumed to be the surficial hydrology which would be present under current mandatory reclamation plans for the mining parcels onsite and offsite. The baseline for non-mandatory parcels was assumed to be the minimum reclamation standards under the DEP/Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BOMR) (formerly within the Department of Natural Resources) Old Lands Program and the baseline for non-mandatory offsite parcels was considered to be the existing condition. The one water body onsite for which the baseline condition presently exists is Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released. The baseline condition for the Polk County Site ultimately would include elimination of seepage from N-16 to Tiger Bay and removal of the NPDES outfall weir from Tiger Bay to Camp Branch. These conditions will result in a lowering of the water table in Tiger Bay and the drying out of wetlands in that area. Under current reclamation plans, water bodies also will be created in parcels SA-12 and SA-11. Other than the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East, DEP, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and Polk County have not claimed jurisdiction over any of the water bodies onsite within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted. The major construction activities which may impact offsite surface water bodies are the dewatering activities associated with the initial phase of construction. During this period, parcels SA-11, SA-13 and N-16 will be dewatered to allow earth-moving activities to take place. Dewatering effluent will be stored onsite, reused in IMC's recirculation system, or discharged in the event of above-average rainfall. After the earthwork is complete, the water will be returned to N-16. Based on this construction scenario, no adverse impact to offsite surface water bodies is expected from the construction activities associated with the Polk County Site. The Polk County Site has been designed to function as a "zero discharge" facility. No surface water will be withdrawn from or discharged to any offsite surface water body as a result of plant operations. Certain non- industrial areas within the Polk County Site will be designed, however, to provide offsite drainage to enhance flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. Flow to McCullough Creek will be enhanced by drainage from parcel SA-10, an offsite portion of the Estech Silver City Plant Site, and the southerly portion of parcel SA-12. Drainage from parcels N-11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East and Tiger Bay will enhance flows to Camp Branch. Additionally, FPC has agreed to explore the possibility of restoring drainage to Six Mile Creek if onsite water cropping produces more water than FPC needs for power plant operations and if such drainage can be accomplished without additional permits. The net effect of the drainage enhancement plans will be to equal or improve flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch over the baseline condition for the site. There are several types of surface water systems to be developed on the Polk County Site. Surface water runoff from the plant island, other than that from the coal and limestone storage areas, will be routed to the site runoff pond and then used in the cooling pond as makeup water. Surface water runoff from the coal and limestone storage areas, as well as runoff from the active solid waste disposal area, will be routed to a lined recycle basin and will be used as process makeup water for the coal gasification plant. Surface water runoff from mining parcels N-11C, Triangle Lakes, N-11B and N-15 prior to its use as part of the cooling pond, P-3, Phosphoria, P-2 prior to its use as a solid waste disposal area, and SA-8 after it has been closed as a solid waste disposal area, will be directed to the cooling pond as makeup water. All of the surface water management systems will meet the requirements of the SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water rules. Subsurface Hydrology and Impacts from Water Withdrawal The Polk County Site will use a cooling pond for process water and for cooling water for the combined cycle units and the coal gasification facilities. For the initial 940 MW of generating capacity, makeup water for the cooling pond will come from onsite water cropping and reclaimed water from the City of Bartow. FPC has negotiated an agreement with the City of Bartow for 3.5 or more million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment facility. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will require up to 23.6 mgd from a combination of offsite sources and groundwater for the operation of the power plant. FPC has agreed with the SWFWMD to obtain at least 6.1 mgd from reclaimed water and other offsite non-potable water sources, including the City of Bartow, for use as makeup water for the cooling pond. The additional 17.5 mgd of water may be withdrawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer if additional sources of reclaimed water are not available. FPC has identified substantial amounts of reclaimed water that may be available. A limited quantity of potable water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be needed to supply drinking water and other potable water needs for power plant employees. Well water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be treated, filtered and chlorinated in an onsite potable water treatment system prior to consumption. At ultimate site development, potable water consumption is estimated to average 19,000 gallons per day, with a peak consumption of 36,000 gallons per day. As an alternative, FPC may connect with the City of Bartow or the City of Fort Meade potable water system. The subsurface hydrology of the Polk County Site consists of three aquifer systems. The uppermost system is the surficial aquifer which is located in the upper 20 to 30 feet of soil. Due to mining operations, the surficial aquifer has been removed from the site except beneath highway rights-of-way and portions of some dams. Below the surficial aquifer lies the intermediate aquifer which is comprised of an upper confining layer approximately 120 feet thick, a middle water bearing unit about 60 feet thick, and a lower confining unit about 80 to 100 feet thick. This aquifer system provides potable water to some small quantity users in the area. Below the intermediate aquifer is the Floridan Aquifer, which consists of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, a discontinuous intermediate confining unit, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Upper Floridan Aquifer provides a larger source of potable water for the area. The Lower Floridan Aquifer is characterized by poorer quality water and has not been used generally for water supply. The principal impact to groundwater from construction of the Polk County Site will be from the dewatering activities in parcels N-16, SA-11 and SA-13. This impact, if not mitigated, could result in the lowering of groundwater levels in the surficial aquifer in adjacent wetlands. During construction, recharge trenches will be constructed in certain locations near wetlands. Modeling analysis demonstrates that the recharge trenches will adequately mitigate any offsite groundwater impacts that otherwise would be caused by construction dewatering. The principal groundwater impact from the operation of the Polk County Site will be the withdrawal of water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for process water and cooling pond makeup. Water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is the lowest quality of groundwater that can be used for the Polk County Site while maintaining the cooling pond as a zero discharge facility. The withdrawal of 17.5 mgd from the Upper Floridan Aquifer at ultimate site development will not adversely impact offsite legal users of groundwater and will comply with the SWFWMD consumptive use criteria for groundwater withdrawal. Ecological Resources The baseline for the ecological resources at the Polk County Site was established as the site condition that would exist following (i) mandatory reclamation under reclamation plans approved by the DEP/BOMR, and (ii) non- mandatory reclamation normally carried out by the mining companies. In the cases of Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR, and Tiger Bay East, which has revegetated naturally without reclamation, the ecological baseline was represented by the current condition of these parcels. This baseline methodology was proposed by FPC in a Plan of Study which was accepted by DEP in a Binding Written Agreement. The predominant land cover that would occur under the baseline condition at the Polk County Site would be agriculture. Approximately 70 percent of the Polk County Site, or approximately 5,678 acres, would be developed as crop land, citrus or pasture. The remaining 30 percent of the site would be reclaimed as non-agricultural uplands, wetlands and open water bodies. Tiger Bay already has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR and Tiger Bay East has revegetated naturally. These two parcels represent one-fourth (524 acres) of the natural habitat under the ecological baseline condition. The quality of the baseline land cover and vegetation was established by surveying several onsite and offsite areas which have been reclaimed and released. Baseline aquatic resources at the Polk County Site consist of Tiger Bay and the aquatic resources which would have been developed under existing reclamation plans. This baseline would include open water bodies and forested wetlands in parcels SA- 11 and SA-12, and forested and herbaceous wetlands in parcel N-16. Both Estech and IMC have exceeded their mine-wide wetlands mitigation obligations even without those wetlands. The quality of the baseline open water bodies on the Polk County Site was evaluated by surveying parcel N- 16, which currently consists of open water habitat. The quality of wetlands was determined by surveying Tiger Bay, which contains wetlands that have been reclaimed and released. The baseline aquatic resources were found to have significant fluctuations of dissolved oxygen, and were characterized by encroachment of cattail, water hyacinth and other nuisance species. All of the aquatic areas sampled as representative of baseline conditions showed significant eutrophication. No DEP or SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands currently exist onsite, within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted, except in the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East. Baseline evaluation of threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern (listed species) was conducted by collecting information regarding regional habitat descriptions; plant species lists and ecological reports for the area; lists and ecological reports of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians common to the area; species checklists; reports of sightings or abundance estimates; interspecific relationships and food chains of important species; location of rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat for these species in the region; and occurrence of potential preexisting stresses. Information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and approved mine reclamation plans was reviewed. Visits were made to nearby reclaimed sites by land and low-flying helicopters. No listed plant species were found at the site or offsite study areas. Existing reclamation plans, and consequently the ecological baseline condition, do not require the planting of such species. Listed animal species which were observed at the Polk County Site and are expected under the baseline conditions include the American alligator, woodstork, southeastern kestrel, osprey, little blue heron, snowy egret and tricolored heron. The baseline conditions would provide suitable feeding habitat for these species, but only limited areas of suitable nesting habitat. Both the current condition of the site and baseline condition provide feeding habitat for the American bald eagle, however, the nesting potential for this species will be greater after the implementation of the baseline condition. Impacts to the baseline ecological resources from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site will be more than compensated by habitat creation and enhancement programs proposed by FPC. The primary impacts to the baseline ecological resources will occur when power plant facilities, such as the plant island, cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal area are constructed, eliminating these parcels from the baseline ecological resources. Without development of the Polk County Site, these parcels would represent approximately 2,268 acres of viable lakes and upland and wetland habitats. FPC has proposed a total of 3,713 acres of viable wildlife habitat as part of the ultimate development of the Polk County Site. Accordingly, the available wildlife habitat after construction of the Polk County Site represents a net increase of 1,445 acres over the baseline ecological resource conditions. This increase in habitat, particularly in the buffer area, will be a net benefit for protected species. In providing more wildlife habitat than baseline conditions, FPC has agreed to certain enhancement activities that will specifically offset any impact to baseline ecological resources. These enhancement programs include habitat and wetland creation in parcels N-9B and N-13; habitat creation and offsite drainage enhancement in parcel SA-10; implementation of a wildlife habitat management plan and exotic vegetation control in parcels SA-10, N-9B and N-13; drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch; and funding the acquisition of a 425 acre offsite area to serve as part of a wildlife corridor. Air Pollution Control Polk County has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEP as an attainment area for all six criteria air pollutants. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations provide that the project will be subject to "new source review." This review generally requires that the project comply with all applicable state and federal emission limiting standards, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be applied to control emissions of PSD pollutants emitted in excess of applicable PSD significant emission rates. The project will limit emission rates to levels far below NSPS requirements. For the initial 470 MW phase of the Project, BACT must be applied for the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM and PM10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), beryllium, inorganic arsenic, and benzene. For the ultimate site capacity, BACT is required for each of these pollutants, and sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), mercury, and lead as well. BACT is defined in DEP Rule 17-212.200(16), Florida Administrative Code, as: An emission limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. The primary purpose of a 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 control technologies used in a particular industry and is to take into consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of the project. 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 United States. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for SO2 emissions from the CTs is the use of natural gas as the primary fuel and the use of low sulfur oil for a limited number of hours per year. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for CO, VOCs, PM, beryllium, arsenic, and benzene emissions from the CTs is efficient design and operation of the CTs, the inherent quality of natural gas (the primary fuel), and a limitation on the annual use of fuel oil. For the first 470 MW of combined cycle units, BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs is the use of advanced dry low NOx combustors capable of achieving emissions of 12 parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd) at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, water/steam injection to achieve 42 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning fuel oil, and limited annual fuel oil use. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, the DEP staff initially proposed BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs as 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, using dry low NOx combustor technology. However, after careful consideration, it was determined that, because of the lack of proven technology to achieve such emission rate, it would be more appropriate to establish BACT at 73 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 12 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F) using dry low NOx combustor technology and to require FPC to make every practicable effort to achieve the lowest possible NOx emission rate with those CTs when firing natural gas. FPC also is required to conduct an engineering study to determine the lowest emission rate consistently achievable with a reasonable operating margin taking into account long-term performance expectations and assuming good operating and maintenance practices. Based on the results of that study, DEP may adjust the NOx emission limit downward, but not lower than 55 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F.). For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler that is part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for NOx emissions is low NOx burners, limited annual fuel oil use, and limited hours of annual operation. BACT for NOx emissions from the 1300 kW diesel generator is combustion timing retardation with limited hours of annual operation. For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler and the diesel generator as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for CO, VOC, SO2, PM, benzene, beryllium, and arsenic emissions consists of good combustion controls, the inherent quality of the fuels burned, the use of low-sulfur fuel oil, and limited hours of operation. For the fuel oil storage tank as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT is submerged filling of the tank. For the coal gasification and other facilities to be built during later phases of the project, a preliminary BACT review was undertaken by FPC to support the demonstration that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity and resources available to support the full phased project. Air Quality Impact Analysis Air emissions from the project also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria pollutants and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments for three pollutants. Polk County and the contiguous counties are classified as Class II areas for PSD purposes; the nearest Class I area is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, located approximately 120 km. from the Site. An air quality analysis, undertaken in accordance with monitoring and computer modeling procedures approved in advance by EPA and DEP, demonstrated that the project at ultimate capacity utilizing worst-case assumptions will comply with all state and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. For nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, air quality modeling was based on conservative assumptions, including background concentrations based upon the highest long- term and second highest short-term measured values (established through an onsite one-year air quality monitoring program and regional data), existing major sources at their maximum emissions, the estimated maximum emissions from certain other proposed projects, and the impacts of the proposed FPC project at ultimate site capacity. For other pollutants, detailed analyses were not performed because offsite impacts were predicted to be insignificant. Impacts of the project's estimated emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, benzene, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, formaldehyde, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) at ultimate capacity were compared to the DEP draft no-threat levels under DEP's draft "Air Toxics Permitting Strategy." All pollutants except arsenic were projected to be below the corresponding draft no- threat level. Because of the conservatism of DEP's draft no-threat levels, it was concluded that arsenic impacts would not pose a significant health risk to the population in the surrounding area. Impacts on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area, will be minimal. Visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will not be impaired significantly by the project's emissions. Air quality impacts from commercial, industrial, and residential growth induced by the project are expected to be small and well-distributed throughout the area. Impacts from the initial phase of the Project (470 MW) will comply with all State and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. The impacts from the initial phase of the Project are also well below the draft no-threat levels. The initial phase of the Project will not significantly impair visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, and the impact on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will be minimal. The air quality impacts due to commercial, industrial, and residential growth from the initial phase of the Project will be small, and are not expected to impact air quality. Land Use Planning/Socioeconomic Impacts of Construction and Operation The proposed site is an appropriate location for the Polk County Site project. The Polk County Site has adequate access to highway and rail networks, including CR 555, a major collector road, and the CSX railroad. The Polk County Site is located away from major residential areas in a location already heavily disturbed by mining activity. The site is located in reasonable proximity to major metropolitan areas that can supply an adequate work force for construction. Development of the Polk County Site in a mined-out phosphate area is a beneficial use of land and will provide an economic benefit for Polk County. The Polk County Site also is close to existing facilities, such as existing transmission line corridors and reclaimed water facilities, which will benefit the operation of the site while minimizing the impact of the project. The linear facilities associated with the Polk County Site are sited in appropriate locations. The 230-kV transmission line upgrade, reclaimed water pipeline and backup natural gas pipeline corridors: (i) are located adjacent to other linear facilities, such as existing roads and transmission lines, (ii) avoid major residential areas, and (iii) minimally disrupt existing land uses. The Polk County Site is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan, the CFRPC Regional Policy Plan, and will meet the requirements of the Polk County Conditional Use Permit. The portion of the backup natural gas pipeline located in Hillsborough County is consistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan and the policies of the TBRPC Regional Policy Plan. Construction of the Polk County Site will occur over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. If the Polk County Site is developed only for NGCC capacity, construction employment will average 153 jobs per year with a peak employment of 350. The average annual payroll for construction of the Polk County Site on all NGCC is expected to be $7.1 million per year. If 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC units are built at the Polk County Site, peak construction employment will be 1,000 with an average annual construction employment of 315 over the approximate 25-year period. Average annual payroll under this scenario would be $14.6 million per year. Indirect jobs created as a result of buildout of the Polk County Site will average 231 jobs for all NGCC and 477 jobs if 2,000 MW of CGCC is added to the Polk County Site. After completion of the construction of the Polk County Site at ultimate capacity, 110 permanent direct jobs will be created if the site uses all NGCC and 410 jobs will be created if coal gasification is added to the Polk County Site. The operation of the Polk County Site will have a multiplier effect on the Polk County economy. The all NGCC scenario will create 272 indirect jobs and the Case A' scenario with CGCC will create 1,013 indirect jobs. After buildout, property taxes generated by the Polk County Site are estimated to be $24.3 million per year for the all NGCC scenario and $37.4 million per year if CGCC capacity is constructed at the site. Noise Impacts The ambient noise, or baseline noise condition at the Polk County Site was measured in five locations. These measurements show that the baseline noise condition for the site ranges between 30 dBA and 65 dBA at the nearest residential location. The higher noise levels are caused by truck traffic associated with the phosphate mining industry. Noise impacts from construction will be loudest during initial site preparation and steel erection stages. Earth moving equipment will produce noise levels of 45 to 50 dBA at the nearest residence in Homeland. During final phases of construction, steam blowout activity to clean steam lines will produce short duration noise levels of 69 dBA at the nearest residence. This activity will take place only during daylight hours. Noise levels from the operation of the Polk County Site were calculated using a computer program specifically designed for assessing noise impacts associated with power plant operation. The highest predicted continuous noise level will be 41 dBA at several houses 2.9 miles south of the site and 47 dBA at the nearest church. Noise impacts from fuel delivery trucks and coal trains will not significantly increase the noise levels over existing conditions. The continuous noise level from the operation of the Polk County Site at the nearest residence or church will be below the 55 dBA level recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Traffic Traffic analyses were made for impacts to highway traffic which will result from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site. These analyses included impacts at rail crossings caused by the delivery of coal to the Polk County Site under the Case A' scenario. A highway traffic analysis was made to determine if the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the Polk County Site would operate at acceptable levels of service based upon increased volumes of traffic associated with the construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. Methodologies for evaluating traffic impact complied with Polk County, FDOT and CFRPC criteria. County roads were evaluated using Polk County criteria and state roads were evaluated using both Polk County and FDOT criteria. Traffic volumes were evaluated for peak construction traffic in 2010 and full plant operations, estimated in 2018. The traffic evaluation included analysis of existing traffic conditions, increased traffic volume associated with growth in the area not associated with the Polk County Site, and increased traffic associated with construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. During peak construction employment under the Case A' scenario, 1,000 employees are expected at the Polk County Site. Under this scenario, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is expected to be 1,792 trips per day, with a morning peak of 717 trips and an afternoon peak of 717 trips. Based on this analysis, all roadways are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with currently planned improvements to the roadways. Intersection levels of service were found acceptable for 7 out of 11 intersections. FPC has recommended improvements to four intersections at U.S. 98 and SR 60A, SR 60 and CR 555, SR 37 and CR 640, and CR 555 and CR 640 at specified traffic levels. Peak operation employment under the Case A' scenario is expected to be 410 employees in 2018. Based upon this employment figure, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is 964 trips per day with a morning peak of 195 trips and an afternoon peak of 154 trips. At peak operation employment, all roadways evaluated were found to operate at acceptable levels of service. All intersections, except the intersection at SR 60 and CR 555, were found to operate at acceptable levels. FPC has recommended a protected/permissive westbound left turn lane at this intersection. With FPC's recommended improvements, which have been incorporated as conditions of certification, and those improvements currently planned by FDOT, the existing roadway network will meet Polk County and FDOT approved levels of service at peak employment during the construction and operation of the Polk County Site to its ultimate capacity. In addition to the highway traffic impact analysis, FPC evaluated the impact on rail/highway crossings from the transportation of coal by rail under the Case A' scenario. It was assumed that all coal for the Polk County Site will be delivered by rail over existing CSX transportation lines. It is expected that at full operation two 90-car trains per day will be required for the delivery of coal, resulting in four train trips per day. It was also assumed that trains will travel at speeds averaging 35 to 45 miles per hour. Evaluation of the impacts at rail crossings found an increase of .5 second per vehicle per day at urban rail crossings and .3 second per vehicle per day at rural rail crossings. Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the total delay at rail crossing intersections caused by the increased train traffic to and from the Polk County Site will not cause a significant delay and the rail crossing intersections will maintain level of service A. Archaeological and Historic Sites The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, has stated that because of the location of the Polk County Site, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological or historical sites will be affected. Mandatory Reclamation of Mining Parcels The Polk County Site is comprised of phosphate mining parcels, portions of which are subject to mandatory reclamation under the jurisdiction of DEP/BOMR. The mandatory mining parcels are currently owned by Estech, IMC, and USAC. FPC has entered into stipulations with each mining company agreeing to reclamation of the mandatory mining parcels in accordance with the conditions of certification proposed by DEP/BOMR. In those conditions, DEP has proposed to incorporate the reclamation conceptual plan modifications included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site and has redesignated those conceptual plan modifications as EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP- FPC. The portions of the site which will be developed by FPC will be released from mandatory reclamation requirements when FPC purchases the Polk County Site. Variances FPC has requested variances from certain reclamation standards set forth in Rule 16C-16.0051, Florida Administrative Code, which will be necessary until the affected mining parcels on the Polk County Site are released from reclamation. FPC has requested a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(a), which requires artificial water bodies to have an annual zone of fluctuation, and Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(b), which requires submerged vegetation and fish bedding in artificially-created water bodies. The criteria in these rules are inappropriate for a cooling pond, because it is an industrial wastewater treatment facility which cannot be efficiently or safely operated with fluctuating water levels and aquatic vegetation zones. With regard to the construction of dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(2)(a), which requires a 4:1 slope for dam embankments and Rule 16C-16.0051(9)(b) and (c), which requires vegetation of upland areas, which may include dam embankments. Dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will have steeper slopes and the interiors of the dams will be concrete blanket revetments, synthetic liners or solid waste consistent with the industrial purposes for which these facilities have been constructed. Access to these areas will be controlled to prevent any potential safety hazard. Finally, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(11)(b)(4), which requires reclamation to be completed within two years after mining operations are completed. Construction of the Polk County Site requires extensive dewatering and earthwork which cannot be completed within this timeframe. Applications for variances from mining reclamation criteria were included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA and have been incorporated into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site. DEP has redesignated these variance applications as EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC-V. These variances are appropriate and should be granted. Agency Positions and Stipulations The Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Polk County have recommended certification for the construction and operation of the initial 470 MW of natural gas combined cycle generating capacity and have recommended the determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity for 3,000 MW of natural gas and coal gas combined cycle generating capacity, subject to appropriate conditions of certification. No other state, regional or local agency that is a party to the certification proceeding has recommended denial of the certification for the construction of the initial 470 MW of generating capacity or determination of ultimate site capacity. Several agencies which expressed initial concern regarding certification of the Polk County Site have resolved those concerns with FPC and have entered into stipulations with FPC as discussed below. The Florida Department of Transportation, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs have entered into stipulations with FPC recommending certification of the Polk County Site and a determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate site capacity to support 3,000 MW of NGCC and CGCC generating capacity subject to proposed conditions of certification. Hillsborough County, the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, and the Tampa Port Authority have entered into a stipulation and agreement with FPC recommending certification of the backup natural gas pipeline corridor subject to proposed conditions of certification. FPC and the agency parties have agreed on a set of conditions of certification for the Polk County Site. Those conditions are attached as Appendix A to this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Florida Power Corporation be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of 470 MW of combined cycle generating capacity as proposed in the Site Certification Application and in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. Florida Power Corporation's Polk County Site be certified for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 MW fueled by coal gas, natural gas, and fuel oil subject to supplemental application review pursuant to 403.517, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code, and the attached Conditions of Certification. A zone of discharge be granted in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. The conceptual plan modifications (EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP-FPC) for the mandatory phosphate mining reclamation plans be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. The variances from reclamation standards (EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC- V) as described herein be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 3rd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5308EPP RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION * * NOTE: 114 page Recommended Conditions of Certification plus attachments is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary P. Sams Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Representing Applicant Pamela I. Smith Corporate Counsel Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733-4042 Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Division of Air Resources Mgmt. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Lucky T. Osho Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsels Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR Carolyn S. Holifield, Chief Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Doug Leonard, Executive Director Ralph Artigliere, Attorney at Law Central Florida Regional Planning Council 409 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Representing CFRPC Julia Greene, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Representing Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council John J. Dingfelder Assistant County Attorney Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Representing Hillsborough County Mark Carpanini Attorney at Law Office of County Attorney Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830-0060 Representing Polk County Martin D. Hernandez Richard Tschantz Assistant General Counsels Southwest Florida Water Management District 2370 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Representing SWFWMD James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Sara M. Fotopulos Chief Counsel Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Representing EPCHC Joseph L. Valenti, Director Tampa Port Authority Post Office Box 2192 Tampa, Florida 33601 Representing Tampa Port Authority Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Don E. Duden, Acting Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing the Trustees Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue for determination is whether either of the proposed transmission line corridors for the proposed Lake Agnes-Gifford 230 kV transmission line comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, and if so, which of those corridors has the least adverse impacts with respect to the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, including cost. If one of the corridors proper for certification is determined to have the least adverse impacts, the issue is whether certification of that corridor should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. See § 403.529(4) and (5), Fla. Stat. If the two corridors are found to be substantially equal in adverse impacts regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, including costs, the Siting Board shall certify the Joint Applicants' Preferred Corridor. See § 403.529(5)(c), Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The TLSA establishes TECO, Progress Energy, and the Department as parties to this proceeding, and the following became parties upon their timely filing of a notice of intent to be a party, which each has done: Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Community Affairs, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). See § 403.527(2), Fla. Stat. The following agencies did not participate in the proceeding and did not file a notice of intent before the thirtieth day prior to the certification hearing and each one is deemed to have waived its right to be a party: the PSC; the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry; Osceola County; Polk County; Reedy Creek Improvement District; Department of Health; Department of State, Bureau of Historic Preservation; East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and Central Florida Regional Planning Council. See § 403.527(3), Fla. Stat. Orange County, Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), and the SFWMD (during the public comment portion of the hearing only) appeared at the hearing. Pursuant to Section 403.527(2)(c)3., Florida Statutes, any person whose substantial interests are affected and being determined by the proceeding shall be parties to the proceeding upon the filing of a notice of intent to be a party. By stipulation of the parties, having filed a notice of intent to be a party or a petition to intervene, OIC, OUC, Blackwater Associates, Ltd., and Mountain Funding, LLC, are parties to the proceeding without the need to introduce evidence as to substantial interests affected and being determined by the proceeding. The Corridors Proper for Certification The Applicants' Preferred Corridor exits the existing Lake Agnes substation in northeastern Polk County and extends east-northeast approximately 18.9 miles within, adjacent to, or in proximity to the OUC McIntosh-Taft transmission line right- of-way (ROW), which generally runs parallel to Interstate 4 (I-4), across Polk and Osceola Counties. It then turns north and crosses Loughman Road (Polk County Road 54, now known as Ronald Reagan Boulevard), Old Lake Wilson Road, and I-4, and continues north along the Daniel Webster Western Beltway, also known as State Road 429 (SR 429), co-locating in the SR 429 ROW, for approximately 8.6 miles. The Preferred Corridor then turns west and exits the SR 429 ROW, just north of Western Way and enters into PEF's existing easement, crossing Hartzog Road into the planned Gifford substation in southwestern Orange County. The OIC Alternate Corridor is designed to avoid the western edge of the OIC development in Osceola County and commences at the Applicants' Preferred Corridor 2,000 feet south of Funie Steed Road/Oak Island Road on the west side of SR 429, where it turns northwest and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, and then turns northeast and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, in an approximate horseshoe shape, to rejoin the Applicants' Preferred Corridor along SR 429. A series of aerial photographs showing both proposed corridors is found at Applicants' Exhibit 21; a map showing both proposed corridors is also found at Department Exhibit 3, page 2. The Application Project Description An electrical transmission line is designed to transport large amounts of electrical power from a generating facility or substation to one or more substations. At the substation, the electricity voltage can be either increased or reduced for further transport or for distribution directly to end users. The Applicants are seeking certification of their Preferred Corridor between the existing Lake Agnes substation and the planned Gifford substation, within which the Applicants will ultimately construct the transmission line on a narrow ROW. Once all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the certified corridor will shrink to the typical width of the 25 to 100-foot wide ROW. In some cases, the ROW will be co-located with an existing transmission ROW that is 145 feet wide. The Project is a joint venture between the Applicants. Of the approximately 27.5 miles of the proposed Lake Agnes- Gifford Line, approximately 10.5 miles are in TECO's service territory and approximately 17 miles are in PEF's service territory. The objectives for the Project are to provide a 230 kV electrical path that connects the existing Lake Agnes substation to the planned Gifford substation, providing a reliable path for the transmission line and reducing the impacts to the community and the environment while maintaining the integrity of Florida's transmission grid. Need for the Line The PSC determined that a new 230 kV transmission line between the existing Lake Agnes substation and the planned Gifford substation is needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity and the need to provide abundant, low cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State. The objectives of the Project are to serve the increasing electrical load in the region, to maintain reliability of electrical service within the region, and to minimize future overhead exposure outages within the regional transmission system. The PSC found that the existing Lake Agnes substation and the planned Gifford substation constitute the starting and ending points for the proposed line. The PSC noted that the additional transmission capacity is needed to be in service by June 2011. The PSC also recognized that the Siting Board will make the final determination concerning the route selection upon consideration of the factors and criteria specified in Section 403.529, Florida Statutes. Transmission Line Design The typical design for the transmission line will be a single-shaft tubular steel or spun concrete structure, with the capability of accommodating an additional 230 kV circuit. The poles are proposed to range in height from 85 feet above grade to 175 feet above grade, with the conductors framed in a vertical configuration. Three conductor phases will be used, and each of the three conductors is anticipated to be a bundled 954 Aluminum Conductor Steel Support/Trapezoidal Wire. The conductor is 1.08 inches in diameter with a weight of approximately 1.23 pounds per foot. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide lightning protection for the transmission circuit. The maximum electrical current rating is 3,000 amperes. The open span length between structures will typically vary between 500 and 1,000 feet, depending on site-specific conditions. Both pole height and span length may vary to accommodate various site-specific conditions that may be encountered, to take advantage of the terrain, to potentially address community concerns, and to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Existing roadways, access roads, and structure pads will be used for construction and maintenance access to the transmission line wherever practicable. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary to provide access for construction, maintenance, and emergency restoration. Where constructed, the typical road top width will be 16 feet, with a 2-to-1 side slope, and a typical elevation of feet above the seasonal high water line. Structure pads will have variable sizes but are typically 75 feet by 150 feet. The structure pads are designed to provide a dry, stable surface for staging material and for equipment setup. Culverts may be installed beneath access roads and structure pads with the specific design reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The design will be similar to previously approved designs. The proposed design of the transmission line complies with good engineering practices. It will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes and standards, including the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation's standards, the National Electrical Safety Code, the noise ordinances of Polk, Orange, and Osceola Counties, the Department's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, the Florida Department of Transportation's Utility Accommodation Manual, the standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Testing and Materials, the American Concrete Institute, and the American National Standards Institute, the requirements of applicable regulatory agencies, as well as the Applicants' own numerous transmission design standards. There are no applicable designs or standards with which the transmission line will not comply. Transmission Line Construction The initial phase of construction is to survey and clear the ROW. Because much of the length of the corridor is co-located, that is, grouped or placed side by side, with existing roads and utility facilities, the need for clearing has been minimized. Where existing ROW widths are insufficient for placement of the transmission Line or where the transmission line will go cross-country, additional clearing will be necessary. Upland areas will be cleared to ground level. In forested wetlands, the Applicants have committed to use only restrictive clearing methods. Restrictive clearing will be used in wetlands to clear vegetation from the transmission line centerline to 50 feet on each side of the outer conductors and in work areas approximately 64 feet by 150 feet around structure sites. In wetland areas, low-growing herbaceous vegetation can remain within the ROW; stumps in the area beyond 20 feet on either side of the outer conductors will be left in place to preserve the root mat. During clearing, best management practices will be utilized to control erosion. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. The Applicants have committed to use existing access roads and public roads for access to the transmission line to the extent practicable. Where existing access is not available, the Applicants have committed to construct access roads and structure pads in a manner which reduces or eliminates adverse impacts to on-site and adjacent wetlands to the extent practicable. The next phases of construction involve the physical transmission line construction, including material hauling and spotting, pole setting and framing, and conductor stringing activities. The newly-constructed structure pads are used to provide a stable and dry platform for the material staging and equipment. The foundations are constructed. The pole materials and other materials will be hauled to each specific structure site. The pole sections will then be jacked together on the ground. The insulators and hardware will then be framed up on the ground. Next, the top pole section will be lifted by crane and placed on the foundation base that was previously set. Poles will typically be installed 30 to 50 feet below ground. The conductor stringing activities occur next. Reels of wire and wire tensioning equipment will be brought to the job site and set up at dead-end locations. The construction crew will install stringing blocks or pulleys on each structure where the conductor will be pulled through. Once the conductors are pulled in, the conductor will be secured at the dead-end locations, and the wires will be sagged and tensioned appropriately to maintain vertical clearances. Finally, the conductor is secured to the insulator attachment and the pulleys and blocks are removed from each structure. The final stage of construction is the cleanup stage. This involves a final inspection of the area to remove the silt fences and hay bales, to clean up excess spoils from the foundation excavations, to repair or replace fencing, and to replace and secure gates. Throughout construction, in areas where soil is disturbed, sedimentation management techniques, such as the use of silt screens and hay bales, or other best management practices, will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation. While each phase of construction will typically take up to two weeks at each structure location, the construction crew will normally be active for two to four days at a typical structure location. Construction for the entire project is expected to last approximately eighteen months. Methodology for Choosing Applicants' Preferred Corridor The Applicants established a multidisciplinary team to identify a corridor for the transmission line. The role of this team was to select a certifiable corridor based on an evaluation of environmental, land use, socioeconomic, engineering, and cost considerations. The multidisciplinary team was composed of experts in land use, engineering, and environmental disciplines and included representatives of the two utilities, outside legal counsel, and various consultants. Corridor selection methodologies were designed to be integrative of multidisciplinary siting criteria, regional and objective in decision-making, sensitive to social and environmental conditions, responsive to regulatory requirements, reflective of community concerns and issues, and capable of accurate documentation and verification. The team engaged in four major steps: to establish and define the project study area; to conduct regional screening and mapping; to select and evaluate candidate corridors using both quantitative and qualitative analysis; and finally to select the preferred corridor and identify the boundaries of that corridor. The team's work included a number of field studies, data collection, internal meetings, and meetings with the public. In defining the project study area, the multidisciplinary team identified the starting and ending points for the proposed transmission line, the locations of existing and planned substations in the area, the service boundaries of the utilities, and major roads in the area. In regional screening, the multidisciplinary team gathered data from a variety of sources to identify the different types of opportunities and potential constraints for siting a transmission line in the project study area. The multidisciplinary team developed a regional screening map, received in evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 24, which was prepared by the team using generally publicly available information including Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. The map data were collected from various state agencies and local governments; information was gathered from the Florida Geographic Data Library (which distributes GIS data), the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and most of the agencies involved in this proceeding. Various environmental and land use data were mapped as were existing infrastructure, archaeological/historical sites, and information gathered on roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and the like. These represented primarily potential siting constraints or siting issues within a particular study area. The regional screening map was then used to identify route segments. Using the regional screening information, the multidisciplinary team selected corridor segments for consideration using quantitative analysis of the data gathered in the earlier stages of the process. The team then evaluated the corridor segments using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The multidisciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area and identified sixty line segments which could be assembled into a total of 1,187 potential candidate corridor combinations. Using a predefined set of quantitative environmental, land use, and engineering criteria, each corridor segment was measured for those resources. Using the weights developed by the team for each criterion, the weights were applied and tabulated for all candidate corridor segments. The candidate corridors were then ranked in order from best to worst based on the quantitative weighted scores. Once the rankings were performed, the five highest- ranked candidate corridors were subjected to further quantitative and qualitative evaluation. These candidate corridors were evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria which do not lend themselves easily to quantification, such as safety and buildability. At the completion of the evaluation, the multidisciplinary team deliberated and ultimately chose a preferred corridor. Once the preferred corridor was selected, the multidisciplinary team defined the boundaries of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. The team developed corridor boundaries of varying widths - - narrowing the corridor to avoid siting constraints or widening the corridor to take advantage of siting opportunities. Public Involvement in the Corridor Selection Process The Applicants engaged in an extensive public outreach program, the purpose of which was to inform and educate the public about the project and to invite public input from the public in the corridor selection process. The public outreach program included a series of direct mailings, surveys, open houses, extensive communications with regulatory agency officials and local elected officials, a project web page by both Applicants and the Department, a toll-free telephone number, and newsprint advertisements. There were two direct mailings as a part of the public outreach program. The first mailing went to approximately 7,900 customers with a map of the project area, a fact sheet, and an invitation to one of three open houses to be held. One open house was conducted in Polk County, while two open houses were conducted in Lake County in close proximity to the project area. Following the completion of the open house process, a second mailing was sent to approximately 6,000 customers identifying the preferred corridor chosen during the evaluation process. The names of the mailing recipients were obtained by identifying the properties located within certain distances in both directions from the centerline of the candidate corridors. The Property Appraisers' Offices of Polk, Osceola, Orange, and Lake Counties were a source for this information. The mailings were also sent to the homeowners' associations along the candidate corridors. The Applicants plan additional mailings if a corridor for the transmission line is certified. Additional informational open houses will also be held, and the transmission structures and potential locations will be identified at that time so the public can be informed. As part of the public outreach, the project also ran a series of five advertisements in local newspapers. The first series of advertisements notified the public of the three open houses: a newspaper advertisement was run on August 9, 2007, in The Lakeland Ledger, The Winter Haven News Chief, and The Orlando Sentinel for the first open house, and for the second and third open houses, a newspaper advertisement was run in The Lakeland Ledger, The Hometown Sun, The Winter Haven News Chief, The Report, West Orange Times, South Lake Press, Osceola News- Gazette, and The Orlando Sentinel. The second advertisements notified the public of the filing of the Application in December 2007 in The Tampa Tribune, The Lakeland Ledger, The Winter Haven News Chief, The Osceola- News Gazette, and The Orlando Sentinel. In March 2008, a third series of advertisements was run in The Orlando Sentinel, The Lakeland Ledger, and The Osceola News-Gazette to notify the public of the certification hearing. In June 2008, a fourth series of advertisements was run notifying the public of the rescheduling of the certification hearing; this advertisement was published by OIC in the Osceola County section of The Orlando Sentinel and this advertisement was published by the Applicants in The Lakeland Ledger and the Orange County section of The Orlando Sentinel. Finally, in August 2008, a notice regarding the second week of hearing was published in The Osceola News-Gazette, The Lakeland Ledger, and The Orlando Sentinel. Copies of the Application were maintained for public inspection during the certification process at the TECO offices in Tampa and Winter Haven and at the PEF offices in St. Petersburg, Lake Wales, and Lake Buena Vista. In addition, a copy of the Application was provided to the Hart Memorial Central Library and Ray Shanks Law Library in Kissimmee, the Orlando Public Library in Orlando, the Bartow Public Library in Bartow, and the Auburndale Public Library in Auburndale. The public outreach program was integrated into the corridor selection process. The public's input included information about anticipated road expansions and modifications as well as proposed residential developments in the project area. A few members of the public complained at the public hearing that they were unaware that a new transmission line corridor was being proposed until just before the hearing. However, the evidence shows that long before the certification hearing, information concerning this process was widely disseminated through advertisements, open houses, mass mailings, surveys, and meeting with regulatory agencies and local elected officials. See Findings of Fact 33 and 35-37, supra. Detailed Description of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor The Applicants' Preferred Corridor provides significant opportunities for co-location with other linear facilities such as roads, a natural gas pipeline, and other transmission lines. Co-location is an important benefit from the perspectives of engineering, ecology, and land use because it results in reduced impacts from the new transmission line, reduced ROW needs (or land acquisition needs) for the new line, reduced need for new clearing of land, reduced impacts to wetlands by co-locating with previously-disturbed areas, and reduced incremental impacts by co-locating with an existing linear facility. The Preferred Corridor exits the existing Lake Agnes substation and extends east-northeast approximately 18.9 miles within, adjacent to, or in proximity to the OUC McIntosh-Taft transmission line ROW, which generally runs parallel to I-4, across Polk and Osceola Counties. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor crosses Loughman Road (now known as Ronald Reagan Boulevard) and Old Lake Wilson Road. In this area, the land use includes water utility infrastructure in addition to I-4 and the OUC transmission line. Near the Lake Agnes substation, the land uses include some individual residences, as well as undeveloped land now used as pasture, citrus groves, and the Hilochee Wildlife Management Area. The land uses along I-4 and the OUC transmission line include residential development, undeveloped land north of Ronald Reagan Boulevard and south of Champions Gate and U.S. Highway 27, and the Hilochee Wildlife Management Area. In the area of U.S. Highway 27, there is considerable residential development and mixed-use development to the east and west of the Preferred Corridor. The ecological communities in this area include the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area (also known as Green Swamp East Tract) north of I-4 and the Hilochee Wildlife Management Area. The ecological communities within the Preferred Corridor include residential areas, improved pastures, forested wetlands, pine flatwoods, and freshwater marsh. At the I-4 and SR 429 interchange, the Preferred Corridor turns and continues north along the Daniel Webster Western Beltway (SR 429), co-locating in the SR 429 ROW for approximately 8.6 miles. The land uses beginning at the I-4 and SR 429 interchange and northward to U.S. Highway 192 include residential communities on both the east and west sides of the Preferred Corridor, a large regional wastewater treatment facility on the west side of the Preferred Corridor, and undeveloped land, as well as resort, residential, and commercial development. Between U.S. Highway 192 and the planned Gifford substation, the land uses include a number of mixed-use and residential developments and golf course communities on the east and west side of the Preferred Corridor, as well as undeveloped land that is used for agricultural purposes and as part of wetland systems. The ecological communities in this area include the large Davenport Creek Swamp to the west of SR 429 and Reedy Creek to the east of SR 429; ecological communities within the Preferred Corridor include citrus, improved pasture, pine and pine oak forest, freshwater wetlands, and forested wetlands. The Applicants have agreed to adjust the eastern corridor boundary in the area south of Funie Steed Road/Oak Island Road and north of the southern boundary of the OIC residential development to be 55 feet east of the edge of the SR 429 ROW, rather than the originally-proposed 100 feet east of the edge of the SR 429 ROW. This adjustment was made at the hearing in response to concerns raised by OIC. By making this adjustment, the impact on the homes in the OIC community will be substantially diminished. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor then turns west and exits the SR 429 ROW just north of Western Way and enters into PEF's existing easement, crossing Hartzog Road into the planned Gifford substation. The land use in this area of the planned Gifford substation is predominantly additional utility infrastructure associated with wastewater treatment facilities. The width of the Preferred Corridor varies along its entire length to provide flexibility within the corridor to avoid or minimize impacts to such areas as large wetland areas, to provide flexibility at large road intersections, and to take advantage of existing land patterns, property boundaries, and linear facilities. OIC's Application for Alternate Corridor Selection of the OIC Alternate Corridor Mr. von Behren indicated in testimony that he and fellow board members of the OIC Community Owners Association selected the OIC Alternate Corridor. Unlike the Applicants' Preferred Corridor, the OIC Alternate Corridor was selected by OIC without any public outreach to obtain input from the community. OIC did, apparently, pay attention to the property interests of OIC. No OIC property is traversed by, or adjacent to, the OIC Alternate Corridor; however, the OIC Alternate Corridor bisects the existing, nearby residential Emerald Island development. Detailed Description of OIC Alternate Corridor The OIC Alternate Corridor is located in the Osceola County portion of the Project and commences at the Applicants' Preferred Corridor 2,000 feet south of Funie Steed Road/Oak Island Road on the west side of SR 429, where it turns northwest and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, and then turns northeast and proceeds approximately 2,000 feet, in an approximate horseshoe shape, to rejoin the Applicants' Preferred Corridor along SR 429. The land uses and ecological communities within the SR 429 portion of the OIC Alternate Corridor were described above in Finding of Fact 42, supra. The land use of the OIC Alternate Corridor where it deviates from the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is undeveloped lands between two components of the Emerald Island residential development. The undeveloped lands include pasture, shrub and brushland, and undisturbed, undeveloped freshwater marsh and forested wetlands. A portion of these wetlands provide water treatment and storage functions for the Lake Tohokepaliga Water Authority and are held within a conservation easement and subject to a water use permit. Design and Construction of Transmission Line within OIC Alternate Corridor The design and construction techniques described in Findings of Fact 13 through 23 will be the same if the transmission line is constructed, operated, and maintained in the OIC Alternate Corridor. The parties have stipulated that the transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in the OIC Alternate Corridor in compliance with the regulatory and industry standards listed in Finding of Fact 16. Agencies' Review of Corridors Proper for Certification and Resulting Determinations State, regional, and local agencies with regulatory authority over the Project reviewed the Application and submitted to Department reports concerning the impact of the Project on matters within their respective jurisdictions, as required by Section 403.526(2), Florida Statutes. Eleven regulatory agencies reviewed the Application, and nine reviewing agencies submitted reports on the Project, and have proposed Conditions of Certification. None of the agencies involved in the review process recommended that the proposed corridor be denied or modified. On May 30, 2008, the Department issued its Written Analysis on the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a compiled set of Conditions of Certification. The Department recommended that the Applicants' Preferred Corridor be certified subject to appropriate conditions of certification. Three reviewing agencies submitted supplemental reports on the OIC Alternate Corridor on or before June 20, 2008, again proposing Conditions of Certification. On July 7, 2008, the Department issued its Supplemental Written Analysis on the Project, including the OIC Alternate Corridor, incorporating the supplemental reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a comprehensive set of Conditions of Certification. The Department did not recommend approval of the OIC Alternate Corridor, although it found the alternate corridor to be certifiable. In its Supplemental Written Analysis, the Department stated: Given the alternate corridor is likely to have a higher impact on the environment as well as additional cost, the Department does not find the alternate corridor to be superior to the preferred corridor, although either corridor is ultimately certifiable. Department Exhibit 3, page 4. Whether and Extent to Which Each Corridor Will Comply with Criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The PSC decided that there are regional transmission system limitations in the I-4 corridor between Polk County and the greater Orlando area due to projected load growth in the 2008-2011 timeframe. The PSC found that the new 230 kV line is needed by June 2011 to preserve electric system reliability and integrity in order to: provide additional transmission transfer capability along the I-4 corridor to move electricity generated in the Polk County region to load centers in the Greater Orlando area in a reliable manner consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) and other applicable standards; b) serve the increasing load and customer base in the projected service area; and (c) potentially provide for another electrical feed via a separate Right of Way (ROW) path, thereby reducing the impact of a loss of the existing transmission facilities on a common ROW. The PSC further decided that the transmission line is the most cost-effective and efficient means to both increase the capability of the existing 230 kV network and serve the increasing load and customer base in the Central Florida region. The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to provide electric power system reliability and integrity. Even so, the evidence shows that the Applicants' Preferred Corridor better provides electric power system reliability and integrity than does the OIC Alternate Corridor because the Applicants' Preferred Corridor will involve a shorter length of line and because the Applicants' Preferred Corridor will involve fewer maintenance issues and access issues. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor is shorter by 1,472 feet than the OIC Alternate Corridor. Unnecessary length added to a transmission circuit introduces further exposure to the forces of nature which could impact reliability of a transmission line. The greater the line length, the greater the exposure or risk to reliability. The OIC Alternate Corridor also involves additional maintenance issues and access issues not raised by the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. For example, there is a risk of flooding because some of the areas within the OIC Alternate Corridor are used for overflow for nearby retention ponds. This flooding could cause an access problem if emergency or routine repairs or maintenance were needed. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly, Economical and Timely Fashion The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to meet the electrical energy needs of the State in an orderly, economical, and timely fashion. Nevertheless, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor better meets the State's electrical energy needs in an orderly, economical, and timely fashion than does the OIC Alternate Corridor because the OIC Alternate Corridor adds significant cost to the overall project and long-term costs associated with operation and maintenance. The OIC Alternate Corridor is estimated to cost $4.4 million more for construction than the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. The cost differential is caused by the need for more easement area, more access roads, the nature of the soils, the foundation requirements, the heavy angle requirements, and more wetlands mitigation of the OIC Alternate Corridor. For example, because the OIC Alternate Corridor is primarily located in wetlands, the OIC Alternate Corridor will require larger poles and larger pole foundations, which involve higher costs. In addition to the $4.4 million construction cost differential, the OIC Alternate Corridor will also involve additional maintenance costs throughout the life of the transmission line because there will be a higher cost and effort required for vegetation management and access road maintenance in the OIC Alternate Corridor than will be required for the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. Comply with the Applicable Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies Construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line within either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor will comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Electrical and Magnetic Fields The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor in compliance with the Department's standards for Electric and Magnetic Fields in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-814, which limit the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. The Applicants propose to use four different configurations for the transmission line depending upon the location. The options include a 230 kV single circuit on a 100- foot ROW, a 230 kV single circuit on the 185-foot ROW including the existing OUC McIntosh-Taft 230 kV line, a 230 kV single circuit roadside, and a 230 kV single circuit roadside with an additional 35-foot easement including the existing Boggy Marsh- Gifford and Four Corners-Gifford 69 kV lines. For each of these configurations, the Department's rule requires that the electric and magnetic fields (or energy forces) within the ROW and at the edge of the ROW be calculated to ensure compliance. The electric field is a field that is generated by voltage of a conductor, expressed as a kilovolt meter (kV/m). The magnetic field is a field produced by the current traveling along the conductor, expressed in milligauss (mG). Those portions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-814 that are applicable to this Project establish maximum values for electric and magnetic fields. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements was calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-814.450(3). The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields and for the magnetic fields are all below the values set forth in the rule. The maximum voltage and current that is anticipated for the line during its life are used in making the calculations. However, it is highly unlikely that this condition would occur. It is anticipated that the maximum condition would occur less than five percent of the time while the transmission line is operating. In order to operate at the maximum condition, the conductor must be operating at its maximum temperature (which requires an extreme weather condition), and there would also need to be some type of system disturbance (such as an outage in the region). Levels for electric fields will be less at the normal operating levels and magnetic fields about fifty percent less. The levels of electric and magnetic fields from the transmission line are similar to the levels that would be expected to result from common household appliances. Noise Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of build-up of particles on the conductor. During periods of fair weather dust can collect on the conductor and that may cause low levels of audible noise. When rain is experienced, the dust is washed off but replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that results in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise are generally calculated using an industry-standard software program called the Bonneville Power Administration Field Effects Program. The calculations performed for the transmission line show that the maximum audible noise levels at the edge of the ROW would range up to a high of 37.6 dBA. This noise level is similar to the upper noise level in a library, and less than the living room noise in a suburban area. Also, during rainfall events, when the maximum noise levels are expected, the rain will tend to mask the sound from the transmission line. The calculated noise levels for the transmission line indicate that the noise levels that will be produced will not be a significant issue. Further, the calculated noise levels will comply with all applicable audible noise ordinances in Polk, Osceola, and Orange Counties. Be Consistent with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans, If Any The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to be consistent with applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans, if any. The Polk County Comprehensive Plan identifies electric transmission and distribution facilities as a permitted use in all land use categories. The Osceola County Comprehensive Plan and the City of Auburndale Comprehensive Plan identify utility and public facilities as allowable uses in all land use categories provided that the TLSA standards and other regulatory standards are met. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan identifies utility and public facilities as allowable uses in all land use categories. The Reedy Creek Improvement District Comprehensive Plan identifies that utility corridors are allowable uses where no other alternatives are feasible. The PSC found that the Applicants considered four alternatives to the Project and none were feasible. Further, the Applicants considered a number of alternatives in the corridor selection process and considered the OIC Alternate Corridor and selected the Applicants' Preferred Corridor as the best choice among the various corridors. See Finding of Fact 102, infra. After certification of this project, the transmission line will be located and constructed entirely within established rights-of-way, including easements acquired after corridor certification. Construction of transmission lines on such established ROWs is excepted from the definition of "development" in Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the provisions of the local comprehensive plans related to "development" that have been adopted by the local governments crossed by the transmission line are not applicable to this project. No variances or exemptions from applicable state or local standards or ordinances are needed for the project. Effect a Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Lake Agnes-Gifford Transmission Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy and the Impact Upon the Public and the Environment Resulting from the Location of the Lake Agnes-Gifford Transmission Line and Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Transmission Line The Applicants' Preferred Corridor was chosen using a multidisciplinary team of experts to minimize impacts upon the public and the environment. Impacts Upon the Public The land uses found in the area of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor are compatible with transmission lines; there are many locations throughout Florida where transmission lines similar to the proposed transmission line coexist with these land use patterns. Both the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor are appropriate locations for a transmission line from a land use perspective, but the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is a better location in relation to impacts upon the public. aa. Co-location with Existing Linear Facilities The Applicants' Preferred Corridor is co-located with existing linear facilities for nearly its entire length. In choosing among the candidate corridors considered by the multidisciplinary team, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor was chosen with reference to maximizing co-location with existing linear features, including transmission lines, highways, and natural gas pipelines. Co-location is advantageous because the existing linear facilities often provide existing access, minimizing the need for new access roads, the need for new clearing, and the need for further encumbrance of additional land. By following these existing linear features, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor conforms to existing and future development patterns and minimizes intrusion into surrounding areas. Further, there is less of an incremental difference in impacts from adding a linear facility to an area of existing linear facilities than from adding a linear facility to a presently unencumbered area. In contrast, the OIC Alternate Corridor follows an area of undeveloped land and thus does not offer the advantages of co-location. bb. Impacts upon Residential Development In choosing among the candidate corridors, minimizing the number of homes within the corridor was a significant criterion considered by the multidisciplinary team. It is an advantage for the OIC Alternate Corridor over the Applicants' Preferred Corridor that the OIC Alternate Corridor has fewer homes within the corridor than does the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. However, it is a disadvantage for the OIC Alternate Corridor that it bisects two components of the Emerald Island residential development. The impacts of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor on OIC homes is minimal. The "residents" of the OIC development are predominantly short-term renters or vacationers who will be in proximity to the transmission line for only a few weeks' duration. (Many of the homes are owned by citizens of the United Kingdom who rent the properties to vacationers visiting the area. There are, however, three permanent year-round residents in the development, including Mr. von Behren.) The Applicants have adjusted the eastern corridor boundary to no more than 55 feet from the edge of the SR 429 ROW in the vicinity of the OIC development. Further, the Applicants have committed that, if the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is certified, there will be no existing homes within the eventual transmission line ROW. PEF's engineering expert testified that the Applicants' preferred location for the transmission line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor in the vicinity of the OIC development is to be on the west side of SR 429, which would not impact any OIC homes. If that location is not feasible, the Applicants' preferred location for the transmission line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor in the vicinity of the OIC development is to be on the east side of SR 429, with poles located 15 feet inside the DOT's ROW for SR 429, in which case the only property rights that the Applicants would need outside the DOT ROW would be no more than 30 feet for an overhanging aerial easement and access rights. These commitments by the Applicants mean that there are only three or four properties within OIC where the Applicants might need an aerial and access easement for the transmission line; the pole would be no nearer to those homes than approximately thirty feet. This evidence demonstrates that there will be very little impacts on the OIC residential development. Further, OIC raised concerns about existing vegetation with the OIC residential development. Those concerns are misplaced because PEF's engineering expert explained that the Applicants would avoid any vegetation that exists outside the SR 429 ROW, and that any vegetation that would be replaced would be within the SR 429 ROW. cc. Minimizing the Length of Transmission Lines in the Landscape The length of a transmission line in the landscape is important because it is a land use consideration to minimize the amount and length of linear facilities in the landscape. The shorter the linear facility, the less potential effects of the linear facility. This is an advantage for the Applicants' Preferred Corridor because it is shorter than the OIC Alternate Corridor. dd. Impacts to Conservation Lands The Applicants' Preferred Corridor has the advantage of avoiding conservation lands while the OIC Alternate Corridor in contrast crosses lands held for conservation purposes. The conservation lands include a parcel held for use by Osceola County as a stormwater retention and conveyance system, a parcel held by Emerald Island Resort as a conservation area, a parcel owned by the Lake Tohopekaliga Water Authority held in a conservation easement by SFWMD, and a parcel subject to a water use permit. The conservation easement expressly prohibits the construction of utility infrastructure within its boundaries. Although SFWMD's conservation easement could be amended by the underlying property owner to allow for crossing by the OIC Alternate Corridor, SFWMD prefers the Applicants' Preferred Corridor because it better avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands. ee. Impact on Property Values At the public portion of the certification hearing, several members of the public testified in opposition to the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. A number of those testifying, including Mr. von Behren, expressed concern about the impact of the Project on property values, and the desire to have the Applicants seek another route. Although these concerns are genuine, the impact on property values is not a subject for consideration at this hearing. Impacts Upon the Environment The transmission line, whether constructed, operated, and maintained in the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor, will comply with all applicable state, regional, and local nonprocedural regulations, including the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. The Applicants have committed to a variety of Conditions of Certification that require extensive measures to eliminate or minimize the potential environmental impacts. For example, within forested wetlands, the Applicants have committed to using restrictive clearing practices, removing only tall- growing trees and leaving understory (the lower layer of plants growing under a higher layer of plants) and root mats in place within the ROW. The Applicants have also committed to the use of existing access roads through wetland areas to the greatest extent practicable, and the construction of at-grade access roads where conditions allow. In addition, the Applicants have committed to compensatory mitigation to offset the loss of wetland functions, if any. Further, if the transmission line is constructed in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor, the transmission line design will allow for variable span length to avoid wetland impacts by spanning those areas upland-to-upland. Both the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor are appropriate locations for a transmission line from an environmental perspective, but the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is a better location in relation to impacts upon the environment. aa. Impacts to Vegetative Communities, Including Wetlands The Applicants' Preferred Corridor will have minimal environmental impact. Construction of the line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor will cause minimal adverse ecological impacts for several reasons: regional screening was conducted to minimize inclusion of areas of ecological constraints, such as eagles' nests, undisturbed wetland habitat, protected species habitat, and forested areas; the width of the corridor provides flexibility when the final ROW is selected to avoid ecological resources within the corridor; because of the corridor's co-location with existing rights-of-way, there is a prevalence of developed areas within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor; where the Preferred Corridor traverses areas of natural vegetation, it does so largely in previously-disturbed areas, minimizing the amount of needed clearing and new access roads; and wetlands will be avoided by spanning them to the extent practicable. With respect to the Green Swamp, an area of 870 square miles, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor minimizes impacts by co-locating with the OUC transmission line ROW. Other candidate corridors considered by the multidisciplinary team would have involved clearing of undisturbed forested wetlands, including areas of mature cypress domes. In contrast, the transmission line will have more adverse environmental impacts if constructed, operated, and maintained in the OIC Alternate Corridor than the Applicants' Preferred Corridor because of the prevalence of undisturbed wetland habitat within the OIC Alternate Corridor as compared to the previously-disturbed habitat along SR 429 within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. Construction of the transmission line within the OIC Alternate Corridor would result in greater forested and herbaceous wetland impacts and require greater alteration to previously-undisturbed areas. bb. Protected Species The Applicants have committed to a number of conditions of certification protecting species whether the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor is certified. For example, the Applicants have agreed to conduct pre-clearing surveys of the final ROW for protected species, and to consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department if any species are located within the ROW to address avoidance and mitigation measures. Impacts to listed plant and animal species from construction of the transmission line within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor are expected to be minimal because the corridor includes primarily previously-impacted areas which have limited suitability as protected species habitat and because of the Applicants' commitment to conduct pre-clearing species surveys. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor avoids or minimizes intrusion into the undisturbed wildlife habitats due to its co- location with existing linear facilities for almost its entire length. The current condition and relative value of function of the habitat within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is generally minimal from a wildlife ecology and protected species perspective because it has been previously-disturbed through construction of major roadways. In the areas of undisturbed lands, the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is co-located with existing utility rights-of-way including a transmission line and natural gas pipeline that already disturb the area. The gopher tortoise is a protected species that has been documented to be located within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor. Gopher tortoise habitat typically is not compromised by construction of transmission lines due to the relatively small ground footprint of disturbance and the maintenance of low vegetation within the ROW, which is suitable habitat for gopher tortoises. Thus, the transmission line is not expected to have significant impact on gopher tortoises. The impacts to protected species will be greater in the OIC Alternate Corridor than the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. The Applicants' Preferred Corridor includes two known locations of protected species; transmission lines are compatible with the habitat for these species. In addition, the habitat within the Preferred Corridor is not suitable for most protected species because it is previously disturbed where vegetation communities have already been cleared and converted to roadside ROW. In contrast, the OIC Alternate Corridor consists predominantly of undisturbed wetlands, which is habitat that is highly suitable for a number of protected species. Although there are no Florida Natural Areas Inventory-documented locations of protected species within the OIC Alternate Corridor, there are four field-documented protected species within the OIC Alternate Corridor. Further, the habitat is highly suitable for protected species because it is largely undisturbed, much is held in conservation easement, and it includes forested and herbaceous wetlands. cc. Floodplains The 100-year floodplain is an area, regulated by the Department and the water management districts, that demarks the area that would be inundated in severe flood events. The Applicants are required to provide compensating floodplain storage to offset the loss, if any, of floodplain storage caused by fill needed for the transmission line; this requirement is designed to avoid any flooding of adjacent properties that might be caused by the Project. Because of this requirement, one of the goals in corridor selection was to minimize impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Only a small portion of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor is located within the 100-year floodplain, while a large portion of the OIC Alternate Corridor is located within the 100-year floodplain. Further, the portions of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor that are located within the 100- year floodplain are located in areas that have been previously disturbed by the construction of SR 429 and would likely not involve significant further impacts to the 100-year floodplain. dd. Archaeological and Historical Resources The Applicants utilized information from the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR), to identify potential archeological and historical resources within the Applicants' Preferred Corridor. A number of locations were identified as a result of the information and the Applicants have committed, through the Conditions of Certification, to perform a cultural resources survey when the actual ROW is located. If any artifacts are discovered, the Applicants will notify the Department and DHR and consult with DHR to determine appropriate action. There is no difference between the impacts to cultural resources of the Applicants' Preferred Corridor and the OIC Alternate Corridor. The Need for the Lake Agnes-Gifford Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy The transmission line can be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor to meet the need for the transmission line as a means of providing reliable, economically efficient electric energy as determined by the PSC. The PSC determined that the proposed line is needed taking into account the factors set forth in Section 403.537, Florida Statutes. The PSC found that the Applicants evaluated four alternatives to the proposed transmission line. All of the alternatives were transmission modifications to the proposed ROW that used a portion of, or the entire existing, common ROW. The PSC accepted the Applicants' rejection of the alternatives primarily because of economic and reliability concerns. The PSC found that the proposed line will assure the economic well-being of Florida's citizens by serving projected new electric load in the region and improving the region's electric reliability by minimizing the region's exposure to single contingency events. Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Lake Agnes- Gifford Line and the Impacts of the Line upon the Public and the Environment Expert witnesses in the fields of land use, engineering, and ecology with specializations in transmission line siting, permitting, design, and reliability have compared the corridors proper for certification and all concluded that the Applicants' Preferred Corridor effects a better balance between the need for the transmission line and the impacts of the line on the public and the environment from the perspective of their expertise than does the OIC Alternate Corridor. Conditions of Certification The transmission line can and will be constructed, operated, and maintained in either the Applicants' Preferred Corridor or the OIC Alternate Corridor in compliance with the Conditions of Certification, which are found in the Department's Exhibit 3. The Conditions of Certification establish a post- certification review process through which the final right-of- way, access road, and structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project. The Applicants have agreed to the Conditions of Certification to minimize land use and environmental impacts of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line. The parties agree that the Conditions of Certification are consistent with applicable non-procedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the transmission line, and that such conditions should be imposed on the certification, if granted, for either of the corridors under consideration in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving Tampa Electric Company and Progress Energy Florida's Lake Agnes-Gifford 230 kV Transmission Line Application for Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas M. Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Toni L. Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gary von Behren, President Oak Island Cove Community Owners Association 2872 Blooming Alamanda Loop Kissimmee, Florida 34747-2252 Kelly A. Martinson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Allen G. Erickson, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 1393 Orlando, Florida 32802-1393 Tasha A. Buford, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Ray Maxwell, District Administrator Reedy Creek Improvement District 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830-8438 Jo O. Thacker, Esquire Osceola County Attorney One Courthouse Square, Suite 4200 Kissimmee, Florida 34741-5440 Emily J. Norton, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Mitchell B. Kirschner, Esquire Mitchell B. Kirschner, P.A. 1515 North Federal Highway Suite 314 Boca Raton, Florida 33432-1953 Steven I. Silverman, Esquire Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1700 Miami, Florida 33131-4332 Ruth A. Holmes, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Phil Laurien, Executive Director East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 631 North Wymore Road, Suite 100 Maitland, Florida 32751-4229 Patricia M. Steed, Executive Director Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830-3931 Jennifer S. Brubaker, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Shaw P. Stiller, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2470 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Laura Kammerer Bureau of Historic Preservation 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Michael E. Duclos, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT 01 Bartow, Florida 33830-9005 Kimberly C. Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Procedural Matters After holding noticed public hearings on March 19 and June 12, 1984, the Florida Public Service Commission, by Order Number 13676 issued on September 13, 1984, determined that there was a need for the Florida Power Corporation Lake Tarpon-Kathleen 500 kV transmission line which is the subject of this certification proceeding. Specifically, the Public Service Commission concluded that the construction and operation of the line would enhance electric system reliability and integrity and would improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State. It was further concluded that the Lake Tarpon substation in Pinellas County and the Kathleen substation in Polk County were appropriate starting and ending points for the proposed 500 kV transmission line. The Commission found that the proposed line would complete a 500 kV loop or grid out of the Crystal River plant, maintain system continuity to all 500 kV Substations and avoid customer blackouts. Thereafter, on April 29, 1985, Florida Power Corporation filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation its application for site certification of either of two proposed corridors for the 500 kV transmission line to be located between the Lake Tarpon and Kathleen substations. The Department of Environmental Regulation properly provided notice of the application to the statutory parties including the appropriate State agencies, the local water management district, the regional planning councils and each local government within the proposed corridors. Newspaper notice of the Florida Power Corporation application was also published Notices and reminder notices of the certification hearing were published in newspapers of general circulation within counties to be crossed by the proposed transmission line corridors. While one notice of the certification hearing was published 76 days, rather than the Statutorily required 80 days prior to the hearing, no statutory party or other Substantially interested party was prejudiced thereby. With the exception of Anne L. Thomas and Florida Satellite Network, Inc., the statutory agencies, listed parties and substantially interested persons included within the Appearances portion herein timely filed their notices of intent to be a party or their petitions to intervene. Ms. Thomas and Florida Satellite Network, Inc. were granted leave to intervene on a limited basis during the course of the certification hearing. No party proposed an alternate transmission line corridor route for consideration on or before the 50th day prior to the certification hearing. Efforts to present evidence during the certification hearing relating to an alternate corridor and/or to continue the hearing for that purpose were denied. Proposed Corridors In its application for certification, Florida Power Corporation proposes a primary corridor and an alternative secondary corridor. Both corridors originate at the Lake Tarpon substation located in Pinellas County just west of the Hillsborough-Pinellas County line and terminate at the Kathleen substation, located north of U.S. Highway 98 in Polk County. The primary corridor is approximately 44 miles in length and the secondary corridor is approximately 47 miles in length. The most westerly 5.5. miles and the most easterly 25 miles of both corridors are identical. The divergent primary segment is 13.5 miles in length while the divergent secondary segment is 16.5 miles in length. The westerly combined segments of both the primary and secondary corridors run east for a distance of 5.5 miles from the Lake Tarpon Substation to a point just east of the intersection of Gunn Highway and Mobley Road in Hillsborough County. This 5.5. mile stretch encompasses an existing Florida Power Corporation double-circuit 115 kV transmission line corridor, known as the Higgins-Fort Meade Line, and its associated 100 foot existing right-of-way. From the point where the proposed primary and secondary corridors diverge, the primary corridor continues to run east, northeast for a 13.5 mile long stretch in northern Hillsborough County until it meets up again with the easterly combined segments of both corridors. The initial 9.7 miles of this divergent primary segment is 190 feet wide and follows the continuation of the existing cleared and improved Higgins-Fort Meade line and its associated 100 foot right-of-way until it reaches Interstate 275. At I-275, the primary corridor angles northerly, widens to about 1500 feet and parallels the I-275 right-of-way for a distance of approximately 3.8 miles through Cypress Creek until it reaches the I-275/75 interchange at the Pasco Hillsborough County line. There the 13.5 mile divergent primary corridor merges with the 16.5 mile divergent secondary corridor and continues east to form the easterly combined segment. The divergent secondary corridor, leaving the primary after the first 5.5 miles, turns north and makes some thirteen subsequent turns, heading generally north and then east. Its many turns are the result of an attempt to avoid existing developments and homesites. The divergent segment of the proposed 16.5 mile long secondary corridor is located in both northern Hillsborough and Southern Pasco Counties. It varies in width, going up to 5,000 feet, and the exact location of the right-of-way has not yet been determined. The easterly combined Segment of both proposed corridors is generally 1,500 feet wide. This segment, 25 miles long, begins at the I-275/75 intersection and runs east along the Pasco Hillsborough County line to just east of the Hillsborough River where it jogs to the south to avoid homes in Crystal Springs, and it then proceeds northeasterly to the Pasco-Polk County line. The corridor then angles northeasterly through Polk County, crosses a cypress Swamp known as Fox Branch, and ultimately terminates at the Kathleen Substation. Proposed Design, Construction and Maintenance Florida Power Corporation proposes to utilize a 190-foot wide right-of-way in all areas except for that portion of the divergent primary corridor which will be located within the existing 100-foot wide right-of-way associated with the Higgins- Fort Meade transmission line. Florida Power Corporation intends to replace the Higgins-Fort Meade line with the new Lake Tarpon- Kathleen line in this area, and use of only the 100-foot wide right-of-way is necessitated by residential development which has occurred on both sides of the right-of-way if a wider right-of-way were utilized in this area of the proposed primary corridor, numerous homes would have to be displaced. The 100-foot wide existing Higgins-Fort Meade rights-of- way will remain cleared in its entirety. Except for danger trees and trees exceeding 25 feet in height which could fall on the lines, the 190-foot wide right-of-way will be cleared to a width of 150 feet, with 20 feet being left in a natural state on each side of the right-of-way to act as a buffer. At creek and river crossings, the 190-foot wide right-of-way will only be cleared for 100 feet. In this area, only vegetation that exceeds 25 feet in height will be removed. Tree stumps and root mats will be left intact to retain the integrity of wetland areas. Access roads and tower pads will be constructed within the right-of-way in wetland areas. The typical access road will be about 20 feet wide, with side slopes of two feet horizontal for every one foot vertical. Tower pads within wetland areas will be constructed to the same elevation as the access road leading to it and, depending upon the tower structure utilized, will be 130 feet wide by 113 to 155 feet long. Tower pads within the 100-foot wide rights-of-way will not exceed 100 feet so as not to extend beyond the right-of-way. The proposed tower designs for the transmission line in the 100-foot wide right-of-way will be one of two types. The first type is a single tubular steel pole with a delta-shaped conductor configuration extending from it and will be 120 to 135 feet high and about 60 feet wide. The second type consists of twin tubular steel poles with a vertical conductor configuration between them and will be 155 to 175 feet high and 32 feet wide. The maximum span between two single-pole structures is 900 feet and the maximum span between two twin-pole structures is 1,200 feet. The towers in the 190-foot wide right-of-way will be one of three types. The first type consists of a guyed vee lattice steel tangent structure, 100 to 125 feet high and approximately 64 feet wide at its widest point. It has very little depth, but is supported by guy wires that extend 60 to 75 feet to each side. The second type consists of a self-supported lattice steel tangent structure 100 to 125 feet high and approximately 64 feet wide at its widest point. It has a depth of 23 to 31 feet and requires no guy wires. The-third type is an H-frame tubular steel tangent structure 100 to 125 feet high and about 64 feet wide at its widest point. It has very little depth and requires no guy wires. The normal maximum span between all these types of towers is 1,200 feet, although it may be up to 1,500 feet in Special situations, such as river or road crossings. Once a tower type is Selected for each width of right-of-way, it will be used throughout the right-of-way of that width. The types of foundations utilized for the transmission line towers is dependent upon the type of tower design to be installed. For tubular steel structures, either a drilled pier foundation or a vibratory steel casing foundation will be used. For the self-Supporting lattice tower, a drilled pier concrete foundation will be used. For the guyed lattice tower, either a precast foundation or a drilled pier foundation will be used for the tower, and a drilled pier foundation called an auger cast pile will be used for the guys. The foundations will typically penetrate to a depth of up to 50 feet depending on the type of foundation used and the soil conditions at the tower locations. The conductors for the transmission line consist of three wires, Separated by spacers and attached to the towers by insulators. The conductor wires for the delta towers will be 34 to 100 feet high, depending upon the point in the span, and will be 1.89 inches in diameter. The conductor wires for the vertical towers will be 34 to 130 feet high, again depending on the point in the span, and will be 1.5 inches in diameter. The conductor wires for the guyed vee lattice, lattice, and H-Frame towers will be 34 to 80 feet high, again depending on the point in the span, and will be 1.3 to 1.4 inches in diameter. The minimum conductor- to-ground clearance at mid-span for all of the proposed towers will be 34 feet at maximum conductor temperature Ground wires will be used to intercept and ground lightning and will run along the tops of the towers and, for all tower types, will be .28 inches in diameter. The proposed transmission line will be designed to comply with good engineering practices, and the design codes, standards and industry guidelines contained in the National Electrical Safety Code; the American Welding Society Structural Welding Code for Steel; the American Institute of Steel Construction Code of Standard Practice; the American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete; the Southern Building Code; the American Institute of Steel Construction Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel or Buildings; the American Society of Civil Engineering Guides entitled, "Guide for Design of Steel Transmission Towers," "Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures," "Guidelines for Transmission Line Structural Loading"; and the American National Standards Institute Standard A58.1 entitled, "Loads for Buildings and Other Structures." The Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line will be designed for five loading conditions: an extreme wind loading condition, maintenance loads, loads during construction, contingency loads, and code loads. The line is designed to withstand a reference wind speed of 100 miles per hour in flat, open country with no obstructions, and a reference wind speed of 130 miles per hour in forested and residential areas where obstructions on the ground baffle, or diminish, the wind speed. The highest reference wind speed recorded by an accepted weather station in Tampa during the past 30 years is 67 miles per hour, and the highest ever recorded is 84 miles per hour. A reference wind speed is a one-minute sustained wind speed that corresponds to the fastest mile of wind passing an anemometer ten meters above ground. Structures designed to withstand a given reference wind speed can withstand gusts of greater wind speed. While hurricane force winds along the Gulf Coast may exceed 130 miles per hour, the proposed corridors are located from 9 to 56 miles inland from the coast. The construction loading condition allows for the possible malfunction of equipment during the process of pulling the conductors through the blocks on the transmission line towers. In the unlikely event the conductors become hung up in the blocks, the construction loading condition allows the towers to withstand the induced longitudinal load. The maintenance load criterion ensures that the transmission line towers can withstand the weight of men with equipment climbing out on the structural components during maintenance operations The contingency load criterion allows for the shifting of vertical load in the unlikely event of breakage of a piece of conductor supporting hardware for an insulator. The code load criterion ensures that the transmission line will withstand the wind load set forth in the National Electrical Safety Code. Since the code load is less severe than the extreme wind loading condition for which this line has been designed, the code load was not controlling. In addition, standing water will not cause hydrostatic loads on the transmission line towers because they are free- draining. The towers will also withstand a very severe hydrodynamic force, in excess of 25-foot deep water moving two to three times the speed of the Mississippi River, and the towers will also withstand the uplift effects of buoyancy. Florida Power Corporation proposes to construct the transmission line in Seven stages, with the total construction process taking between 12 to 18 months. At any given location along the right-of-way, construction crews will be present at intermittent intervals for a total of two to three weeks. During the first surveying stage, survey crews of three to five individuals will establish tower locations and take soil borings at depths of 50 to 60 feet for foundation design purposes, survey and stake the right-of-way and survey and stake the requirement for clearing and access roads. This surveying stage will take approximately three months. In the second stage of construction, the right-of-way will be cleared and the necessary access roads will be constructed. In those portions of the corridor where the Higgins-Fort Meade line will be replaced with the new 500 kV line, this stage will include the removal of existing towers, conductors and foundations to approximately 1 to 2 feet below grade. Vegetation in the upland areas, where not already cleared, will be removed with heavy tracked machinery and the right-of-way will be dressed for future mowing. In wetland areas, vegetation will be removed either by hand or by the use of light tracked shearing machines, leaving the stumps and root mats except where they would interfere with tower locations. Wetland areas will not be demucked and cuttings will be either buried or burned in non- residential upland areas. Access roads in wetland areas will be constructed by hauling in fill and spreading it with heavy tracked machinery. Culverts under the roads will be installed to avoid interrupting surface water flow. The fill will be compacted as soon as it is hauled in to encourage revegetation and any other measures that may be necessary to prevent erosion will be undertaken. Fill will be obtained from adjacent upland areas, other upland areas or commercial fill suppliers, but not from wetlands or areas connected to wetlands. The actual locations and sizes of culverts to be used will be determined during post- certification design of the facility and will be reviewed by the agencies having jurisdiction over the access roads. Foundations for the transmission line towers will be installed during the third stage of construction and then, during the fourth stage, the materials needed to assemble the towers will be hauled to the appropriate site, and the towers will be assembled on the ground. The tower components will be bolted together and a locking device will be used on each bolt to prevent the nut from backing off. Each tower assembly takes approximately one day or less. In the fifth stage of construction, a large crane is brought to the tower site and the assembled towers are hoisted into position and installed upon their foundations. Florida Power Corporation can erect about one tower per hour or seven to eight towers per day. In the sixth stage of construction, the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed on the transmission line towers. Temporary wooden pole structures, called guard Structures, are installed at road and utility crossings to insure that conductors do not come in contact with those facilities during installation. Three to four miles of conductor and overhead ground wire are installed at a time. Machines are located at both ends of the Section where the conductors are being pulled, one set to pull the conductors and the other set to maintain tension on the conductors. The contractor will pull the conductors to a predetermined stage which is calculated by the design engineers. Also during this stage, spacers are installed between the three wires which make up each conductor to keep them from coming in contact with one another during high wind conditions. After a section of the conductors is installed, the pulling machines advance in a leapfrog fashion to pull in the next section of conductors. The Seventh and final stage of construction, cleanup of the right-of-way, actually occurs after each contractor completes a portion of the construction process. Cleanup of the right-of way includes removal of any orating materials used to haul materials to the site, grading of the right-of-way to remove any ruts resulting from construction, and reseeding or replanting disturbed areas of the These construction techniques are commonly used in the electric power industry. The construction process will be conducted entirely within the right-of-way unless special and prior arrangements are made with the adjoining property owners. After construction is completed, the right-of-way will be maintained by mowing with bushhog equipment in the upland areas and with light tracked shearing machines or by hand in wetland areas. This owing and/or clearing will occur about once every three to four years. Of course, owners of property along the right-of-way may mow and maintain the right-of-way if they desire to do so. Herbicides will not be used on the proposed transmission line right-of-way in wetlands, on public well fields or near residential areas. A study on the use of the herbicide Rodeo (trademark) on the Central Florida-Kathleen 500 kV transmission line right-of-way is currently being conducted. After the satisfactory completion of this study, Florida Power Corporation may seek a modification of the certification for the proposed transmission line to gain approval to use Rodeo (trademark) herbicide in wetlands. Twice a year, once by ground patrol and once by air, the transmission lines and towers, including hardware, will be inspected by maintenance crews. They will look for damaged insulators (particularly after the hunting season and the lightning storm season) frayed conductors, corroded metal and non- functioning culverts under access roads. Also, a climbing inspection is performed every eight years. Maintenance procedures can and will be conducted entirely within the right- of-way. Surrounding Areas-Primary Corridor The westerly segment of the primary corridor, identical to that of the secondary corridor, encompasses the existing Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line, a business park, areas of pine flatwoods, pasture lands, palmetto prairie, cypress swamp and citrus groves, a plant nursery, a lake and several ponds. The entire western combined segment crosses 7 lakes and 2 watercourses. The initial 9.7 miles of the divergent portion of the primary corridor follows the existing Higgins-Fort Meade line and abuts a number of suburban residential subdivisions, as well as occasional cypress swamps, ponds and citrus groves. The residential subdivisions include the densely populated Northdale, Country Place, Northlakes, Crenshaw Lakes, St. Charles, Crenshaw Acres, Live Oak, Hounds Run and Maple Hill developments. There are approximately 146 homes within 100 feet of the existing 100- foot right-of-way and 381 homes within 300 feet of that right-of- way. These homes and subdivisions were built subsequent to the early 1950's construction of the Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line. The portion of the divergent primary corridor which leaves the Higgins-Fort Meade line (for a distance of approximately 3.8 miles) and parallels I-275 encompasses an extensive area of Cypress Creek. The divergent section of the primary corridor crosses 14 lakes and 5 watercourses. The eastern segment of the primary corridor, identical to the eastern segment of the secondary corridor, traverses primarily rural areas, characterized by open pasture land, pine flatwoods and fresh water marsh, cypress and swamp. As the corridor moves into Polk County, it traverses an extensive wetland system known as Fox Branch. The Fox Branch system is the first tributary to the Hillsborough River, which provides drinking water to the Tampa Bay area. The eastern combined segment of both corridors contains 9 water courses, including the Hillsborough River, and 12 lakes. Surrounding Areas-Secondary Corridor The western and eastern portions of the secondary corridor are identical to that of the primary corridor and the Surrounding areas have previously been described in paragraphs 22 and 24. The 16.5 mile long segment of the secondary corridor which diverges from the primary corridor initially passes through areas of pasture land, citrus groves, cypress swamps and several single family residences, and is adjacent to scattered lakes. After the secondary corridor crosses Van Dyke Road, it is Surrounded by four major planned Single-family and multifamily residential developments, a single family residential compound and farm and a 1.5 million gallon per day waste water treatment plant, which are all currently at various stages of development and will be described in more detail below. The divergent secondary corridor continues to cross areas of cypress swamp, open pasture land and several single family residences and abuts numerous lakes, ponds and single family subdivisions, including Whisper Run, Lake Como Club, Country Close, Foxwood, Turtle Lakes and others, as well as a cemetery and a commercial nursery. Approximately 500 feet north of the secondary corridor along Dale Mabry highway is the Florida Satellite Network, Inc. cable system head end installation consisting of a 90 foot television antenna for local channel reception and two satellite dish antennas. This facility processes and retransmits signals via cable to some 1,500 cable customers in Land O' Lakes. The divergent segment of the secondary corridor contains some 33 lakes and two water courses. Due to the opening of the I-275 corridor, the extension of County Line Road and State Road 54, and the reduction in the amount of land devoted to citrus groves, the area encompassing the divergent secondary corridor is experiencing a boom of activity and rapidly increasing property values. The divergent secondary corridor traverses at least a portion of the newly planned subdivisions of Cypress Bend, Lake Carlton Arms, Villages of Ramblewood and Cheval, as well as the Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant planned and designed to serve these new subdivisions. At the time Florida Power Corporation selected the proposed secondary corridor, it was unaware that these developments would occur or, at least, that they would progress so rapidly. This portion of the secondary corridor also encompasses the Maloney/Zambito family residential compound and farm, and traverses a 16-acre dedicated school site. The corridor includes the northern 750 feet of property owned by Live Oak Realty, which property is presently utilized as an operating cattle ranch. A siteplan has been developed for this property which includes dwelling units and a regional shopping center within the proposed corridor. The Cypress Bend development has recently commenced construction and includes 173 single family home sites, a club house, tennis courts, racquet ball courts, a pool, 77- acres of man-made lakes, and 424 acres of cypress wetlands, for a total of 965 acres. Most of the residential lots will have either a woodland view or a view of a lake. The main entrance is currently under construction and will connect to Van Dyke Road and Lutz Lake Fern Road. About 26 lots, the main entrance and portions of the cypress wetlands are located within the divergent secondary corridor. These cannot be relocated because of developmental, economic and environmental constraints. Expenditures to date by the developers of Cypress Bend include not only the cost of land, but $300,000 for road construction, $52,000 for a 12 inch water main, $118,000 for underground electric facilities and $250,000 for engineering and planning. The Lake Carlton Arms development is a residential rental apartment complex located on 477 acres and is currently under construction. It will have 1,912 units in 155 buildings, 4 clubhouses, and includes a 16 acre school site, a fire station, a 9 acre commercial site, open spaces, a number of man-made lakes, and 203 acres of wetlands and conservation areas. Construction of the lakes and site work is complete and construction of Phase I, consisting of 956 units on the south side of the development, is nearing completion. Construction of future phases will take place along the man-made lakes in the northern portion of the development. Expenditures to date total more than $24,000,000, over and above the cost of the land. The school, which will serve all of the Surrounding developments, 84 units in 7 buildings, and open spaces, as well as access for another 24 units in 2 buildings, will be located within the proposed secondary corridor. They cannot be relocated because of developmental constraints. If the right-of-way is ultimately located so as to avoid the Lake Carlton Arms development, it will then traverse the Villages of Ramblewood development. The Villages of Ramblewood is a single family residential subdivision located on 658 acres immediately to the north of the Lake Carlton Arms development and the Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is proposed for 908 single family lots with 230 acres of cypress wetlands and conservation areas. Construction of the roads and utilities is currently underway, and expenditures to date total more than $2,000,000 over and above the cost of the land. Two of the villages consisting of a number of lots are located within the divergent secondary corridor. They cannot be relocated due to environmental and developmental constraints. If the right-of-way is located so as to avoid them, it will necessarily be required to traverse the Lake Carlton Arms development and the Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Cheval development is located on 855 acres just northeast of the Lake Carlton Arms Development and to the east of the Villages of Ramblewood. It is a multi-use development, currently under construction, and will have 193 large single family home sites, 537 multi-family units, including patio and town homes, 88-acres of man-made lakes, tennis and equestrian villages, an 18-hole golf course, and a club house with tennis courts and a pool. It will also have a 57 acre equestrian center which will include stables, a grand prix jumping area, 2 polo fields, grandstands and parking facilities, and will be the focal point of the development. Phase 1 of the development is near completion, and expenditures to date total more than $16,000,000. Three large single family lots, the stables and about half of one polo field are located within the divergent secondary corridor. They cannot be relocated in a manner that will maintain the integrity of the overall development plan. The Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on 22 acres adjacent to the northwest corner of the Lake Carlton Arms development, is now nearing completion after a 3- year permitting and construction process. It is a 1.5 million gallon per day oxidation ditch-type wastewater treatment plant that can be expanded to a 2 million gallon per day capacity. It includes an operations building, 2 large oxidation ditches with 18 feet high concrete walls, other utility buildings, paving, roadways and storage ponds. Expenditures to date total bore than $3,000,000 and its total cost will be $4.5 million. Its operation is a condition precedent to the viability of surrounding developments. The entire plant is located within the divergent secondary corridor and it cannot be relocated. The right-of-way cannot traverse the plant site for safety reasons since the use of large cranes will be required to maintain and expand the plant. While the right-of-way could perhaps be located so as to avoid the plant site, it could not be done without traversing a portion of the Villages of Ramblewood development. The Maloney-Zambito family complex, located on 194 acres between the Cypress Bend and Lake Carlton Arms developments, is a family complex that includes a dairy, a thoroughbred horse farm, and several residences. A portion of the property has been divided into 3-acre lots which will be used as homesites for several family members. In addition to the residences that now exist on the property, the Maloney family is currently constructing a new home on one of the 3-acre lots. All of the property is located within the proposed secondary corridor. If the right-of-way is located so as to avoid the Cypress Bend development, it will likely result in the displacement of one or more residences on the Maloney Zambito property and will disrupt the family complex. Impacts of Proposed Corridors upon the Public-Land Use, Land Value and Other Considerations. Land Area Preempted. The primary corridor is 44 miles long and the secondary corridor is 47 miles long. Because Florida Power Corporation intends to utilize its existing 100- foot right- of-way along the Higgins-Fort Meade line if the primary corridor is certified, it will only need to acquire 28.8 miles of additional right-of-way to complete the primary corridor. The secondary corridor will require the preemption of sufficient land to locate a 190-foot right-of-way across some 41.5 miles. Joint Use of Land. The primary corridor will follow the existing Higgins-Fort Meade facility for a distance of 15.2 miles. Other linear facilities, including a draining ditch and an electrical distribution line, currently share this existing right- of-way. The primary corridor will also follow the I-275 right-of- way for approximately 3.8 miles and the County- Line right-of-way for about 2.5 miles. Thus, existing linear facilities are followed for 21.5 miles of the primary corridor's total 44 mile length. Joint uses of existing linear facilities are encouraged by state, regional and local comprehensive plans. The secondary corridor will only align itself with approximately 6.5 miles of existing linear facilities. Displacement of Residences. A greater number of occupied residential homesites presently exist adjacent to the proposed divergent segment of the primary corridor. Because the 100-foot right-of-way for the Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line was in existence prior to the construction and development of nearby homes, and because future development has been and is now precluded within that right-of-way, no displacement of homes will be required in the primary corridor. However, if a right-of-way wider than 100 feet is utilized in the dense residential areas along the existing line, numerous homes would have to be displaced. Location of the corridor in the divergent secondary segment could well result in the displacement of both existing residences and those currently under construction or development, as well as a wastewater treatment plant and commercial businesses. When the secondary corridor was initially chosen by Florida Power Corporation, the area contained relatively low density development and the potential of locating most of the right-of-way outside the boundaries of existing and known planned developments. However, that scenario has now changed and is continuing to change on a rapid basis. Since there is no existing right-of-way within the divergent secondary segment, it is reasonably probable that new homes will be placed within the secondary right-of-way, and thus require displacement if the secondary corridor is certified. Population projections indicate that the numbers of residents within the two corridors will be nearly equal in the future. Impacts on Existing and Future Developments. The area along the existing Higgins-Fort Meade line, at least within the divergent primary segment, is basically already fully developed, and future development will not be disrupted any more by the location of the primary corridor there than it is by the existing right-of-way for the Higgins-Fort Meade line. Almost all of the developments along the divergent primary segment were placed there after and were planned with reference to the Higgins-Fort Meade line and its 100-foot right-of-way. The area along I-275 is primarily a wetland area unsuitable for future development. While there is now no existing development along the easterly combined segments of both corridors, it is conceivable that there could be future development in that area. Because of the rapidly developing nature of the divergent secondary segment, the fact that there is no existing protected right-of-way and the large numbers of lakes and wetlands located within that area, it will be very difficult to locate a right-of- way within that secondary segment so as to avoid dividing properties, displacing homes or leaving properties with limited developable uplands. Future development could be severely disrupted by the placement of the secondary corridor in the 16.5 mile area which diverges from the primary corridor. Land Values. Testimony was offered concerning several studies on the impact of transmission lines upon property values. None of the studies were Site-specific to the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line and the literature on the subject is inconclusive as to the effect of transmission lines on adjacent property values. A study conducted in Hernando County concluded that, depending upon the type of property involved, there is a 24 percent to 44 percent loss in value of property located adjacent to a transmission line. The study from which such conclusions were drawn contains deficiencies in that, in some instances, only one sale was recorded, sales were not verified to assure they were the result of arm's length transactions, median values were used when there was only one or a small number of sales and the study was Site-specific to Hernando County. Land use impacts, and their effect upon land use values, have already occurred in the divergent primary section as a result of the existing Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line and I-275. The values of residential properties along the existing transmission line already reflect the location of such a line. Florida Power Corporation has no intention of removing that line or abandoning that right-of-way even if the proposed primary corridor were not certified. The potential adverse impact upon land values if property cannot be developed for residential use within the divergent secondary segment could be great. Planned developments would need to be reduced in size or scope, thus making the property less desirable and less valuable for purchase or development. Visual impacts. Along the 15.5 miles where the Higgins- Fort Meade line presently exists, there should be no significant new visual intrusion. Though the towers for the proposed line will be higher than those within the existing corridor, they will also be sleeker and less intrusive. The visual intrusion of lattice towers and other transmission facilities already exists in the immediate area of the westerly and divergent segments of the primary corridor. The visual intrusion in other areas will be mitigated by alignment of the line with the I-275 right-of-way and by the sparsely populated rural nature of the lands in the combined easterly segment of both corridors. Placement of the transmission line in the proposed divergent segment of the secondary corridor will result in a new visual intrusion for residents of existing and nearly completed subdivisions located therein. Because of the meandering design of the secondary corridor, the transmission lies could form a virtual semi-circle around some lakes and developments, thus creating a greater visual intrusion than a single set of lines or towers located in only one direction from the adjacent property. Noise. The transmission line, no matter where it is located, will generate some noise as a result of a process called corona, and also, to a lesser extent, as a result of wind and insulator scintillations. Corona occurs when a foreign substance like water gets on the conductor wires and causes the level of the electrical field to exceed the electrical strength of air. This causes a burst of energy that heats and applies force to the air and moves air molecules around as sound waves. Under normal fair weather conditions, which occur in this area 90 percent of the time, the noise levels produced by corona will be less than ambient and unmeasurable. During rainy weather, which occurs about 10 percent of the time, the median noise level will be 40.7 to 42.3 dBa at the edge of the right-of-way, with diminishing levels thereafter. Under certain unique conditions, the noise level could rise an additional 3 or 4 dBa, but never as much as an additional 7.5 dBa. To put this in perspective, under normal conditions, the noise level will be more quiet than a rural nighttime ambience, but during rainy weather, the noise level will be roughly equal to a quiet urban nighttime level. Direct comparison is difficult because different noises have different annoyance levels. Some studies have indicated that noise produced by the corona process is more annoying than other types of noises because of its crackling and popping and conclude that a penalty of somewhere around 5 dB should be added to corona noise for comparison purposes. If the penalty were added, the noise level would be roughly 44 to 48 dBa on median, which is much like a quiet urban daytime noise level. The noise levels expected will be Substantially below the maximum level permitted under Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas Counties' noise ordinances, with or without the penalty. Studies of other transmission lines indicate that noise levels of less than 52.5 dB receive little or no complaints. Radio and Television Interference. The bursts of energy that occur during the corona process can, under certain circumstances, cause interference with radio and television reception. Because F.M. radio transmission uses a frequency modulation which is immune to amplitude noise, the proposed transmission line will have no effect on F.M. radio reception. A.M. radio does use an amplitude modulation which can be susceptible to transmission line noises. However, during fair weather conditions the proposed transmission line will not interfere with A.M. stations which meet FCC Type A signal service, which include those stations providing strong enough signals that they would be free of naturally occurring atmospheric interference 90 percent of the time. During foul weather, there may be some interference with some Type A stations at the edge of the right- of-way. However, such interference during stormy weather could occur even in the absence of the transmission line and the interfering effect of the line will not be substantially different than other atmospheric interferences. Television transmission uses frequency modulation for sound and amplitude modulation for the video or picture. Thus, the picture can receive interference from transmission lines in the form of a band of snow or ghosting on the screen. However, under fair weather conditions, the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line will cause no interference with television stations servicing the area. During foul weather, there could be some minimal interference with only Channel 3, and only in the worst case situation where the transmission line is operating at its maximum voltage and the receiving antenna is located immediately adjacent to the edge of the right-of-way or is oriented in a direction such that it receives the maximum amount of transmission line noise. Such worst case conditions are unlikely to occur and, if they do, Florida Power Corporation has agreed to correct interference problems arising therefrom. Microwave receivers, such as satellite dishes, experience no interference from corona. If a receiving station is located near a transmission line and utilizes a high gain antenna with large amplifiers to pick up weak stations, there is some potential for interference. Florida Satellite Network, Inc. does operate a standard television reception antenna atop a 90 foot high radio tower in order receive 9 local television signals. The tower is located approximately 500 feet north of the northern boundary of the secondary corridor. The evidence was insufficient to establish whether or not the proposed transmission line, if placed in the secondary corridor, would create interference during foul weather conditions. As noted above, Florida Power Corporation agrees to investigate and correct all valid complaints of radio and television interference caused by its transmission lines. Human Health and Safety Lightning Strikes. Lightning, an electrical discharge that begins in the clouds and progresses to the ground, is generally attracted and diverted to the tallest object. Transmission line towers are often the tallest structure in an area and they are often struck by lightning. Since the large surges in voltage in current caused by lightning can damage transmission line equipment, power companies attempt to protect their investments by placing static wires, or overhead ground wires, above the conductors to interrupt the lightning and route it through the tower structure to an extensive grounding system at the base of the structure. This process creates no significant risk to people or residents adjacent to the right-of-way and, in fact, may attract and ground lightning strikes that would otherwise strike elsewhere in the area. Electric Shock. Electric shock is the sensation a person feels when current passes through the body. It can range from a very low perception to a startled reaction and, at high levels, it can be fatal. Electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines can cause electric currents to be induced in objects. If one touches a conductive object within or adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way, a small amount of current could flow from the object through his body to the ground. Whether this produces an electric shock depends on the magnitude of the current. Common thresholds are one milliamp for steady state preception, two milliamps for startled reaction, and 4.5 Quo 9 milliamps for safe let-go levels, the threshold being dependent on body limb size and weight. Florida Power Corporation proposes to construct and operate this transmission line to comply with and exceed the National Electrical Safety Code, 1984 Edition (NESC). The NESC requires that induced currents be less than 5 milliamps. This line will produce maximum induced current in the largest objects found within pedestrian access areas of about 2.87 milliamps during normal load conditions; and of about 3.49 milliamps during emergency load conditions. Emergency load conditions occur very infrequently (once a year) and last no more than 3 to 4 hours. The line will produce maximum induced currents in the largest objects found in residential and secondary streets of about 4.10 during either normal or emergency load conditions and will produce maximum induced currents in the largest objects found on major highways of about 4.29 during either normal or emergency load conditions. It will produce progressively lower induced currents the further the distance from the line. There could conceivably be some higher induced currents in fences within the right-of-way or large metal buildings located adjacent to the right-of-way, but Florida Power Corporation routinely grounds such objects. Surveys of utilities operating 500 to 765 kV lines demonstrate that there have been no reports of injury from and very few complaints concerning electric shocks. While perceptible shocks could occur, they will be brief and result in no physiological harm. It is estimated that Florida Power Corporation will receive one complaint based on perceptible, but not harmful, electrical shock for every 35 years of operation of this line. Shock problems can arise for honey bee hives located in or near the right-of-way due to the electrical characteristics present in the bee hive and the bees when they are located within an electrical field. The problem can be eliminated by placing over the hive a grounded screening device, such as chicken wire or a metal plate. Florida Power Corporation has agreed to inform affected beekeepers of this problem and the solution thereto Spark Discharge. When induced current becomes trapped and builds up in objects that are well insulted from the ground, a grounded object coming in contact with it can create a spark, such as that which occurs when a person walks on carpet and then touches a door knob. While these sparks may create a nuisance, they do not cause physiological harm. There is some concern that a spark discharge could contain sufficient energy to ignite gasoline vapors when there exists an optimum mixture of vapor and air. Scientists have produced such a result under contrived conditions, but there is no evidence that this has occurred in practice. There is little likelihood of such an incident occurring because of the number of things which would have to occur simultaneously in order to create the necessary conditions. Falling Conductors. In the unlikely event that a subconductor breaks and falls to the ground, it will establish a spark, known as a fault. The increase in current will be detected by relays at both ends of the line and circuit breakers will immediately de-energize the line and disconnect that line from the rest of the substation. The total time between a conductor approaching the ground and establishing a fault condition to the time that the system is turned off will be about 60 thousandths of a second. Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. When energized with electricity, transmission lines produce both electric and magnetic fields. On an electromagnetic spectrum, telephone and power lines would be at the bottom with respect to intensity, followed by television and radio waves, microwaves, infra red, ultra violent, x-rays and gamma rays. Whether or not low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with transmission lines and other sources of electrical energy may interact with humans, animals and plants to cause harmful biological effects has been the subject of inquiry debate within the scientific community for a number of years. The record of this proceeding contains the testimony of experts and documentary evidence concerning the biological effects of EMF, as well as the statements from members of the public expressing apprehension and fear about the health hazards associated with transmission line EMFs. For the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line, the maximum (which occurs for only a few hours a day) electric fields within the right-of-way during normal load periods will be between 6.79 and 7.37 kilovolts per meter depending upon the tower configuration utilized and the width of the right-of-way. During emergency load conditions (which occur only once a year for three or four hours) the electric fields will range between 8.07 and 8.84 kilovolts per meter. At the edge of the rights-of- way, the maximum electric field strengths are 1.90 (190-foot right-of-way), 3.43 (100-foot right-of-way, delta configuration) and 1.56 (100- foot right-of-way, vertical configuration) for normal loads and 1.85, 3.52 and 1.41, respectively, for emergency loads. The maximum magnetic fields within the right-of-way during normal loads will range between 96.0 milligaus (190-foot right-of-way) and 67.0 milligaus (100-foot right-of-way). During emergency loads, these same figures range between 709 and 470 milligaus. At the edge of the rights-of-way, the range of maximum magnetic fields during normal loads are 24.0 (190-foot right-of-way) and 37.0 (100-foot right-of-way), and during emergency loads 154 and 242 milligaus. While electric fields can be shielded by physical objects, such as trees and houses, magnetic fields cannot be shielded unless the physical objects have strong magnetic properties. The field values listed above are maximum theoretical values and would be affected by variations in current flows and shielding by other objects. Also, the fields could be slightly higher along portions of the divergent secondary corridor because the numerous angles and turns could result in a convergence of fields from more than one direction. Dr. Andrew Marino, a bio-physicist, is of the opinion that electric fields are stressors of biological organism's which contribute to the incidence of all types of diseases. He concludes that the electric field at the edge of a right-of-way should be no greater than 50 volts per meter, thus necessitating a right of way width in this case of 400 feet on each side of the centerline or a total width of 800 feet. Dr. John Norgard, an electrical engineer, felt that the electric field at the edge of the right-of-way should be no greater than 434 volts per meter, thus necessitating a minimum right of way width for this line of 330 feet. Though not qualified as an expert in the health effects of EMF, Karen Anthony, DER's transmission line siting coordinator, had no real concerns regarding the health effects of electric fields associated with transmission lines. However, she perceives a need for caution with respect to magnetic fields and adverse health effects and would prefer a right-of-way width of 190 feet so as to reduce the edge of right-of-way magnetic field strength by 13 milligaus during normal load conditions and by from 75 to 88 milligaus during emergency loads. This preference for a 190-foot right-of-way is not contained in a DER existing or proposed rule and no standard for magnetic fields or other evidence of known adverse health effects from magnetic fields was offered during the course of this proceeding. Dr. Morton Miller, a research biologist, concludes from his own experiments and a review of the Scientific research that, in spite of numerous attempts to do so, no deleterious biological effects have been found from the interaction of EMFs and biological organisms. Dr. Jerry C. Griffin, a medical doctor, does not believe that there are any demonstrated or accessible adverse health effects from EMF exposure to the fields expected from this transmission line. While there is a potential risk to wearers of one type of cardiac pacemaker, this same risk exists from exposure to the EMF's associated with common household appliances. Dr. H. B. Graves, a research biologist, does not believe that exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with this transmission line will cause adverse health effects in plants, animals or persons. Dr. Graves was also chairman of the Florida Electric and Magnetic Fields Science Advisory Commission which authored a report published in March of 1985, entitled "Biological Effects of 60-Hz Power Transmission Lines." The study had the participation of DER and the United States Department of Energy and was funded by the Florida Power Coordinating Group. It was the conclusion of this report that it is unlikely that human exposure to 60Hz EMFs from high voltage transmission lines presents a public health problem. Other reputable scientific groups have reached the same conclusion. The Florida Commission did concede that ambiguities in currently available scientific knowledge do exist and thus it can not be concluded with absolute certainty that there is no chance that a public health problem exists. New scientific developments should continue to be monitored. An analysis of the totality of the evidence presented in this proceeding on the EMF issue results in the finding that this transmission line will not cause or lead to adverse biological effects. Impacts of Proposed Corridors upon the Environment Water Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife. Water Resources. The primary and secondary corridors traverse or contain a variety of surface water resources. These water resources are characteristic of the central Florida area and include natural and manmade ponds and lakes, flowing streams, rivers, cypress swamps, mixed hardwood swamps, freshwater marshes and other kinds of wetlands, including areas which are only seasonally inundated. The largest wetland areas crossed are those associated with Cypress Creek near I-275 and with Fox Branch, a tributary to the Hillsborough River. The major receiving waters for these lakes and watercourses are (from west to east) Double Branch, Rocky Creek, Hillsborough River, Cypress Creek and South Branch. All lakes and watercourses crossed by the proposed corridors are designated as Class III waters by Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. There are no Outstanding Florida Waters within the proposed corridors. There are three public drinking water supply well fields located near the divergent secondary corridor. There are no springs in either corridor. The proposed primary corridor contains a fewer number of waterbodies than the proposed secondary corridor, and many of the water bodies within the primary corridor are already within the existing Higgins-Fort Meade right-of-way. Florida Power Corporation has committed to utilize a number of construction, operation and maintenance techniques in wetlands to avoid any potential adverse hydrologic and water quality effects. For example, in wetlands clean fill will be used, no stump removal or demucking will occur, felled timbers will be placed beneath roads to bear traffic and minimize soil compaction, roads will be constructed to a height of only one foot above water level to allow for surface flow and culverts will be installed to maintain sheet flow. Roadways will be rapidly revegetated to provide stability. Because of the low flow velocities in affected wetland areas, the effects of increased turbidity during construction should be minimal and temporary. The construction and maintenance of the transmission line will have no measurable effect upon groundwater. Since all borings and drill holes will be grouted, there will be no disturbance of the separation between the surficial and the Floridan aquifers and groundwater flow will not be impeded by soil removal. Because it is impractical to delineate site-specific designs for activities within wetlands during the corridor certification process, Florida Power Corporation has agreed to a post-certification review process for approval of site-specific dredge and fill activities. Compliance with the stipulated conditions of certification as set forth in Appendix A will provide DER and SWFID with reasonable assurances that water quality standards will be complied with. The Fox Branch System. As noted, Fox Branch is a tributary of the Hillsborough River and is comprised of some 2,450 acres of forested wetland. It drains the northwest flow of the Lakeland Ridge, an urbanized area of relatively high elevation located north of the City of Lakeland. The proposed corridor crosses the Fox Branch system at its widest point and the right- of-way could not be located to avoid the wetlands. While the 1,500-foot wide corridor includes a total of about 135 acres of wetlands associated with Fox Branch, only about 15.86 acres would be included within the cleared 150-foot wide right-of-way. Only 0.65 percent of the total wetlands will be cleared and only about 2.2 acres or 0.09 percent of the total wetlands will be filled for access roads. The conditions of certification attached as Appendix A require post-certification review by the appropriate agencies of all jurisdictional dredge and fill activities. The proposed construction techniques, conditions of certification and post-certification review of construction across Fox Branch are adequate to protect the water resources of that area. Vegetation. In areas outside the existing Higgins-Fort Meade right-of-way, the proposed 500 kV transmission line will result in some loss and disturbance of plant life. The vegetation communities which occur in both corridors are typical to those found in similar areas throughout central Florida. No unique or endangered species of plant life have been observed in either corridor. While canopy and tall wood vegetation will be cleared along the proposed rights-of-way, plant communities will not be totally destroyed. Rather, the clearing and maintenance will force a shift from the existing successional stages of vegetation to an earlier successional stage. The divergent secondary segment of the corridor contains a greater number of unaltered and undisturbed wetlands, but the divergent primary segment includes the more extensive, mature and diverse vegetation community associated with Cypress Creek, though this waterbody has been previously disturbed by I-275. If proper construction and maintenance techniques are followed, as proposed and as set forth in the conditions of certification, any adverse impacts upon vegetation communities should be minimized. Wildlife. Since both proposed corridors contain many areas of swamp, marsh, lakes, ponds, streams and forested wetlands, there are numerous species of wildlife which inhabit these areas. Both corridors contain similar habitat types and the value of any particular area for supporting wildlife habitat is primarily determined by the size of the area and the degree to which the area is developed or otherwise disturbed. There are no particularly unique habitats located within the divergent segment of the primary corridor and there are no known endangered or threatened wildlife species residing therein. Because the divergent secondary corridor is longer and more undeveloped at this point in time, it contains a larger amount and greater diversity of undisturbed wildlife habitat than does the divergent primary segment. Also there are two endangered or threatened species which actually reside within or adjacent to the divergent secondary corridor. These are the Southern Bald Eagle and the Florida Sandhill Crane. There are two apparently active bald eagle nests located south of the southern edge of the secondary corridor. One is approximately 1,000 to 1,100 feet south and the other is approximately 1,500 to 1,600 feet south of the edge of the corridor. While the corridor in this area does not cross any open water, there are lakes and ponds to the north of the corridor in which the eagles may feed, and the corridor lies between the nests and these lakes and ponds. The potential for injury to the eagles from collision with the transmission line is slight due to the visual acuity of an eagle and the fact that only about 0.07 percent of the bird population in general dies as a result of collision with power lines. There are no federal or state laws prohibiting a transmission line within a certain distance of an eagle's nest, though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does have a guideline indicating that activities within 1,500 feet of an eagle's nest should be reviewed to minimize effects. Florida Power Corporation has agreed to a condition of certification which calls for such a review and has agreed to consult with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission regarding the type and timing of construction activities should the right-of-way be located within 1,500 feet of a bald eagle's nest. Active eagles' nests do presently exist near other transmission lines in Florida. Though difficult to distinguish from the migratory, unthreatened Greater Sandhill Crane, the non-migratory, threatened Florida Sandhill Crane has been sighted within or near the divergent segment of the secondary corridor. While there is a potential for a disturbance of this threatened species from the construction and existence of a transmission line, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the secondary corridor contains critical habitat features or that the Florida Sandhill Crane actually nests within or near the proposed corridor. As noted above, collisions with transmission lines have had no significant effect upon other bird populations. Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies. If the conditions of certification attached hereto as Appendix A are imposed and met, the location, construction and maintenance of the transmission line will comply with the non- procedural requirements of state, regional and local governmental agencies. Variances or exceptions from local zoning ordinances may be required in some instances, and Florida Power Corporation provided notice in its application of those specific regulations from which variances, exceptions or exemptions may be required. However, insufficient evidence was adduced during the certification hearing to permit a factual finding as to the actual types of zoning variances or exceptions which may be required. The exact location of the rights-of-way and the placement of structures within-the rights-of-way will be determinative of the need for local zoning variances or exceptions. Comprehensive Plan Considerations. Transmission lines are generally compatible with the various types of land uses which will be traversed by both the primary and secondary corridors. However, the primary corridor is much more consistent with the various local comprehensive plans than is the proposed secondary corridor. This is primarily due to the fact that the primary corridor, both in its westerly segment and in its divergent segment, follows existing rights-of way, including the Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line and I-275, thereby coordinating linear facilities and minimizing conflicting land uses. Placement of the 500 kV line and towers within the right-of-way for the existing Higgins-Fort Meade line will present only incrementally greater land use impacts as opposed to completely new impacts, both aesthetic and environmental, were the line to be located within the divergent secondary segment. Both the Pasco County and the Hillsborough County comprehensive plans encourage harmonious surrounding land uses, the preservation of viable neighborhoods and the promotion of joint uses of land. Location of the line in the primary corridor, because of the prior existence of the Higgins-Fort Meade line, will be consistent with the objectives contained within the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, known as the Horizon 2000 Plan. The Hillsborough County plan does contain a policy of protecting residential areas from encroachment by undesireable and incompatible uses and the permission of only those activities which directly serve the residential area affected. The proposed 500 kV line will not service the residents in the primary corridor. However, since the residential areas existing along the Higgins-Fort Meade right-of-way developed subsequent and in spite of the existence of that right-of-way, it is found that the location of the new line within the proposed divergent primary corridor does not constitute the encroachment of an undesirable or incompatible use. Likewise, it is found that the proposed 500 kV line and associated facilities will not constitute a "blighting influence" within the prohibition of Hillsborough County's Policy 2.3.1.1.3. Construction and maintenance of the proposed transmission line as planned and in accordance with the conditions of certification will not be inconsistent with either the Polk County Comprehensive Plan or the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's growth policy. As noted above, proper construction and maintenance will not adversely affect the flow regime, the recharge capabilities or the filtering capabilities of the Fox Branch wetland system. Cost Considerations. Florida Power Corporation estimated the costs of the location and construction of the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line in both the proposed primary and secondary corridors. The estimated costs include costs for right-of-way acquisition, right- of-way preparation, road construction, tower construction, angles and other structures and conductors. The estimated costs include a 19 percent markup for indirect costs. The estimated costs do not include the acquisition of improvements that may be within the rights-of-way, severance damages to adjoining lands or the costs of acquiring the land through eminent domain proceedings. These latter costs were not included because they vary from parcel to parcel and are difficult to estimate. They will, however, clearly be incurred and will be substantial. Florida Power Corporation estimates that the cost of locating and constructing the line in the primary corridor will range between $24,386,000 and $32,994,000 if the delta towers are used, and between $24,071,000 and $32,568,000 if the vertical towers are used. The estimated costs for the secondary corridor are between $26,459,000 and $35,800,000. The prime difference in costs between the two corridors are the costs associated with the acquisition of the rights-of-way. The evidence establishes that the estimated costs for right-of-way acquisition within the divergent segment of the secondary corridor are greatly understated. This is due to the noninclusion of costs associated with eminent domain proceedings and costs for severance damages. Since some 12.7 miles more right-of-way must be acquired in the secondary corridor, the amount of these costs will greatly increase the overall secondary corridor costs estimated. Also, the trend toward more development in the secondary corridor will increase land values with the passage of time. In addition, the estimated cost for the primary corridor did not include a credit for the salvage value of the components of the Higgins-Fort Meade line which will be dismantled. In any event, the cost of the project will be at least $2 million to $3 million less if the primary corridor rather than the secondary corridor is utilized, and the differential in costs in favor of the primary corridor is most likely much greater. The issue of whether Florida Power Corporation has either abandoned or overburdened its existing Fort Meade-Higgins right-of-way in the 9.7 mile long divergent segment of the primary corridor has been fully briefed and the easement documents were received into evidence. Obviously, if the 100-foot right-of-way cannot be utilized without acquiring new easements or enlarging and enhancing existing easements, the cost of the primary corridor will be greatly in excess of that estimated by Florida Power Corporation. Florida Power Corporation did include some costs in its estimate for the acquisition of additional easement rights within the divergent primary segment. The Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line right-of-way was established in 1951. Florida Power Corporation acquired a number of express easements by grant, almost all of which allow Florida Power Corporation to improve, repair and rebuild the lines and increase the number of lines and voltage. The rights to the right-of-way continue as long as Florida Power Corporation uses them or until use is abandoned. In those few instances where there is no express easement, Florida Power Corporation has acquired prescriptive rights to the easement. In October or November of 1984, Florida Power Corporation de-energized the Higgins-Fort Meade double-circuit 115 kV transmission line. No lines or structures have been removed. At all times, it has been Florida Power Corporation's intent to either use the existing right-of-way easements for an upgraded transmission line or to sell the easements to another power company. Florida Power Corporation has never intended to abandon its 100-foot right-of-way within the primary corridor and did not do so by de-energizing the line in late 1984. There was insufficient evidence adduced to conclude that the replacement of the existing line with a 500 kV line would overburden existing easements to the extent that additional compensation would be required. Preference of Florida Power Corporation. Primarily because of the rapidly developing nature of the area surrounding the proposed secondary corridor, the consequences of that factor upon land use and cost considerations, and the prior existence of the Higgins-Fort Meade rights-of-way, Florida Power Corporation prefers that all segments of the proposed primary corridor be certified for the location of the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen 500 kV transmission line.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, grant certification for the location of the primary corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line within that corridor as proposed in the application and in accordance with the conditions of certification attached hereto as Appendix A. It is also RECOMMENDED that, as a further condition of certification, Florida Power Corporation be required to seek any necessary interest in state lands, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, from that Board prior to engaging in any activity on or affecting that land, pursuant to Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes, (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Graham Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Connor Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bill Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 H. A. Evertz, III, Esquire Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 John Bottcher, Esquire Douglas MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph Artigliere, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, P.A. Post Office Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 J. Edward Curren, Esquire Ms. Patricia Dorris Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 33512 Frederick B. Karl, Esquire Karl, McConnaughhay, Roland & Maida Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Elizabeth L. Eddy, Esquire Carolyn J. House, Esquire Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601 David Smolker, Esquire Pasco County 4025 Moon Lake Road New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Dorothy Trogolo, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 7530 Little Road New Port Richey, Florida 33553 Mark F. Carpanini, Esquire Polk County Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830 Ronald E. Cotterill, Esquire Cotterill, Gonzalez & Fisher 126 Flagship Drive Lutz, Florida 33549 Alton B. Parker, Esquire Steve Reynolds, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Register, Jr., Esquire Register and Park 625 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Mr. Gerald Rabin 2708 East Stone Terrace Lakeland, Florida 33803 Ms. Debra A. Worley Big Lake Como Lake Association Post Office Box 488 Lutz, Florida 33549 Michelle Russell, Esquire Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire Martin & Figurski Post Office Box 786 New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Joseph A. McGlothlin, Esquire Enola R. Brown, Esquire Lawson, McWhirter, Grandoff & Reeves Post Office Box 3350 Tampa, Florida 33601 Mr. Donald W. Rairigh Paradise Lakes Condominium Homeowners Association Post Office Box 750 Land O' Lakes, Florida 33539 Timothy G. Hayes, Esquire Cotterill, Gonzalez & Fisher 126 Flagship Drive Lutz, Florida 33549 James V. Lau, Esquire Mary A. Lau, Esquire Lau, Lane, Piper & Asti, P.A. Post Office Box 838 Tampa, Florida 33601-0838 Margaret J. Bowles, Esquire Taub & Williams Post Office Box 3430 Tampa, Florida 33601 Robert S. Wise, Esquire 304 Northwood Drive Lutz, Florida 33549 John E. Lund, Esquire Cicero, Lund & Williams, P.A. 707 Franklin Street Mall Tampa, Florida 33602 John Radey, Esquire Aurell, Fons, Radey & Hinkle Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lynn H. Townsend, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601 Ms. Anne Thomas 3416 Almeria Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 Charles R. McCoy, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 S. Meridian Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. MS 58, Room 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Roger Howe, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Van B. Cook, Esquire Pinellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Bennett L. Rabin, Esquire Harold H. Goldman, P.A. 10020 South Federal Highway Port St. Lucie, Florida 33549 Mr. Will James Shephard 14037 N. Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33618 Ms. Nancie Poole 17 Eagle Lane Lutz, Florida 33549 Mr. John E. Greenslade 2901 Barcelona Street Tampa, Florida 33629 Lucius M. Dyal, Jr., Esquire Shackelford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 S. Cary Gaylord, Esquire Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Schuster & Sachs 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should certify the Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project (“Project”) of Tampa Electric Company ("TEC"), including its associated electrical transmission lines, subject to the proposed Conditions of Certification.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated there are no disputed issues of fact. TEC is an investor-owned electric utility regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission. It is headquartered in Tampa and has supplied electricity to customers in the Tampa Bay area since 1899. TEC's electric service territory covers approximately 2,000 square miles and includes all of Hillsborough County and portions of Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC has five generating stations, Big Bend, HL Culbreath Bayside, JH Phillips, Polk Power Station, and Partnership Station. The Project is proposed for the Polk Power Station. Existing Facilities The Polk Power Station was certified pursuant to the Power Plant Siting Act in January 1994. It is located in southwest Polk County, 17 miles south of the City of Lakeland and 28 miles southeast of the City of Tampa. The original site consists of 4,348 acres bordered by the Hillsborough County line on the west; County Road 663 (Fort Green Road) on the east; County Road 630, Bethlehem Road, and Albritton Road on the north; and State Road 674 and several former phosphate clay settling ponds on the south. The Polk Power Station has five electric generating units and associated facilities. Polk Unit 1 is 260 megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle facility fired with synthesis gas or “syngas” produced by gasifying coal and other solid fuels. Polk Units 2 through 5 are 165 megawatt simple cycle combustion turbine generators fueled primarily with natural gas. Support facilities at the Polk Power Station include a 755-acre cooling reservoir, oxygen blown gasifier, air separation unit, sulfuric acid plant, slag byproduct storage area, and switchyard. The station is served by four 230 kilovolt (“kV”) transmission circuits, a railroad line, and a natural gas pipeline. Water is supplied from four onsite groundwater wells for the cooling water reservoir and other plant processes. Other existing facilities include an administration building, control room, warehouse, and construction management building. The Proposed Project Need On January 8, 2013, the Florida Public Service Commission issued its Final Order Granting Certification of Need for Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion. The Commission determined that the most cost effective and reliable alternative to meet future power needs is the construction of the Project at the Polk Power Station. The Commission's Final Order is TEC/Department Joint Exhibit 2. Among other findings, the Commission determined that the Project would improve fuel diversity and supply reliability, incorporate renewable energy and conservation factors, and is needed to maintain electric system reliability and integrity. Power Generation The Project involves the conversion of the four existing simple cycle combustion turbine generator units to combined cycle operation. The Project would be a four-on-one combined cycle unit consisting of the four existing combustion turbine generators, each combined with a new heat recovery steam generator, and a new steam turbine generator. The Project would achieve improved efficiency in electrical power generation. When operated in a simple cycle mode, a combustion turbine generator releases hot gases to the atmosphere. In the proposed combined cycle configuration, this exhaust heat would be routed to the heat recovery steam generators and the steam produced by the heat recovery generators would be routed to the new steam turbine generator to produce additional electricity. The Project is designed to allow the combustion turbine generators to be operated in simple cycle mode when the steam turbine generator is not in service. The combustion turbine generators may also be operated in simple cycle mode to meet peak power demands. The conversion would increase the nominal net generating capacity of the four existing generators from 660 megawatts to 1,160 megawatts. Total capacity for the Polk Power Station would be increased from 1,150 megawatts to 1,420 megawatts. The proposed generating facilities would be state-of- the-art, incorporating improvements in technology that have occurred over the past 20 years. They are designed by Black & Veatch, an internationally-recognized engineering firm with significant experience in designing similar facilities. Fuels The four combustion turbine generators would be fired with natural gas as the primary fuel. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel would be the backup fuel. The four heat recovery steam generators would have natural-gas-fired duct burners for peaking operations. The existing onsite natural gas pipeline would provide the natural gas for the Project and the backup ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel would be stored in existing onsite fuel storage facilities. Water Use Groundwater withdrawals from four wells are authorized by the current Conditions of Certification for 4.3 million gallons per day (“mgd”) on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a peak monthly average. The Project will require additional water for cooling and plant process water uses. To minimize use of groundwater, TEC would treat and reuse 5.7 mgd of treated reclaimed water from the City of Lakeland. The treated reclaimed water would primarily be used to supply the makeup water for the proposed new cooling tower and the existing 755-acre cooling reservoir, as well as some process water needs. The cooling reservoir would be used for condenser cooling purposes. The new six-cell mechanical draft cooling tower would provide cooling for the Project’s auxiliary systems, which would be modified to use the new cooling tower instead of the reservoir. The reclaimed water would be initially provided by the City of Lakeland through a 15-mile pipeline. Later, reclaimed water would be provided by the City of Mulberry and Polk County. The Project systems are designed to maximize water reuse and recycling to reduce groundwater consumption. However, TEC requests that the maximum groundwater withdrawals currently authorized -- 4.3 mgd on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a peak monthly basis –- be maintained in this certification to ensure that TEC can reliably and safely operate the facilities and manage water quality and levels in the cooling reservoir during extended periods of low rainfall conditions and in the event there is an interruption in the delivery of reclaimed water. The Project’s proposed water uses comply with all applicable agency requirements. Stormwater and Wastewater Discharges Stormwater and wastewater treatment systems are already in use at the Polk Power Station. These systems would be used for the Project facilities. The proposed facilities will not significantly affect the quantity or quality of stormwater runoff at the Polk Power Station. The current wastewater streams include runoff from industrial areas and process wastewaters. Wastewaters would continue to be collected and treated by the onsite industrial wastewater systems, including the equalization basin, neutralization basin, filtration system, and oil/water separator, and then discharged to the cooling water reservoir. With the addition of the Project, cooling water blowdown from the new cooling tower and treated reclaimed water will be introduced to the cooling reservoir. TEC has a permit for underground injection control wells which it plans to test for disposal of nonhazardous wastewater such as reverse osmosis reject water from the reclaimed water treatment process. The Project’s stormwater and wastewater discharges would comply with all applicable agency requirements. Air Quality Impacts Construction of the Project facilities at the Polk Power Station would generate fugitive dust emissions. These would be controlled by dust suppression control measures such as watering. The vehicles used by construction workers would release nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and other fuel combustion- related air pollutants. These kinds of emissions from construction equipment would be minimized through the use of ultra-low-sulfur-diesel fuel in various diesel engines. Even under worst-case conditions, the air quality impacts caused by construction activities would be minimal, temporary, and limited to the construction site. The Project qualifies as a major modification to an existing major source. Air quality impacts from plant operations would be primarily nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from the four combined cycle units, particulate emissions from the cooling tower, and various combustion emissions from operation of the emergency diesel generator. Air quality analyses were performed for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and carbon monoxide. The dispersion modeling analyses demonstrate that the Project’s air quality impacts would not exceed the applicable regulatory limits and would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increment or National Ambient Air Quality Standard. For certain air emissions, Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") is required. BACT controls for nitrogen oxide would include the use of dry, low-nitrogen-oxide burners when firing natural gas and water injection when firing ultra- low-sulfur diesel fuel, and the installation of selective catalytic reduction technologies for the combined cycle combustion turbines. For sulfur dioxide emissions and emissions of sulfuric acid mist, BACT controls would include the use of low-sulfur natural gas as a primary fuel and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel as a backup fuel. For carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, BACT calls for good combustion design and operation. BACT for combustion particulates would be the use of low-ash natural gas as a primary fuel and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel as a backup fuel. For the emergency diesel engine, proposed BACT for all pollutants would be compliance with the applicable Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, which are federal standards that have been adopted by the Department. Proposed BACT for particulate emissions from the cooling tower is the use of high efficiency drift eliminators. The proposed air quality control technology for the Project and the expected emissions from the Project’s construction and operation would comply with all applicable agency requirements. Transmission Lines and Corridors The Project includes two new transmission line corridors. The proposed “Polk-Pebbledale Corridor” is a 5.5-mile, single-circuit 250 kV transmission line from the Polk Power Station north to the Pebbledale substation in Polk County. The proposed “Polk-Fishhawk Corridor” would be a single-circuit 250 kV transmission line running west from the Polk Power Station to the Mines substation near the intersection of State Road 674 and County Road 39 in Hillsborough County; from there, north and then west again to connect to a new Aspen switching station to be located near the intersection of County Road 672 and Balm-Boyette Road; and from the Aspen station, two separate 230kV transmission lines would run northeast to the existing Fishhawk substation near the intersection of Fishhawk Boulevard and Boyette Road; a total length of 27 miles. TEC exercised its option under section 403.5064(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to allow parties to file alternate transmission line corridors. No alternate corridors were filed or reviewed in this proceeding. TEC used a multidisciplinary team to evaluate alternative corridors for the new transmission lines. The team conducted initial data collection, prepared regional screening maps, identified alternate route segments, developed evaluation criteria, evaluated the routes, and selected the preferred routes. Public participation was a part of this effort. A regional screening map was created to identify existing infrastructure, roads, railroads, rivers and other water bodies, and siting constraints within the study area. TEC has existing transmission line rights-of-way in much of the study area, which together with public road rights-of-way provided co- location opportunities. The Polk-Pebbledale Corridor runs across former phosphate mining lands and follows roads and existing transmission line corridors to a point south of the town of Bradley Junction where it turns to the northeast and follows a transmission line through reclaimed phosphate lands to the intersection with another existing transmission line. In this certification proceeding, no party or non-party expressed opposition to the Polk-Pebbledale transmission line corridor. The Polk-Fishhawk Corridor runs across former and active phosphate mining lands, along road rights-of-way, and agricultural lands. As it approaches the Fishhawk substation, however, it passes through a residential development, referred to as the Fishhawk Community. The portion of the corridor that runs through the Fishhawk Community follows an existing TEC-owned transmission line right-of-way. No developer, agricultural operator, commercial entity, agency, or local government expressed opposition to the Polk to Fishhawk transmission line corridor, but residents of the Fishhawk Community testified in opposition to the corridor at the public hearing held in the Fishhawk community center. Their testimony at the public hearing is discussed later in this Recommended Order. The proposed transmission lines would be installed on steel poles embedded in the ground. Guy wires are generally not needed except where a transmission line makes a large angle turn or guy wires are otherwise necessary for safety and sound engineering. Pole heights would vary from 80 to 135 feet. The typical span length between poles would be 500 to 700 feet, but it can range up to 1,000 feet, when necessary to avoid natural or manmade obstacles or other siting constraints. The corridors are wider than the rights-of-way that will ultimately be determined in order to allow for flexibility in the final selection of the rights-of-way. The proposed rights-of-way would be reviewed by the agencies to insure compliance with the Conditions of Certification. Each transmission line would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with good engineering practices and all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including the National Electric Safety Code, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, requirements of the Florida Public Service Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide, applicable local and state government requirements, and TEC's internal design standards. TEC designs all of its 230 kV transmission lines to withstand a 130-mile-per-hour wind band, which exceeds the criteria in the National Electric Safety Code. Electric and Magnetic Fields The electric field produced by a transmission line is relatively constant over time. The magnetic field fluctuates over time depending on the load on the line. Electric and magnetic fields have been calculated for each of the configurations that may be used for the Project, based on the maximum requested voltage and current. The maximum expected levels for the electric and magnetic fields are within the limits in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. Considerable scientific research has been conducted in the past 30 years to understand the potential health effects associated with electric and magnetic fields. There is general agreement among scientists in national and international health agencies that the available evidence does not show adverse health effects can occur from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. The Department’s limits for electric and magnetic fields at the edge of a transmission line right-of-way are lower than the limits recommended by the World Health Organization. Noise Impacts The noise limits applicable to the Project are those contained in the Polk Land Development Code and the in the rules of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. The Polk County noise limits are 75 decibels, A-weighted measurement (“dBA”) from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for non- residential areas and 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for residential areas. The noise requirements applicable to transmission lines in Hillsborough County are 60 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise levels measured at four locations in the vicinity of the Project site varied between 41.9 and 51.1 dBA. Offsite noise levels during construction of Project facilities at the power station would be minimal because of the distance from the construction area to the site boundaries. Noise levels at the power station during operation are not expected to differ significantly from existing levels. Audible noise associated with transmission lines is usually associated with “corona,” which is a phenomenon that occurs when there is an irregularity on the surface of the conductors, such as water droplets or other significant particles. If the noise occurs during a rainstorm it is usually masked by the noise of the rain. At other times, corona noise will often be masked by other outdoor noises. Noise calculations were conducted for the proposed transmission lines and ranged from 32.0 to 45.2 dBA. These levels do not exceed the applicable limits. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology The areas proposed for the Project’s generating and associated facilities have been altered by the construction and operation of the Polk Power Station. These areas are also surrounded by lands altered by phosphate mining and reclamation. Wildlife habitats have already been destroyed, altered, or diminished by these activities and no longer have high functional values. Construction activities at the power plant site would not disturb any native or reclaimed wetland or upland habitats. Wildlife species expected to be found onsite would be common species for the region. Only two listed species of special concern were documented at the power station, the American Alligator and Tricolored Heron. They are both found in the reclaimed wetland west of the construction area and would not be affected. Impacts to other wildlife caused by construction at the Polk Power Station would be temporary and insignificant. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species at the Polk Power Station. No reclaimed or natural upland or wetland habitats are proposed to be affected. Wildlife habitats along the proposed transmission line corridors includes pine flat woods, mixed forested uplands, and various wetlands, including cypress forests, mixed hardwood swamps, and marshes. Surrounding land covers are dominated by current or former phosphate mining, farmsteads, or landscaped residential properties. The Balm-Boyette Scrub Preserve, Little Manatee River, Hurrah Creek, Fishhawk Creek, and Little Fishhawk Creek provide the best wildlife habitats along the transmission line corridors, but the corridors would cross these areas where there are already existing transmission line rights-of-way or roads. Wildlife found along the corridors are species commonly found in the region. No listed species are known to occur. Construction and maintenance of the transmission lines within the corridors would not significantly impact the habitats of fish and wildlife found in these areas. Impacts to vegetation along the transmission line corridors would be minimized by siting the rights-of-way within the most disturbed areas or on existing road and transmission line rights-of-way. TEC would span all open waters such as streams and tributaries. For smaller water crossings and wetlands, the facilities would be co-located with existing linear facilities to minimize impacts. Restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands would be utilized, removing vegetation selectively. Impacts from filling would be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable through a careful alignment of the transmission line rights-of-way and through the choice of span distances between structures. Where wetland impacts cannot be avoided, the impacts would be minimized and mitigation would be provided. Prior to the final selection of rights-of-way and the beginning of construction, surveys would be conducted to determine the presence of protected plant and animal species and the results would be shared with the FWC to determine if mitigation may be required in accordance with Conditions of Certification. Archeological and Historic Sites When the Polk Power Station was first certified and subsequently, archeological surveys were conducted to determine the presence of cultural and historical resources of significance. No such resources were identified. Cultural and historical resources in the study area for the transmission line corridors were evaluated during the corridor selection process. All National Register of Historic Places sites and districts as well as other known cultural resources were mapped and candidate corridors were laid out to avoid those resources. Corridors were laid out to co-locate with other transmission lines and linear facilities that have already disturbed the land to reduce the potential for new disturbances to cultural resources. After the rights-of-way within the corridors have been determined, cultural resource surveys would be conducted to identify the location of any archeological or historical resources and determine potential impacts whether they can be avoided. The surveys would be submitted to the Division of Natural Resources for its review and consideration. Transportation Impacts No additional transportation impacts are expected from the operation of the Project because there would be no addition to the current Polk Power Station staff of 78 employees to operate all facilities. The construction phase would generate 357 daily trips by construction workers and 50 additional delivery trips. The trip distribution per day is expected to be 228 northbound trips on State Road 37, 82 southbound trips on State Road 37, 75 northbound trips on Fort Green Road, and 22 southbound trips on Fort Green Road. Even at the peak of construction activities, the surrounding roadway network is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. Land Use Compatibility The Project facilities would be located within the existing power station site, which is the logical and efficient location for the Project. There are no conflicting land uses in the vicinity of the Project site. Most of the land uses along the corridors are former and active phosphate mining lands, undeveloped lands, agriculture, and rural residences. The key exception is the segment of the Polk-Fishhawk Corridor that runs through the developed Fishhawk Community, which is a suburban residential area. Transmission lines of the types proposed are frequently located in proximity to all of these affected land uses, including the suburban residential areas. It is officially recognized that many people, if given a choice, would prefer not to have high voltage transmission lines near their homes, primarily based on aesthetic considerations. However, it is also officially recognized that many people are willing to live near transmission lines. Until there is a practical alternative to above-ground transmission lines, they will have to be located in developed areas in order to supply electricity to residences. The proposed transmission lines are not incompatible with residential uses. Polk County and Hillsborough County do not oppose the Project on any basis, including land use compatibility. The Project is consistent with the comprehensive plans and the land development regulations of these counties. Socioeconomic Impacts The Project would provide additional clean and reliable energy, additional jobs during construction, an increased property tax base, and increased economic activity in the form of purchases of goods and services. Local revenues from property taxes levied on the new plant facilities would primarily benefit Polk County. The estimated additional property tax revenue is between $6 million and $6.5 million annually. Significant revenues are also expected from sales taxes on goods purchased directly for the plant or indirectly from purchases of goods and services by the construction workers. Sales taxes are estimated to be $105,000 per year. Construction of the Project would employ an average of 250 workers, with a peak projected in 2015 of about 500 workers. Most of the construction workers would be drawn from an area within a commuting distance from the Project site. The construction payroll for the overall Project is expected to be $88 million and much of this would likely be spent in Polk County and the region. Site Boundaries TEC requests that the boundaries of the Polk Power Station site be reduced from 4,348 acres to 2,837 acres to reflect that the original certification required a donation of 1,511 acres to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund as a wildlife management area and recreation area. The donation was completed in 2012. Construction Schedule Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in January 2014 and be completed in time to allow commercial operation in January 2017. Public Notice and Participation TEC engaged in extensive public outreach for the Project, using direct mail, a survey, public meetings, newspaper advertisements, a project webpage, a toll-free telephone number for information, and communications with agencies and public officials. TEC used two direct mailings, totaling over 10,000 letters in both English and Spanish. The letters were mailed to landowners and residents within one-quarter mile of the proposed transmission line corridors, all homeowners' associations within one mile, and all landowners and residents within three miles of the plant site boundaries. Three public meetings were held regarding the Project. The first meeting was held on April 10, 2012, at the Little Union Baptist Church. The second was on April 12, 2012, at the Fishhawk Fellowship Church. The third was on April 19, 2012, at the Wimauma Senior Center. TEC held meetings with county commissioners, mayors, state senators, and state representatives to inform them of the Project and the certification process. TEC representatives also met with developers in Hillsborough County who could be affected by the corridors to provide information and answer questions. Copies of the Application were available for inspection at the Polk County Library in Bartow and the John Germany Public Library in Tampa. A copy was also available for public review at TEC’s offices in Tampa. On October 24, 2012, public notice of the filing of the Application was published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger. On April 18, 2013, notice of the Certification Hearing was published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger and on April 19, 2013, in the Tampa Bay Times. When the certification hearing was rescheduled, TEC published notice of the rescheduling in The Tampa Tribune, The Ledger, and the Tampa Bay Times on June 16, 2013. The Department published notices of the Application, the certification hearing, the public testimony hearing, and rescheduling the certification hearing in the Florida Administrative Register. Hillsborough County published notice of the public testimony portion of the proceeding in The Tampa Tribune on June 19, 2013. Public Testimony A hearing was held in Lithia, Florida, on June 25, 2013, in the Fishhawk Community to provide members of the public who are not parties to the certification proceeding an opportunity to present sworn testimony concerning the transmission line portion of the Project. Twelve members of the public testified. Eight comment letters were received into the record as Public Testimony Composite Exhibit 1. A number of the residents expressed anger about what they perceived as the failure of the developer who sold them their homes, and TEC, to disclose to them that a transmission line might be constructed near their homes. As previously stated, the corridor is on property owned or controlled by TEC for the installation of transmission lines. The record evidence does not indicate any duty to disclose, any misrepresentation, or any obfuscation by TEC in this regard. If there was a failure to disclose or a misrepresentation by the developer, those are matters between the homeowners and the developer and beyond the scope of this proceeding. Several residents expressed concern about possible adverse health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields associated with the transmission lines. However, no speaker referred to personal knowledge or to any study results to support their comments on this subject. It is likely, therefore, that their concerns are based on rumors or speculation. As discussed above, independent scientists have not been able to substantiate the occurrence of adverse health effects from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. There is a tennis court and there are nature trails underneath existing transmission lines located in another part of the Fishhawk Community, indicating that the fear of electrical and magnetic fields is not universal. Some residents urged that TEC be required to install the portion of the transmission line in the Fishhawk Community underground. There are substantial engineering difficulties associated with underground installation of high voltage transmission lines. TEC has never installed this type of transmission line underground. The cost for underground installation could be as much as 15 times greater than for overhead installation. Agency Reports Agency reports with proposed conditions of certification were submitted to the Department by SWFWMD, FWC, Florida Department of Transportation, Hillsborough County, and Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. Agency Reports without recommended conditions of certification were submitted by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and Polk County. The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources did not file an agency report, but recommended conditions in its Completeness Review. On January 28, 2013, The Department issued its Project Analysis Report for the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing Conditions of Certification. On April 26, 2013, the Department issued its Project Analysis Report on the power plant and proposed Conditions of Certification. The Report was modified on May 21, 2013. No agency opposes certification of the Project. Conditions of Certification The Department recommends certification of the Project subject to the revised Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 8, which supersedes all prior statements of conditions. The Conditions of Certification address numerous subjects and are designed to ensure that the construction and operation of the Project is protective of the public and the environment. The Conditions of Certification provide for post- certification reviews and investigations to confirm, for example, that sensitive areas will be avoided and that transmission lines structures will avoid or have minimal adverse impacts. TEC has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the Project in compliance with the Conditions of Certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Certification Considerations In determining whether TEC's application for the Project should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, the Siting Board must determine whether, and the extent to which, the location, construction, and operation of the Project would: Provide reasonable assurance that the operational safeguards are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Be consistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. Meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. Effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as established pursuant to s. 403.519 and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state resulting from the construction and operation of the facility. Minimize, through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse affects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and protect the broad interests of the public. § 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would provide reasonable assurance that the operational safeguards are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would be consistent with applicable local comprehensive plans and land development regulations. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would meet the electric energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as established pursuant to section 403.519 and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would minimize, through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would serve and protect the broad interests of the public.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a final order: approving TEC's application for certification to construct, operate, and maintain the Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project, including its associated transmission lines, subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 8; approving the increase in ultimate site capacity for the Polk Power Station site from the previously approved 1150 megawatts to 1420 megawatts; and modifying the Polk Power Station site boundaries from 4,348 acres to 2,837 acres, as depicted in TEC Exhibit 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland and Knight LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Toni Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Anthony Justin Pinzino, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Adam Teitzman, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Michael S. Craig, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office 330 West Church Street, Drawer AT01 Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney`s Office 27th Floor 601 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 3629 Queen Palm Drive Tampa, Florida 33619 Patricia Anderson Department of Health Environmental Engineering 4042 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1742 Laura Kammerer Bureau of Historic Preservation R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Manny L. Pumariega Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Suite 100 4000 Gateway Center Boulevard Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 Patricia M. Steed Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830-3931 Forrest Watson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Forestry 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for determination is whether and the extent to which the proposed corridor by Tampa Electric Company (TECO) contained in its Application for Corridor Certification (Application) should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The TLSA establishes TECO and the Department as parties to this proceeding, and the following became parties upon their timely filing of a notice of intent to be a party, which each has done: Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWRWMD), and Hillsborough County. See § 403.527(2), Fla. Stat. Although the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) did not become a party, the Department accepted its comments and recommended conditions in the agency report. On February 21, 2008, the City of Temple Terrace was accepted as a party without objection after the deadline for filing the notice of intent. § 403.527(2)(b), Fla. Stat. On February 25, 2008, Tom and Susan Watson filed a Petition to Intervene. Although this was after the deadline established in the prehearing schedule for becoming a party, TECO did not object based upon an agreement to conditions relating to the presentation of witnesses by the Watsons. Intervenors agreed to those conditions. Finally, Polk County did not file a notice of intent to be a party, but appeared without objection at the certification hearing. The Application Project Description Generally, an electrical transmission line's purpose is to transport large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. At the substation, the electricity can be either increased or reduced in voltage through transformers and other electrical equipment for further safe and practical transportation, or distribution directly to customers. TECO is seeking certification of a corridor between the planned Willow Oak substation located at the intersection of State Road 60 and Turner Road just northwest of Mulberry in Polk County, the existing Wheeler substation in Valrico, and the planned Davis substation in Temple Terrace, a span of approximately thirty miles, within which it will ultimately construct the line on a narrow right-of-way (ROW).2 Once all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the typical width of the 25 to 100- foot ROW. In some cases, the ROW will be 300 feet wide. The objectives of the Project are to address: (a) the need, as confirmed by the PSC, to provide additional transmission reinforcement to the existing 230 kV transmission network north of State Road 60, west of the planned Willow Oak substation, and east of the existing River substation in a reliable manner consistent with the North America Electric Reliability Council (NAERC) and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) and other applicable standards; (b) the need to serve the increasing load and customer base in the Project service area; and (c) the need to provide for another electrical feed via a separate ROW path, thereby reducing the impact of a loss of existing transmission facilities on a common ROW. Need for the Line In earlier proceedings before the PSC, it determined a new 230 kV transmission line between the planned Willow Oak, the existing Wheeler, and the planned Davis substations is needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity and the need to provide abundant, low cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State. The PSC found that the planned Willow Oak substation and the planned Davis substation constitute the appropriate starting and ending points for the proposed line. The PSC noted that the additional transmission capacity will be needed by 2012 and recognized that the Siting Board will make the final determination concerning the route selection upon consideration of the factors and criteria specified in Section 403.529, Florida Statutes. Transmission Line Design The typical design for the transmission line will be a single-circuit unguyed concrete pole structure using concrete or crushed stone back fill. The poles are proposed to range in height from 80 feet above grade to 125 feet above grade, with the conductors framed in a vertical configuration. Three conductors will be used, and each of the three conductors is anticipated to be a 1,590 aluminum conductor steel supported wire, with 45 strands of annealed aluminum that lay over seven steel strands. The conductor is 1.504 inches in diameter with a weight of approximately 1.7 pounds per foot. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightening protection for the conductors. The maximum current rating is 2,560 amperes. In some locations there could be a 69 kV and a distribution underbuild. Additionally, the vertical configuration will be adjusted to a horizontal configuration in the vicinity of the South Lakeland Airport to enable the height to be lowered to approximately 46 feet above grade to account for the air traffic. The open span length between structures will typically vary between 300 and 800 feet, depending on site-specific conditions. Both pole height and span length may vary to accommodate various conditions that may be encountered. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary to provide access for construction, maintenance, and emergency restoration. Where constructed, the typical road top width will be 14 feet, with a 2-to-1 side slope, and a minimum elevation of between six inches and two feet. Structure pads will have variable sizes but are typically 75 feet by 75 feet. These are designed to support the equipment needed to install and maintain the transmission line. Culverts will be installed beneath access roads and structure pads with the specific design reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The design will be similar to previously approved designs. The design of the transmission line complies with good engineering practices. The transmission line will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code, the Department's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, the requirements of applicable regulatory agencies including the Department, SWFWMD, and PSC, as well as TECO's own design standards. The Project assures the citizens of Florida that operation safeguards are technically sufficient for their welfare and protection. Transmission Line Construction The initial phase of construction is to clear the ROW. Since much of the length of the corridor is collocated, that is, grouped or placed side by side, with existing roads and utility facilities, the need for clearing has been minimized. Clearing will consist mainly of tree trimming and the selective removal of trees. In areas owned by TECO clearing will range from a width of 25 to 100 feet. In forested areas in which a new line will be located, clearing will also be limited to 25 to 100 feet in width. In wetlands, trees capable of exceeding 14 feet in height that could come in conflict with the line will be removed by hand clearing or use of very low ground pressure equipment. Low growing herbaceous vegetation will not be cleared from wetlands. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Typically, access roads and pads are not required in all areas. The next phases of construction involve the physical transmission line construction. Initially, the materials are assembled on the jobsite. Next, holes are augered at each pole location. The structures are framed with insulators and hardware that may be installed prior to the setting of the structure. After all appropriate operations relative to the assembly and framing have been performed on the ground, the top section of the structure is lifted with a crane and set on the previously installed base section. The two sections are then jacked together. Typically, the pole is embedded into the ground approximately 25 to 35 feet deep. After the poles have been installed and the hardware and equipment on the pole, including the insulators, have been installed, a wire pulling operation is conducted. In this phase, reels of wire, wire tensioning, and retarding equipment all will be mobilized. The locations generally include the dead end structures, but the length of the wire that can be placed on a reel may dictate the location of some of the equipment. Each structure must be equipped with hanging blocks or pulleys so the conductors may be pulled through smoothly for the entire length of the reel. Once the conductors are pulled in and secured at the dead end structures, the wires are sagged and tensioned appropriately to maintain vertical clearances. Finally, the pulleys are removed from each structure and the conductor is secured to the insulator attachment. The final stage of construction is the cleanup stage. This involves inspection of the entire project to ensure that all material has been cleaned up, removal of all silt fences, hay bales, excess spoils, or dirt from the foundation excavation, and ensuring that the gates and fences have been properly restored or installed. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques, such as the use of silt screens and hay bales, or other best management practices, will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation. While each phase of construction will typically take up to two weeks in a particular location, the construction crew will normally be active for two to four days at a typical structure location after the necessary pads have been installed. Construction for the entire project is expected to last from twelve to eighteen months. Methodology for Choosing TECO Corridor TECO established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives within the Project Study Area. This multi-disciplinary team was comprised of experts in land use, engineering, and environmental disciplines. The team, which included both TECO representatives and outside consultants from ECT, engaged in a number of activities including data collection, preparation of a regional screening map, the identification of alternative route segments, the development of criteria to evaluate the route segments, the actual evaluation both quantitatively and qualitatively of these routes, and the ultimate selection of the preferred route which was accepted by TECO. Members of the public assisted in this effort throughout the development of the proposed corridor. The objective of the corridor selection study was to select a corridor that could be certified balancing land use, socioeconomic, environmental, engineering, and cost considerations. Corridor selection methodologies were designed to be integrative of multidisciplinary siting criteria, regional and objective in decision-making, sensitive to social and environmental conditions, responsive to regulatory requirements, reflective of community concerns and issues, and capable of accurate documentation and verification. The selection process consisted of three tasks including (a) project and study area definition; (b) resource mapping and alternative route delineation; and (c) evaluation of alternative routes and selection of the proposed corridor. Due to the dense and urban nature of the TECO service area, it was difficult to find areas with no population or development for a corridor. The multidisciplinary team developed a regional screening map, received in evidence as TECO Exhibit 14, which was prepared by the team using generally publicly available information including Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. The map data were collected from various state agencies and local governments. Information was gathered from the Florida Geographic Data Library (which distributes GIS data), the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and most of the agencies involved in this proceeding. Various environmental and land use data were mapped as were existing infrastructure, and information gathered on roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and the like. These represented primarily siting constraints or siting issues within a particular study area. The regional screening map was then used to identify route segments. The licensing team used the regional screening map as the first step in identifying the various route segments that connected the three substation locations at Davis, Wheeler, and Willow Oak. TECO's multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area and identified forty-one line segments which could be assembled into a total of four hundred twenty-three potential route combinations. Using a predefined set of ten environmental, land use, and engineering criteria, each route segment was measured for those resources. Using a software program developed by ECT, the data was entered and totaled for each route combination. Using the weights developed by the licensing team for each criterion, the weights were applied and tabulated for all routes. The routes were then ranked in order from best to worst based on the weighted scores. Once the rankings were performed, the top ranked routes were subjected to further evaluation. These routes were high in scoring but somewhat different in the path that they took between the three substation locations. They were then evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria, which included such things as homes in proximity to the route. The analysis included an examination of where the homes were located along the route, whether they are scattered and easily avoided with the placement of a corridor, or whether they are clustered together in a fashion making it difficult to avoid them in placement of the corridor. Numerous driving surveys of the various routes were performed during this phase where the routes were publicly accessible, and a helicopter flyover was also completed. At the completion of the evaluation, a recommendation was made for a proposed route, which was accepted by TECO. Once the proposed corridor location was selected, the team examined various siting issues within and along the route and developed corridor boundaries of varying widths. In some areas a much wider width was needed to provide flexibility for siting, while a more narrow width was needed in areas where siting issues were less and where there was a reasonable certainty concerning where the ROW could be located. TECO also engaged in an extensive public outreach program. The public participation program included open houses, mass mailings, surveys, a toll-free telephone number, newsprint advertisements, a website, and meetings with regulatory agencies and local elected officials. There were three direct mailings as a part of the public outreach program. The first mailing was a notification of four open houses that were to be held. One open house was conducted in Polk County, while three (Seffner, Plant City, and Temple Terrace) were conducted in Hillsborough County. Following the completion of the open house process, a second mailing was sent providing a summary of the survey results. The third mailing notified recipients that the Application was filed on October 12, 2007. Approximately 4,500 recipients were identified for these mailings. The names of the recipients were obtained by identifying the properties located within 500 feet in both directions from the centerline of the routes. The Hillsborough and Polk County Property Appraisers' offices were a source for this information as well as the TECO customer database. The Hillsborough County Office of Neighborhood Relations was consulted for a list of registered homeowners' associations. For the homeowners' associations, which numbered around two hundred, those that were within one mile in both directions from the centerline of the route were notified. The recipients of the notifications included property owners and tenants or lessees. The Hillsborough County Large Facilities Ordinance was used as a guide to identify the area of the notifications, although that Ordinance mandates a 250-foot notification distance from the centerline of the routes, and TECO actually used 500 feet on both sides of the centerline. The same distances were not used for recipients of each of the mailings. The distances described in Finding of Fact 27 were used for the first two mailings. For the third mailing, the proposed corridor had been selected. As a result, the distance was measured not from the centerline of the route, but from the edge of the corridor. This was done because in some areas the corridor was extended beyond the 500-foot limit and potential recipients would have been missed had the area of inclusion not been extended. Additional mailings are planned if the corridor is certified. Additional informational open houses will also be held, and the transmission structures and potential locations will be identified at that time so the public can be informed. As part of the public outreach, TECO also ran a series of four advertisements in local newspapers. The first newspaper advertisement was run on February 20, 2007, in The Tampa Tribune, Lakeland Ledger, Mulberry Press, Temple Terrace News, and Brandon News. Two more advertisements were run on February 28 and March 1, 2007, in The Tampa Tribune and Lakeland Ledger. These advertisements were in addition to the required public notices of the application being filed, the certification hearing being scheduled, and the public hearing being scheduled that were run on October 30 and December 27, 2007, and February 18, 2008. The required advertisements were run in The Tampa Tribune, Lakeland Ledger, and The Winter Haven News Chief. The February 18 notice of public hearing was also run in The Polk County Press. Copies of the Application were maintained for public inspection during the certification process at the TECO offices in Tampa and Winter Haven. In addition, a copy of the Application was provided to the John Germany Public Library in downtown Tampa, the Polk County Library in Bartow, and the Temple Terrace Library in Temple Terrace. All of the applications available for public inspection were updated as additional information was submitted to the Department. The public participation program provided substantive input to the route evaluation study in terms of study area boundary, siting opportunities, and constraints in the area, identification of route segments to be evaluated, and weights to be assigned to the route evaluation criteria. The cumulative responses of the public's ranking of the weights to apply to TECO's siting criteria were very comparable to the team's weighting indicating little significant difference in route ranking. Once the proposed alignment was identified, the multi- disciplinary team delineated the boundaries or width of the corridor to provide flexibility for locating the eventual ROW within that corridor. State, regional, and local agencies with regulatory authority of the Project reviewed the Application and submitted to the Department a report concerning the impact of the Project on matters within their respective jurisdictions, as required by Section 403.526(2), Florida Statutes. The Department compiled the reports and made a recommendation that the Project be granted approval subject to appropriate conditions. See Department Exhibit 2. The Department, SWFWMD, and DOT stipulated as to the certification of the Project subject to conditions of certification proposed by the Department. On April 16, 2008, the City of Temple Terrace and TECO entered into a separate stipulation for certification. None of the agencies involved in the review process recommended that the proposed corridor be denied or modified. No alternate corridors were filed for consideration by any of the parties. Further, no additional conditions of certification were proposed by any party at the certification hearing. Detailed Description of the TECO Corridor The proposed corridor provides significant opportunities for collocation with other linear facilities such as roads and transmission lines which provide the opportunity to reduce the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. The width of the proposed corridor varies along the route to provide flexibility within the corridor to avoid impacts to such areas as existing developments, large wetland areas, and a bald eagle's nest. From the Planned Davis Substation to the Existing Wheeler Substation The western end of the corridor begins at the planned Davis substation site in Temple Terrace which is a large parcel owned by TECO. There is an existing substation there called the River substation and the planned Davis substation will be located in proximity to that existing substation. Land use is generally open land. This portion of the corridor is bordered on the west by the Hillsborough River and has a large area of pasture land on the east side with mixed hardwood swamp and cypress swamp on the western portion. Leaving the TECO substation property, the corridor travels east across Interstate 75 (I-75) and the width of the corridor in this area narrows to approximately 300 feet. This is also TECO property. As the corridor passes I-75 it approaches the Tampa Bypass Canal, which is owned by the SWFWMD. The corridor is expanded in this area to minimize the impacts on the SWFWMD operations along the Bypass Canal and on the recreational facilities located in the southwestern portion of the parcel used by Temple Terrace. Land is low density residential with a cemetery and a recreational facility. The property has pine/oak woods along the northwestern corner and a mixed hardwood swamp on the northeastern corner. The property is bisected north and south by the Tampa Bypass Canal. Once the SWFWMD property is exited the corridor turns due east for approximately 5.4 miles until south of Lake Thonotosassa, where it turns south. This portion is owned by TECO. The corridor is 300 feet wide. The western portion is primarily developing and developed lands surrounding the corridor and, as it proceeds east, it crosses more rural lands, pasture, strawberry fields, row crops, various agricultural operations, cattle grazing, and some citrus groves. A portion of the corridor contains a natural gas pipeline within TECO's property. In addition to the agricultural vegetation, there is a pine/oak area, some marsh, and some emergent aquatic vegetation, along with some ponds. The corridor crosses Baker Creek, a tributary to Lake Thonotosassa, which is north of the corridor. A mixed hardwood swamp and a cypress swamp are found here. The proposed corridor then turns south and approaches areas of developing or developed lands. TECO's fee ownership extends to the south. The corridor crosses Interstate 4 and, at the beginning of its intersection with U.S. Highway 92, the corridor has been expanded from approximately 3,100 feet up to 5,100 feet in width to avoid a bald eagle's nest and the scattered residences in the area. The widened corridor proceeds south to State Road 574 or Martin Luther King Boulevard. Land use is agricultural, low density residential, and undeveloped property. This area of the corridor contains some pine/oak woods, large areas of marsh, some crop land, some mixed hardwood swamp, and scattered residential development. Once the corridor crosses State Road 574 it narrows again to approximately 300 feet in width and is located on TECO property. The corridor then proceeds south to the existing Wheeler substation located off of Wheeler Road in Valrico. There is a large amount of development to the west of the corridor and developing lands to the east of the corridor. From the Existing Wheeler Substation to the Planned Willow Oak Substation From the existing Wheeler substation near Wheeler Road the corridor proceeds south slightly more than one mile and then turns east for approximately one mile before turning south to State Road 60. In this portion of the corridor the width is approximately 300 feet and it is located on TECO property. There are residential properties in the vicinity of the corridor, including the Diamond Hills and Sommerset subdivisions. The land use is generally medium density residential surrounding the corridor and also some agricultural lands. Land uses in this area include pasture land, pine/oak woods, crop land, marsh, open land, ponds, mixed hardwood conifer swamp, and pine flat woods. The corridor proceeds east along State Road 60, which is a major transportation corridor. The corridor is expanded to approximately 2,000 to 3,000 feet in this area to allow opportunities to follow other linear facilities that are located south of State Road 60, such as other transmission lines or roads. There are scattered residential properties with agricultural uses, strawberry fields, pastures, and some citrus in the area. Phosphate lands are located to the south of this segment of the corridor. The corridor proceeds along to the east. The majority of this area is reclaimed phosphate mining lands. The final segment of the proposed corridor has again been expanded to approximately 4,000 feet wide as it continues along both sides of State Road 60 and both sides of Old Hopewell Road. As the roads converge, the corridor is narrowed to approximately 500 feet. From there it proceeds to the planned Willow Oak substation in western Polk County. In this area there is existing development surrounding the substation site and proposed development along State Road 60. The South Lakeland Airport is in this area. Along State Road 60 there is a mix of commercial, residential, and some industrial properties. The Willow Oak substation site is located within open land. Compliance With Section 403.529(4) Criteria Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The PSC found that there are regional transmission system limitations in northeast Hillsborough County. By 2012, the existing 230 kV transmission network will not have sufficient capability to provide reliable electric service to the existing and proposed substations. The PSC also found that some of the projected load to be served by the planned future distribution substations will be located further east and north of the existing 230 kV transmission network. The PSC determined that the proposed transmission line is needed by March 2012 to (a) provide additional transmission reinforcement to the existing 230 kV transmission network north of State Road 60, west of Willow Oak substation, and to the east of the existing River substation in a reliable manner consistent with the NERC, FRCC, and other applicable standards; (b) serve the increasing load and customer base in the projected service areas; and (c) provide for another electrical feed via a separate ROW path, thereby reducing the impact of a loss of the existing transmission facilities on a common ROW. The PSC concluded that the Project is needed to preserve electric system reliability and integrity. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion The PSC recognized that TECO's planning studies indicate that the proposed line is needed by March 2012 to provide sufficient capability to provide reliable service to existing and proposed substations. The location of the proposed transmission line on the proposed corridor would meet the electrical energy needs of the state in a timely fashion. Comply with the Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed corridor will comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The Department has concluded that the Project as proposed will comply with all applicable Department statutes, rules, policies, and procedures. Be Consistent with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Polk County Comprehensive Plan identified electric transmission and distribution facilities as a permitted use in all land use categories. In the Future Land Use Element of the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, there are an objective and several policies that address bulk transmission lines. The policies address the locational criteria and public input. The policies will be met by the proposed transmission line. The City of Temple Terrace's Comprehensive Plan does not address bulk transmission lines. After certification of this project, TECO will acquire the necessary property interests in a ROW within the certified corridor for placement of the line. Construction of transmission lines on such established ROWs is excepted from the definition of "development" in Section 163.3164(5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the provisions of the local comprehensive plans related to "development" that have been adopted by the local governments crossed by the line are not applicable to this project. No variances or exemptions from applicable state or local standards or ordinances are needed for the project. Implementation of Legislative Intent in Section 403.521 The Need for the Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy The PSC determined that the proposed line is needed taking into account the factors set forth in Section 403.537, Florida Statutes. The PSC found that TECO evaluated three alternatives to the Project. All three were transmission modifications to the proposed ROW that used a portion of, or the entire existing, common ROW. The PSC accepted TECO's rejection of the alternatives primarily because of economics and reliability concerns. The PSC found that the proposed line will assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the state by serving projected new electric load in the region and improving the region's electric reliability by minimizing the region's exposure to single contingency events. Impact Upon the Public The proposed line is appropriate from a land use perspective. The Project takes advantage of the opportunity to be collocated with other transmission lines, roadways, and ROWs. By following these existing linear features, the corridor conforms to existing and future development patterns and minimizes intrusion into residential areas. As a result, the proposed line is in proximity to relatively few residences. The line as proposed will comply with all applicable nonprocedural agency standards, including the Department standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-814 limiting the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. TECO proposes to use five different configurations for the transmission line, depending upon the location. The options include a 230 kV single circuit roadside, a 230 kV single circuit roadside with a 69 kV underbuild, a 230 kV single circuit roadside with 69 kV and 13 kV distribution underbuild, a 230 kV single circuit for the South Lakeland Airport, and a 230 kV single circuit for use in the 300-foot existing TECO ROW. For each of these configurations the Department's rule requires that the electric and magnetic fields (or energy forces) be calculated to ensure compliance. The electric field is what is created underneath and outside of a transmission line as a result of placing voltage on the conductor. It is a byproduct of placing voltage on the conductor. The magnetic field is created as a result of the current traveling along the conductor. It is generally a magnetic flux field that surrounds the conductors and the transmission lines. Those portions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-814 that are applicable to this Project establish maximum values for electric and magnetic fields. The electric field is expressed as a kilovolt meter (kV/m) and compliance is required both within the ROW and at the edge of the right-of-way for the transmission line. The magnetic field is expressed as milliGauss (mG) and compliance is determined at the edge of the ROW. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements was calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 814.450(3). See TECO Exhibit 21. The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields within the ROW and at the edge of the ROW and for the magnetic fields at the edge of the ROW are all below the values set forth in the rule. The maximum voltage and current that is ever anticipated for the line during its life are used in making the calculations. However, it is highly unlikely that this condition would occur. It is anticipated that the maximum condition would occur less than five percent of the time while the transmission line is operating. In order to operate at the maximum level the conductor must be operating at its maximum temperature and the conductor would be at its lowest point in the span to create that condition. There would also need to be some type of system disturbance that would cause a maximum condition to occur. This would be a worst case scenario. Levels for electric fields will be less at the normal operating levels and magnetic fields about fifty percent less. Intervenors own property and live within the area of the expanded corridor between U.S. Highway 92 and State Road 574 in Dover. In this area TECO owns a 300-foot ROW originally considered for the corridor, which contains an eagle's nest. While this area is near the Intervenors' property, the proposed corridor is the entire area up to 5,100 feet in width, and the actual ROW location for the line has not yet been determined. Intervenors are primarily concerned about the potential health effects to their son caused by exposure to electric and magnetic fields from the transmission line in the vicinity of their property. In support of these concerns, they presented the prefiled, written testimony of Dr. Hanoch Talmor, a medical doctor in Gainesville, Florida, who has treated their son for over fifteen years. Doctor Talmor is a board-certified pediatrician who now specializes in the area of general holistic medicine. In his written statement Dr. Talmor states that Intervenors' son is at present nonambulatory and nonverbal. He also testified that he displays severe chemical sensitivities and is listed on the state chemically sensitive lists. Although he is not a neurologist, Dr. Talmor opined that because of the son's neurological involvement and his extensive medical history, he would be adversely affected by high voltage power lines near his home. He further testified that the son has seizures which can be affected by smells, sounds, visual stimuli, sleep patterns, and allergic reactions. During cross-examination, Dr. Talmor acknowledged that he is not familiar with the levels of electric and magnetic fields expected to result from this transmission line in the vicinity of Intervenors' property. Even so, he opined that the only safe levels of electric and magnetic fields with regard to human exposure would be at levels of zero. He admitted, however, that electric devices typically found in the household such as clocks, ovens, refrigerators, televisions, electric blankets, and the like, as well as electric wiring in the house, would be expected to produce electric and magnetic fields to which a person living in the house would be exposed. At the certification hearing, Dr. Talmor also discussed various research articles concerning this subject. In formulating his opinions, however, Dr. Talmor had reviewed only summaries and excerpts of the studies, rather than the complete studies. TECO presented the testimony of Dr. Laura S. Erdreich, an epidemiologist, who is familiar with the configuration for the transmission ROW that is proposed to be used in the vicinity of Intervenors' residence. Doctor Erdreich testified that she is familiar with the levels expected to be produced from the transmission line at the edge of the ROW. With regard to electric fields, Dr. Erdreich testified that the lowest level that has ever been proposed as being necessary for the protection of human health is 4.2 kV/m. This was by an organization called the International Commission for Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The organization is based in Europe and is sponsored by the World Health Organization. The level that organization recommended is more than twice the maximum level of 2.0 kV/m found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-814.450(3)(a). The maximum expected electric fields at the edge of the ROW for the Project in the vicinity of Intervenors' residence is 0.1 kV/m. For magnetic fields, Dr. Erdreich testified that the ICNIRP proposed a level of 833 mG as being protective of human health based on exposure. This is the lowest level that has been proposed by any regulatory authority or similar body based on potential health effects. In contrast, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-814.450(3)(d) provides in relevant part that the "maximum magnetic field at the edge of a 230 kV or smaller transmission ROW . . . shall not exceed 150 mG." This value is much greater than the 13.6 mG maximum level expected at the edge of the TECO ROW and in the vicinity of Intervenors' home. Under typical operational conditions, the expected magnetic field would be approximately 7 mG, which is less than one percent of the health-based exposure limit recommended by the ICNIRP. Doctor Erdreich also testified that she is familiar with the research that has been conducted concerning health effects from environmental exposure to electric and magnetic fields. The research includes epidemiological studies of humans in the natural environment, laboratory studies which typically expose all animals to high levels often for nearly their entire lifetime, and studies of cells and tissues in laboratories to try to isolate the mechanism that may affect humans. The amount of research being performed has been reduced over the last few years because, despite considerable research, an adverse effect from exposure to humans at environmental levels has not been substantiated. Additionally, causal associations between exposure and health effects have not been found when the data and research have been reviewed by committees of scientists of various disciplines. Doctor Erdreich testified that she is aware of the studies that were referred to by Dr. Talmor as well as other studies on the subject. Although the subject of exposure to low levels, even on a long-term basis, such as levels less than 10 mG, has been studied extensively, she noted that the findings have been that magnetic fields have no known effect on the human body until exposure to levels well above 1,000 mG. The United States Government does not regulate electric and magnetic exposure except in occupational settings. There are no requirements for regulation of transmission lines in these areas. The State of Florida is one of only a few states that have such requirements. There is no existing body of research demonstrating that adverse health consequences result from exposure to electric and magnetic fields at the levels expected to result from the 300-foot ROW single pole configuration that is proposed for the vicinity of Intervenors' property. Doctor Erdreich opined that these levels do not pose a threat of adverse health effects to the population near the edge of the ROW. She further opined that in the unlikely circumstance that the edge of the ROW for the transmission line would be placed at the edge of the residence of the property, the levels of electric and magnetic fields from the transmission line would still not create a health concern. She also stated that her opinion would be the same if one of the residents were shown to have an illness that resulted in a chemical sensitivity. She based her opinions on the fact that there is no evidence demonstrating any correlation between this exposure and adverse health effects. Finally, Dr. Erdreich testified that no group has ever suggested that there is a need for lower levels near hospitals or convalescent facilities or other places where physical therapy occurs. The levels of electric and magnetic fields from the transmission line will decrease as one moves further from the edge of the ROW. The levels expected from the transmission line, which are already well below the State requirements and a small fraction of the lowest levels that have ever been suggested as being required for the protection of human health, are similar to the levels that would be expected to result from common household appliances. Mrs. Watson testified that her residence has electricity and electric household appliances such as air- conditioning, television, refrigerator, and a vacuum cleaner. All of these devices produce electric and magnetic fields at levels in the range of what would be expected from the TECO transmission line. Additionally, there is natural exposure to magnetic fields and electric and magnetic fields from electrical devices that are encountered in everyday life. Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of irregularities that collect on the conductor. During periods of fair weather dust can collect on the conductor and that may cause low levels of audible noise. When rain is experienced, the dust is washed off but replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that results in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise are generally calculated using a program called the Bonneville Power Administration Field Effects Program. The information utilized to make the calculations includes the conductor size, the configuration of the transmission line, and the voltage expected. The calculations performed for the transmission line show that the audible noise levels at the edge of the ROW during fair weather would range from 16.1 dBA, which is decibels of noise in a range that can be heard, to a high of 22.5 dBA. During periods of rainfall the expected audible noise at the edge of the ROW ranges from a low of 41.1 dBA to a high of 47.5 dBA. For the ROW configuration that is proposed for the area including the Watson property, the expected levels during fair weather are a maximum of 16.1 dBA and during foul weather a maximum of 41.1 dBA at the edge of the ROW. The noise levels will decrease as one moves away from the edge of the ROW. Also, during rainfall events, when the maximum noise levels are expected, the rain will tend to mask the sound from the transmission line. Studies that have been prepared on this issue indicate that complaints concerning noise are primarily related to interference with sleep. The studies indicate that to minimize the potential of interference with sleep, the noise level outside of the home should not exceed 50 dBA. The maximum expected noise level from the Project will not exceed 50 dBA. Mr. Brooks, TECO's expert who testified on this issue, stated that he had never had an occasion to deal with a noise level complaint during his thirty-seven years of experience with transmission lines. TECO Exhibit 22 contains a summary of the audible noise expected from the transmission line for the various configurations. It also contains a chart with the noise levels expected from common activities for comparative purposes. The maximum fair weather audible noise from any of the five configurations would be comparable to the levels that one would encounter in a bedroom at night. The maximum levels for the same configurations during foul weather would be comparable to what one might experience in a quiet office or a living room. The levels for the configuration to be utilized in the area of the Watson property are below the maximums for the Project and significantly less than levels expected at a quiet office or bedroom at night. At the public portion of the certification hearing, thirty-five members of the public uniformly testified in opposition to the Project, as proposed. A number of those testifying expressed concern about the impact of the Project on property values, the possible effects of the electric and magnetic fields expected from the transmission line once the ROW has been selected and the line constructed, and the desire to have TECO seek another route. Although these concerns are genuine, impacts on property values is not a subject for consideration at this hearing. As discussed above in greater detail, the evidence demonstrates that adverse impacts from the low levels of electric and magnetic fields projected from the Project are not expected. No alternate corridors have been proposed for consideration by any party to this proceeding. Finally, some members of the public complained that they were unaware that a new transmission line corridor was being proposed until just before the hearing. However, the evidence shows that long before the certification hearing, information concerning this process was widely disseminated through advertisements, open houses, mass mailings, surveys, and meeting with regulatory agencies and local elected officials. Impact Upon the Environment The Project as proposed will have minimal environmental impact. Construction of the line within the proposed corridor will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed corridor avoids or minimizes intrusion into the undisturbed wildlife habitats due to its collocation with existing linear facilities for almost its entire length. The current condition and relative value of function of the habitat in the proposed corridor is generally minimal from a wildlife ecology and protected species perspective. There are some areas with higher quality habitat. One is in the area south of Lake Thonotosassa. In that location, there is a natural gas pipeline corridor that already disturbs the area in the proposed corridor. In the area of the bald eagle's nest, clearing in the ROW would be limited to 25 to 100 feet in width. Also, the Conditions of Certification require extensive surveys and plans for wildlife protection. The area has experienced clearing and tree removal to accommodate development. Care was taken in routing the proposed corridor to avoid or minimize proximity of the corridor to known listed species locations, including routing inputs from wildlife agencies such as the FFWCC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Clearing of additional natural habitats and potential wetland impacts will be minimized. During the regional screening route selection process the known locations of bald eagle nests were identified and mapped. Members of the public pointed out at the open houses that there existed a previously unreported bald eagle nest in the area north of Jess Baldwin Road. This was subsequently verified and identified as a correct location of an eagle nest that had been previously unknown to the FFWCC and USFWS. When the nest was identified and located, the corridor was expanded up to 5,100 feet in this area to give TECO maximum flexibility in avoiding potential impacts to the nest as well as to existing homes in the area. TECO has begun a long-term monitoring program for this particular nest and this will be continued until such time as the applicant and the agencies deem it sufficient. The program is designed to monitor the activity of the eagles in the area with respect to successful breeding, successful rearing of the young, and the habitat usage and flight patterns from that nest. This information will be utilized in the selection of the ultimate ROW in this area to avoid any impacts to the nesting area. The USFWS and FFWCC establish buffers for limiting activity in proximity to an eagle's nest. The buffers are either 330 feet or 660 feet in diameter, depending on the level of construction activity that is to be carried out. In cases in which a more minimal level of construction is to be performed, a 660-foot buffer must be maintained if there is not visual buffer between the nest and the construction activity. A 330-foot buffer must be maintained at all times. If a visual buffer can be maintained in the area of this eagle's nest, the buffer size could be reduced below 660 feet, providing additional flexibility for the location of the ROW. This determination will be made by the USFWS and FFWCC. Construction of the line within the proposed corridor will not cause a significant adverse impact to the current condition and relative value of functions of the vegetative communities within the corridor. Much of the length of the corridor allows placement of the transmission line within or adjacent to existing linear features to take advantage of previous disturbances to vegetation. TECO will also minimize impacts to forested wetland vegetation through the use of restrictive clearing practices during both construction and maintenance. In the forested wetland portions of the ROW, trees and shrubs that have an expected mature height greater than fourteen feet and "danger trees," which are trees that could fall into the conductors and cause an outage, will be removed. Other vegetation will generally not be disturbed. In these areas, vegetation will be removed by hand, usually with chain saws or with low-ground-pressure equipment to reduce soil compaction and damage to ground cover. The removal of vegetation in forested wetlands will not significantly affect the vegetative root mat or soil surface conditions. The non- forested wetlands should not require any clearing. There will be some filling in wetlands associated with the placement of pole pads and access roads. However, TECO will minimize these impacts through a careful alignment of the ROW and the varying of span distances between poles. TECO will also install an appropriate number and size of culverts to properly maintain existing wetland hydroperiods along areas of fill in wetlands. Also, any unavoidable wetland impacts associated with the project will be mitigated in accordance with the Conditions of Certification. TECO has utilized information from the Hillsborough and Polk County Comprehensive Plans and the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR), to identify potential archeological and historical resources within the proposed corridor. A number of locations were identified as a result of the information and the Conditions of Certification require that a survey be performed when the actual ROW is located. If any artifacts are found the information will be submitted to the DHR for analysis and decisions will be made as to how to proceed. The proposed corridor contains the least potential impacts to known sites and the corridor allows ample opportunity for siting the ROW to avoid potential historic and archeological sites. In addition to comments from the public described in Finding of Fact 74, a number of members of the public expressed concern over the environmental impacts from the construction and maintenance of the transmission line. Some of those expressing concerns have residences or property in the area of the expanded corridor surrounding the eagle's nest. Although some of these individuals are within the corridor, it is not clear at this point that they will be near or adjacent to the ROW which is ultimately selected. The ROW is proposed to be within the expanded corridor in this area. The eagle's nest presents a constraint with a 330 or 660-foot buffer. Evaluations will be performed considering impacts to the community and homes, impacts to the environment, and costs. If the buffer is reduced to 330 feet this will assist in the routing of the ROW. As detailed above, TECO engaged in extensive public outreach, made efforts to avoid populated areas with the corridor location, and the Conditions of Certification require extensive measures to eliminate or minimize the potential impacts on wildlife and habitat. TECO will minimize any necessary cutting of trees in areas that do not already have an established ROW. The area of clearing will be limited to from 25 to 100 feet in width. The Project will comply with all applicable state, regional, and local nonprocedural regulations, including the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. Balance of Need versus Impacts The Project effects a reasonable balance between the need for a transmission line as a means for providing abundant low cost energy and the impact upon the public and the environment resulting from the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line. Conditions of Certification The design, construction, and operation of the line in the proposed corridor will comply with the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 4. The Conditions of Certification establish a post- certification review process through which the final ROW, access road, and structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project for the purpose of monitoring for compliance with the Conditions of Certification. While the proposed corridor has few homes in close proximity to it and very limited wetland crossings, TECO has agreed to conditions of certification that further minimize land use and environmental impacts. For example, TECO has agreed that to the extent practicable it will locate its ROW to avoid the taking of homes, to collocate the ROW within or adjacent to existing ROWs, and to vary the length of the span between poles as appropriate to eliminate or reduce wetland impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving Tampa Electric Company's Willow Oak-Wheeler-Davis 230 kV Transmission Line Application for Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 4. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Richard and Clara Marron have an in-ground, fiberglass pool at their home in Zephyrhills. The pool is approximately 25 years old. In December 2005, the Marrons' pool service company told them that the pool had a leak. The pool service company referred the Marrons to Coral Isle Pools and Spas (Coral Isle) in Zephyrhills. Coral Isle was owned and operated by Richard Delafield--the father of Respondent Scott Delafield--until his death on January 31, 2006. Richard Delafield was a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, registered plumbing contactor, and the qualifying agent for Coral Isle. On or about March 29, 2006, the Marrons went into Coral Isle's store and talked to Scott Delafield about fixing the leak in their pool.2 Mr. Delafield determined that the pool was leaking around the underwater light fixture and that the light needed to be replaced. He agreed to perform the necessary repairs for $858.55. The invoice prepared by Mr. Delafield described the work to be performed as follows: "dig under deck redue [sic] electrical conduit" and "labor to install light and do diagnostic on transformer." On May 6, 2006, the Marrons made an initial payment of $250.00 to Coral Isle. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool. Mr. Delafield did not obtain a permit from Pasco County before commencing the work on the Marrons' pool.3 The work was done in four stages. First, a trench was dug under the pool deck to provide access to the back of the light fixture. Second, the existing light was removed and replaced with a new light. Third, the wire for the new light was routed through PVC conduit pipe Mr. Delafield laid in the trench. Fourth, Mr. Delafield connected the wire to the "junction box"4 adjacent to the pool deck. The trench under the pool deck was dug by Carl Lind or Mark Pickett, not Mr. Delafield. Mr. Lind and Mr. Pickett were subcontractors of Coral Isle. Mr. Delafield removed the existing light by removing the screws on the front of the light fixture. He then installed the new light and ran the wire for the light through new PVC conduit pipe to the junction box. On May 17, 2006, the Marrons paid the balance of the invoice, $608.55. Mr. Delafield did not perform any work on the higher voltage electrical wires between the junction box and the breaker box at the house. Mr. Delafield did not drain the pool to replace the light. He was able to access the light fixture from the front because the water level in the pool was below the fixture as a result of the leak in the pool. At some point after Mr. Delafield completed his work on the pool light, Mr. Lind and/or Mr. Pickett drained the Marrons' pool in order to "patch" the fiberglass bottom of the pool.5 The light installed by Mr. Delafield works, and the pool no longer leaks. Indeed, the Marrons acknowledged in their testimony at the final hearing that the work done by Mr. Delafield fixed the leak and that the pool now "holds water." Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle were not licensed, registered, or certified to perform electrical contracting work at the time Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool light. In April 2006, the Department issued temporary emergency certifications to Mr. Delafield as a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, and registered plumbing contractor. The certifications authorized Mr. Delafield to complete Coral Isle's "projects in progress" at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The certifications did not authorize Mr. Delafield to enter into new contracts, nor did they authorize him to perform electrical contracting work. The Marrons' project was not in progress at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The agreement to perform the work was not entered into until several months after his death. In June 2006, the Marrons filed an unlicensed activity complaint against Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle. The Department incurred costs of $206.69 in its investigation of the complaint, not including costs associated with an attorney's time. In February 2007, the Marrons made a claim for $150,000 against Richard Delafield's estate in which they alleged that their pool and deck were "rendered useless" due to the negligence of Coral Isle. They also filed a civil suit against Mr. Delafield and others for damage to their pool. The Marrons did not pursue the claim against the estate, but the civil action is still pending. Coral Isle is no longer in business. Mr. Delafield testified that he planned to pursue licensure so that he could keep the business operating after his father's death, but that he never did so. Mr. Delafield was unemployed at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Mr. Delafield guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 489.531, Florida Statutes; Imposes an administrative fine of $1,000 on Mr. Delafield; and Requires Mr. Delafield to pay the Department's investigative costs of $206.69. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2008.
