The Issue The issues for determination are whether and the extent to which the properly proposed corridor (the FPL Corridor) for the St. Johns-Pellicer-Pringle 230-kV transmission line (the SJPP Line) complies with the criteria in Section 403.529(4)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2005)1, and whether Florida Power & Light's (FPL's) application for corridor certification 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 FPL 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), St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), St. Johns County, and the City of Palm Coast. See § 403.527(4), Fla. Stat. 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. FPL is seeking certification of a corridor between the existing St. Johns substation and the proposed Pringle substation within which it will ultimately construct the SJPP Line on a narrow right-of-way (ROW). Once all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the typical width of the 15 to 60-foot ROW. The service area for the proposed SJPP Line (the Project Service Area) is St. Johns County and Flagler County. The SJPP Line will follow Interstate 95 (I-95) in a north-south direction and will connect to the proposed intermediate Deerwood, Vermont, Anastasia, and Pellicer substations. The Project Service Area includes an area of increasing load and customer base in the area south of St. Johns and north of Pringle substations and to the west of the existing Bunnell- St. Johns 115-kV transmission line. The three objectives of the SJPP Line project are: (1) to address the need, as confirmed by the PSC, to serve FPL's increasing load and customer base in the area south of St. Johns and north of Pringle substations in a reliable manner; (2) to provide additional transmission reinforcement to the existing 115-kV transmission line between the Bunnell and St. Johns substations; and (3) to efficiently and effectively integrate and serve new distribution substations that are needed to serve projected load growth within Flagler and St. Johns Counties. The primary path for the SJPP transmission line bringing electricity into the Project Service Area will be aligned within or adjacent to existing linear features, such as existing road, transmission line and railroad ROWs. The only exception is a distance of less than half a mile in length between the proposed Vermont substation in the St. Augustine Industrial Park and I-95, where the corridor largely follows property lines. The primary path for the SJPP transmission line bringing electricity into the Project Service Area will be aligned within or adjacent to existing linear features, such as existing road, transmission line, and railroad ROWs. The only exception is a distance of less than half a mile in length between the proposed Vermont substation in the St. Augustine Industrial Park and I-95, where the corridor largely follows the property line. Need for the SJPP Line The PSC determined a new 230-kV transmission line between the St. Johns substation and the proposed Pringle substation is needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity in northeast Florida and the need to provide abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State, particularly those in northeast Florida. The PSC noted that FPL's planning studies indicate this additional transmission capacity will be needed by December 2008 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions that could result from a single contingency event. Without the addition of this transmission capability by 2008, the PSC found that up to 8,300 electric customers could experience service interruptions. The PSC recognized that the Siting Board will make the final corridor selection upon consideration of the factors and criteria specified in Section 403.529, Florida Statutes. Transmission Line Design The typical design for the SJPP Line will be a single- circuit unguyed concrete pole structure, 90 feet above grade in height, with the conductors framed in a vertical configuration. Each of the three conductors is anticipated to be a 1,431 thousand circular mils, aluminum conductor, steel reinforced alumoweld core. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightning protection for the conductors and provide communications capability. The maximum current rating for the line will be 1,905 amperes. In some locations, electric distribution lines and communication cables may also be attached to the structures beneath the conductors. In some locations, such as along FPL's St. Johns-Tocoi transmission line right-of-way and along Tocoi Road, a double- circuit configuration, with or without distribution underbuild, may be used. The span length between structures will typically vary between 250 and 750 feet, depending on site-specific conditions, ROW widths, and other design considerations. Both pole height and span length may vary to accommodate such things as locating poles to coincide with property boundaries or existing collocated utility facility poles, to avoid or minimize wetland impacts, to cross other utility lines, and to facilitate wide crossings of water bodies and roadways. Where the transmission line turns large angles or crosses other major linear facilities, the structures may be guyed or anchored to support the differential tension. 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 about 14 feet, with a 2-to-1 side slope, and a minimum elevation of 6 inches over mean or seasonal high water. Structure pads will have variable sizes, depending on site specific requirements, but will be of sufficient size to provide access to structure locations for the large construction equipment. Access roads and structure pads will not be paved. Culverts will be installed beneath access roads and structure pads with spacing, diameter, and length to maintain preconstruction flows. The design of the SJPP Line complies with good engineering practices. The SJPP Line will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), the Department's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, the St. Johns County and City of Palm Coast noise ordinances, and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Society of Testing Materials, American National Standards Institute, and American Concrete Institute, as well as FPL'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 Surveying the ROW to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests is a first step towards construction. After property rights for the ROW have been acquired, the initial phase of construction is to clear the ROW. Since nearly the entire length of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing roads and utility facilities, the need for acquisition of private property and the need for clearing have been minimized. Clearing will consist mainly of tree trimming and the removal of trees that exceed or are capable of exceeding 14 feet in height. 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 only required in wet and low areas. This enables all subsequent construction activity in those wet areas to remain on the newly constructed access road and pad. The next phases of construction involve the physical transmission line construction. Initially, materials are brought to the jobsite. Next, holes are augered at each pole location and the poles are then erected using cranes or other heavy equipment. The hole is then backfilled with suitable fill. Typically, the pole is embedded into the ground approximately 16 to 20 feet. After the poles are set, the poles are framed, that is, the insulators and hardware are installed on the pole. Then through a wire pulling operation the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed. The conductors are then properly sagged and tensioned to provide the proper vertical clearances. Next, the conductors are "lipped in" to the insulator assemblies. The final stage of construction is ROW clean-up. During all stages of construction, FPL will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state, or federal roadways in compliance with applicable DOT and St. Johns County regulations. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques, such as the use of silt screens and hay bales, will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation. While each phase of construction will typically take only 1 to 7 days in an area, the entire SJPP Line construction process will last approximately 13 months. Methodology for Choosing FPL Corridor On project initiation, FPL management instructed its multi-disciplinary corridor selection team to identify, if it could, a corridor for the SJPP Line that connects the St. Johns and Pringle substations and allows connections to the proposed intermediate substations. Corridor Selection and Public Involvement FPL established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives within the Project Study Area. This multi-disciplinary team was comprised of a transmission line engineer, a land use planner, and an ecologist. FPL's multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area and identified 45 line segments which could be assembled into approximately 630 alternate routes for the SJPP Line. FPL also engaged in an extensive public participation program to gather input for its route evaluation study. This public participation program included an open house, mass mailings, a community survey, a toll-free telephone number and an e-mail address, a website, and meetings with regulatory agencies, community associations, homeowner groups, and individual homeowners and property owners. 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. FPL's multi-disciplinary team evaluated the 630 routes quantitatively, using 11 weighted factors, and then evaluated in more detail, using both quantitative and qualitative criteria, a few distinct routes identified from among the highest-ranking routes. Through this process, FPL's multi-disciplinary team was able to identify a route of the FPL Corridor that, on balance, is the most appropriate considering environmental, land use, engineering, and cost considerations. Once the preferred alignment was identified, the multi-disciplinary team delineated the boundaries or width of the FPL Corridor to provide flexibility for locating the eventual ROW within that corridor. Agencies' Review of FPL's Application and Resulting Determinations State, regional, and local agencies with regulatory authority over the project reviewed FPL's Application and submitted to the Department a report as to the impact of the proposed SJPP Line on matters within the agency's jurisdiction, as required by Section 403.526(2), Florida Statutes. The Department then compiled these reports and made a recommendation that the SJPP Line be granted approval subject to appropriate conditions. Stipulations Entered Into by Parties All agency parties filed stipulations with FPL in which these parties and FPL agreed to the Conditions of Certification for the SJPP line and the entry into the record of the pre-filed written testimony and exhibits of FPL's witnesses. Detailed Description of the FPL Corridor Almost the entire length of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear features, such as roads and transmission lines. This collocation will minimize impacts of the new SJPP Line. The width of the FPL Corridor varies along the route to provide flexibility within the corridor to minimize or avoid impacts to such areas as existing developments and large wetland areas. From the St. Johns Substation to the Deerwood Substation The SJPP line will exit the existing St. Johns substation at SR 207 near Lightsey Boulevard and utilize the existing 110-foot-wide St. Johns-Tocoi 230-kV ROW. The FPL Corridor will be collocated within this existing ROW north and west until the intersection with I-95. Along the existing ROW and in the vicinity of the St. Johns substation, the land use is residential or vacant. At I-95, the preferred corridor will follow the eastern ROW line of the highway south to the intersection with Tocoi Road. The corridor in this stretch is 500 feet wide. Within the corridor in this stretch, the land use is vacant. There is some residential development outside the corridor to the east. At the I-95/Tocoi Road intersection, the FPL Corridor is expanded in all four quadrants following property lines to allow FPL flexibility in traversing the short distance to Deerwood substation and crossing I-95 to proceed south from Deerwood. The FPL Corridor follows Tocoi Road to enter and exit the proposed Deerwood substation, encompassing 100 feet or less in width on both the north and south sides of the road. The line will be built either on the south or north side of the road. A FPL distribution line currently exists on the south side of Tocoi Road. From the Deerwood Substation to the Vermont Substation The FPL Corridor will leave the Tocoi Road alignment at the I-95 intersection. The FPL Corridor then follows the western ROW edge of I-95 south to the FEC Railroad, where the corridor turns to the southwest for a short distance. In this section, the corridor is 500 feet wide. At the north end of the St. Augustine Industrial Park, the corridor follows property lines to the access road (Deerpark Boulevard) into the industrial park. The corridor is 200 feet wide in this section. From the north end of the access road, the FPL Corridor follows the east edge of the road south to the Vermont substation site, is 100 feet wide in this section, and includes an existing FPL distribution line. From the Vermont Substation to the Anastasia Substation The FPL Corridor exits the Vermont substation heading northeast toward I-95. In this area, the corridor will be of variable width and will include both sides of State Road 207 (SR 207). An existing 115-kV FPL transmission line already occupies the north side of the SR 207, and a distribution line is located on the south side. An existing FPL distribution line traverses north-south in this area and is also included in the corridor. In the area between the Vermont substation and I-95, the corridor is north and east of existing residential subdivisions. The corridor between the Vermont substation and I-95 is widened to allow flexibility in accommodating a number of land use and engineering considerations. These considerations include the crossing of SR 207, the existing transmission line and distribution lines, existing residential development south of SR 207, existing commercial development north of SR 207, and a large borrow pond west of I-95. The corridor will reach I-95 south of SR 207, at which point it will then follow I-95's western boundary southward. The corridor is 500 feet wide in this area where it parallels I-95 south to SR 206. The predominant land use in the area between the Vermont and Anastasia substations is silviculture. From the Anastasia Substation to the Pellicer Substation At the intersection of SR 206 and I-95, the corridor is again widened variably to include the properties on the northwest and southwest quadrants of the interchange to provide flexibility in finalizing the Anastasia substation plans and providing ingress and egress to that substation. The FPL Corridor will exit the Anastasia substation and follow the western boundary of I-95 southward. The corridor is 500 feet wide in this stretch with the exception of the location of a rest area on the west side of I-95, approximately 2.5 miles south of Anastasia substation. The corridor is of variable width around the rest area, but generally 1,000 feet wide to allow flexibility in traversing either the front or rear of the rest area. In this area, the predominant land use is silviculture. Where I-95 intersects the FEC Railroad north of County Road 204 (CR 204), the FPL Corridor turns and follows the railroad southward. The corridor is located along the east side of the railroad and is 500 feet wide. North of CR 204, the corridor is expanded along the road to allow ingress to the Pellicer substation site located south of CR 204 and east of the railroad. Land uses in this area are primarily silviculture. From the Pellicer Substation to the Pringle Substation The FPL Corridor includes the entire Pellicer site, which is already owned by FPL, along the east side of the FEC Railroad south to Pellicer Creek. The corridor in this area crosses lands owned or proposed to be purchased by the SJRWMD for conservation purposes for approximately one mile. From Pellicer Creek south to the Pringle substation, the corridor will follow the east side of the railroad bed and will be variable in width, generally 150 to 300 feet wide. At the Pringle substation site, which is already owned by FPL, the corridor includes the entire substation site. The FPL Corridor for the stretch south of Pellicer Creek falls in a currently undeveloped portion of the Palm Coast Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) within the City of Palm Coast's jurisdiction. The development order for the Palm Coast Park DRI provides for an easement for the SJPP transmission line within the FPL Corridor. 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 St. Johns and Flagler Counties. By 2008, the existing 115kV transmission network between the Bunnell substation in Flagler County and the St. Johns substation in St. Johns County will not have sufficient capacity to provide reliable electric service to the existing and proposed substations in the area. The SJPP Line would be built to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions from a single contingency event, which occurs when a single element such as a generator, transmission circuit or transformer is eliminated from the system. If the SJPP Line is not built, service interruptions affecting up to 8,300 customers could occur. In addition, the PSC found that the FPL North Region (extending from Indian River County to Nassau County) has grown by a compound annual average growth rate of 3.7 percent over the past five years. The SJPP Line is also needed to serve the increasing load and customer base in the area. Operation of the SJPP Line would be consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Council and Florida Reliability Coordinating Council transmission system standards. FPL has a responsibility to provide safe and reliable service to its customers. See § 366.03, Fla. Stat. The provision of reliable electric service is important to FPL and its customers. In the past, FPL has demonstrated the ability to plan a reliable electric system consistent with the NESC and ASCE standards. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion The PSC recognized that FPL's planning studies indicate that the SJPP Line is needed by December 2008 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions from a single contingency event. Location of the SJPP Line on the FPL 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 SJPP Line in the FPL Corridor will comply with applicable non- procedural 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 Department has concluded that the SJPP Line as proposed would produce a minimal adverse impact on the environment and public health, safety, and welfare without unduly conflicting with local statutes and local comprehensive plans. After certification of this project, FPL will acquire the necessary property interests in a ROW within the certified corridor for placement of the SJPP 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 SJPP Line are not applicable to this project. To the extent the comprehensive plans of the local governments crossed by the SJPP Line include provisions applicable to non-development activities, the proposed transmission line in the FPL Corridor would be consistent with them. The City of Palm Coast Comprehensive Plan is essentially silent on transmission lines as a land use, which is consistent with such lines being excepted from the definition of "development" regulated by the Plan. Policy A.1.8.3 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan provides that "future utility facilities shall be located to promote the efficient provision of services, minimize the cost of construction and maintenance, and minimize the impact on the natural environment." Because of the thoroughness of the corridor selection process and criteria, and the appropriateness of the corridor from a land use perspective, the proposed SJPP Line is consistent with that policy. 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 SJPP Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy The PSC determined that the SJPP Line is needed taking into account the factors set forth in Section 403.537, Florida Statutes. In the need proceeding, the PSC considered two alternatives, including transmission modifications to the existing 115-kV system. The PSC accepted FPL's rejection of the two alternatives "due to economics and concerns with the ability to serve additional future customers west of the I-95/US-1 corridor." The PSC found that the proposed transmission line would "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." The PSC has determined that the estimated cost of the Project is reasonable, and that the SJPP 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 SJPP Line is appropriate from a land use perspective because this type of transmission line currently exists in all types of land uses in Florida, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and vacant land. The SJPP Line takes advantage of the opportunity to be collocated with other transmission lines, roadways, and railroad ROWs for almost the entire distance. By following these existing linear features, the FPL Corridor conforms to existing and future development patterns, and minimizes intrusion into residential areas and conservation lands. As a result, the proposed SJPP Line is in proximity to relatively few residences and only one crossing of lands either purchased or proposed for purchase under federal, state, or local land acquisition programs. Further, by collocating with other public and utility ROWs, the amount of land that will be required for the SJPP line is less than if it were not collocated. The FPL Corridor minimizes impacts to existing homes by following a route where there is very little residential development and where planned residential development is very low density. The SJPP Line as proposed will comply with all applicable non-procedural standards, including the noise ordinances of St. Johns County and the City of Palm Coast, and the standards adopted by the Department limiting the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. Impact Upon the Environment The SJPP Line Project as proposed will have minimal environmental impact. Construction of the SJPP Line within the FPL Corridor will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The FPL 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 FPL Corridor is minimal from a wildlife ecology and protected species perspective. Great care was taken in routing the FPL Corridor to avoid or minimize proximity of the corridor to known listed species locations, including routing inputs from wildlife agencies such as the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, due to the presence of existing linear features along much of the route, clearing of additional natural habitats and potential wetland impacts will be minimized. Construction of the SJPP Line within the FPL Corridor will not cause a significant adverse impact to the current condition and relative value of functions of the vegetative communities within the FPL Corridor. First, nearly the entire length of the FPL Corridor allows placement of the transmission line within or adjacent to existing linear features to take advantage of previous disturbances to vegetation. FPL 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, FPL will only take out trees and shrubs that have an expected mature height greater than 14 feet and "danger trees," which are trees that could fall into the conductors and cause an outage. In these areas, vegetation will be removed by hand, usually with chain saws, or with low-ground-pressure shear or rotary machines to reduce soil compaction and damage to ground cover. The removal of vegetation in forested wetlands will not 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, FPL will minimize impacts on wetlands vegetation through a careful alignment of the ROW and the varying of span distances between poles. FPL 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. FPL has agreed to avoid the removal of listed plant species on public lands and waters, wherever practicable. When removal is necessary on public lands/waters, FPL will consult with the Department, FFWCC, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to determine the appropriate steps to minimize, mitigate, or otherwise appropriately address potential project related impacts to listed plant species. FPL's commitment to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential impacts to listed plant species within public lands and waters will promote the conservation of endangered and threatened plant species populations and their habitats. The SJPP Line Project will comply with all applicable state, regional, and local non-procedural regulations, including the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. Balance of Need versus Impacts The SJPP Line would effect 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 SJPP Line as proposed in the FPL Corridor will comply with the conditions of certification set forth in Department Exhibit 1. 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 for the purpose of monitoring for compliance with the conditions of certification. While the FPL Corridor has few homes in close proximity to it and very limited wetland crossings, FPL has agreed to conditions of certification that further minimize land use and environmental impacts. For example, FPL 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 FPL's St. Johns-Pellicer-Pringle 230-kV Transmission Line Application for Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 1. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2006, 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 6th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact All parties involved concurred that there is a necessity for expanded generating capacity to serve Gulf's customers and that the two initial units of 500mw each can meet this requirement. The parties stipulated that the power plant site certification application submitted by Gulf (Exhibit 1) deals sufficiently with the issue of operational safeguards and further that DER's proposed conditions of certification contain a condition that adequately addresses that issue. All agencies involved recommended certification; however, DER's recommendation was predicated upon Gulf complying with the general and special conditions or certifications contained in Exhibits 4 and 5. Gulf agreed to all those conditions but three, viz: 1. That the water intake and return lines to the river cross the wetlands on a trestle instead of the causeway proposed by Gulf; 2. A more extensive monitoring program and without termination date than the fixed period monitoring program proposed by Gulf; and 3. Restrictions upon use of herbicides to clear transmission line corridors in excess of those placed by federal and state authorities. In addition DER proposed in general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) to modify in the future the conditions of certification by any new or more stringent department rule enacted pursuant to Chapter 120 F.S. Gulf objected to this condition of certification and submitted a brief in opposition thereto. I With respect to Item number 1 the proposed causeway will occupy some 8 acres of wetlands. It is proposed to commence the causeway at elevation + 58 feet (above MSL), which is the 25 year predicted high water flood level in the Choctawhatchee River flood plain, and continue the causeway some 2400 feet at this elevation tot he river bank. The base of the proposed causeway will have a maximum width of 130 feet at a point near the river's edge where the causeway height will be 23 feet (T91). The top width is roughly 60 feet (T90) of which 18 feet will be paved surface. To the north of the access road will be a buried electrical service to carry electricity to the pumps. In the causeway to the south of the access road will be buried two intake lines of 30 inch diameter and one water discharge line. Near the river end of the causeway a vehicle turn-around area will be provided. The causeway across the wetlands will run in a southwesterly direction from plant site parallel to the principal direction of flood water flow when the river is out of its banks. Five oval-shaped culverts will be placed in the causeway at the lowest points of natural contour and permit water to pass through the causeway to equalize levels on both sides of the causeway. These culverts will be 6 feet wide by 3 feet 8 inches high. During the wet season water will be standing in most of these culverts. If the causeway were built in the same location, but without culverts, so as to block any flow normal to the causeway, the build up of water on the north side of the causeway would be only 1 or 2 inches at full flood stage of 57 feet (T146).1 Accordingly, the causeway would have little, if any, effect on the water flow in the wetlands over which this causeway passes; and, but for the 8 acres of wetlands eliminated by the construction of the causeway, the ecological function of these wetlands will be virtually unimpaired. As a collector of sediment from the flood waters the flood plain would also be unimpaired by the construction of the causeway (T154). The cost of constructing the causeway as proposed is $216,000. As a condition of certification (Ex 5 D 1 b) DER prescribed "a trestle shall be used for access to the platform for all areas west of station 14 + 00." This includes the access across the wetlands and presumably it is DER's position that the intake and discharge pipes from the Choctawhatchee River shall be placed upon a trestle structure rather than upon a causeway. The only evidence presented with respect to the cost of the trestle structure was presented by Gulf that a concrete pile trestle to support the pipes and access road would cost some $900,000. A creosoted pile trestle to perform the same function would cost approximately $600,000 and to provide fire protection for the piling would cost another $250,000, which would place the cost of either type trestle some four times the cost of the causeway. No maintenance costs or useful life comparisons of the trestle and causeway were presented. Both trestle and causeway would require the same corridor to be cleared thus the construction of either would result in the same ecological damage. Thereafter, however, the vegetation and other indicia of wetlands could return under the trestle. While evidence was presented that the causeway would occupy 8 acres of former wetlands no evidence was presented of the area occupied by the piling of the trestle. It is obvious that this would be a small fraction of the area occupied by the causeway, but not necessarily insignificant. Gulf opposed the trestle concept for two additional reasons. The exposed pipe on the trestle, if of steel, would require painting and would conduct heat from the sun to the water passing through the pipe. Testimony was presented that ecologists not present had evaluated wetlands in general as having an ecological value of between $1,000 and $20,000 per acre per year. If these figures have economic reality all wetland should have a market value of at least $10,000 per acre. Regardless of this if we assume the values presented are real and the cost for the access corridors are correct, the following economic comparisons can be made. The difference in the cost of the causeway and trestle is approximately $700,000. If this money is borrowed by Gulf at 8 1/2 percent interest the interest cost is almost $60,000 per year. Since this would be a valid capital expense this interest cost will be reflected in the rates of Gulf's customers. If the wetlands are ecologically worth $7,500 per acre per year the 8 acres here involved would also have a value of $60,000 per year. In this connection it should be noted that DER's condition of certification specifying trestle across wetlands was based solely on ecological factors and cost was not considered (T308). During the course of the hearing considerable evidence was presented regarding a third alternative for piping water to and from the river, viz. in pipes buried across the wetlands. This evidence was insufficient in numerous aspects to give it viability; however, several aspects of this proposal are worthy of note. Any pipe that is used to carry cooling water requires some degree of slope to permit the pipe to be drained. From a position near SR 179 (where if underground pipes are used the pumps would have to be placed to provide access for maintenance) the pipe could be buried; but, at some point in the flood plain, the pipe would have to be placed upon a trestle to maintain slope to the river's edge (T287). Burying pipes across the wetlands would have the least ecological impact upon the wetlands. Once the pipe path was trenched, suitable bearing material placed in the trench to support the pipe, the pipe laid and the trench back filled the wetlands would return to natural state and the area involved resume most of the characteristics of wetlands. Problems associated with this proposal include providing all-weather access to the inside of the pipe; obtaining suction on pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 + feet above the level of the water to be pumped; long periods of shutdown in case a section of pipe required replacement; and routine engineering problems in obtaining a constant slope upon installation. Regardless of the path taken by these pipes some difficulties with corbicula clams are expected. These creatures are endemic to the Choctawhatchee River and will be entrained in the pipe. There they will attach themselves and as they grow restrict the flow in the pipes. Although chlorination at the inlet is expected to help control this problem periodic cleaning of the intake pipes may be required. Accordingly, access to these pipes at all stages of the water level in the flood plain is an important concern. While testimony presented that it was possible to obtain suction with pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 feet higher than the level of the water to be pumped, it was also acknowledged that this 2400 feet of 30 inch pipe would "probably" have to be primed before the pumps could pick up suction. (T305-306). Cost and feasibility of providing all weather access to the buried pipes, and of providing capability to prime the remote pumps was not presented. Furthermore the cost associated with burying the pipes across the wetlands was not presented. Accordingly this concept should not be further considered. II With respect to the biological monitoring program to be carried out by Gulf to determine the effects of the power plant on river organisms, DER, as a condition of certification, proposes a program that will continue for the life of the plant regardless of the conclusions reached from such monitoring. Gulf, on the other hand, proposes a monitoring program to commence prior to the operation of Unit I to determine the base line conditions and continue for one year after commencement of operations of Unit I. Thereafter when Unit II comes on line the monitoring program would be reinstituted and continue for one more year. Since Unit II is scheduled to come on line one year after Unit I the monitoring program proposed by Gulf would actually be continuous for about 2 1/2 years. All parties generally agreed that monitoring is required to ascertain the ecological effects of the plant on the aquatic life in the river. One type monitoring is needed to determine the effect of impingement and entrainment at the intake. The intake structure is designed so the plant of the intake screen is parallel to the current flow. This largely eliminates impingement of fish and other aquatic life on the intake screen as the current flow would tend to wash aquatic life off the screen. Since water is drawn into the intake at a speed of 1/2 foot per second those aquatic life in the volume of water entering which are small enough to pass through the screens will be entrained and killed in the filters. It is to determine the quantity and composition of the aquatic life so destroyed that this part of the monitoring program is intended. The second part of the monitoring program involves ascertaining the aquatic life in the river above the plant and below the point of discharge of the returned cooling water in order to ascertain the effect of the discharged water on the aquatic organisms. With respect to the entrainment monitoring there was considerable confusion in the testimony regarding anticipated findings. Gulf's witness stated that at low river and low flow conditions the greatest number of organisms would be entrained. While it is obvious that the greatest percentage of available water will be removed from the river during low flow conditions (since the same quantity or volume of water will be withdrawn as at high flow conditions) it is not obvious that there will be a higher density of aquatic organisms in the river at this same time; and no one so testified. In fact the testimony was that various organisms in the water may change radically (of a magnitude of 1,000 to 1) at various times throughout the year. It would appear that whatever concentration of aquatic organisms that exist in the thalweg of the river would exist in the water withdrawn through the intake pipes and be entrained. Those organisms that exist in slack water portions of the river, swim or otherwise remain out of the current passing near the intake would not be entrained. Thus a sampling point in the current near the intake would provide adequate information on the effects of entrainment. The program proposed by Gulf and contained in Exhibit 21 appears adequate for this determination. With respect to the monitoring required to ascertain the effects of the plant operation on the river ecosystems Gulf proposed sampling only periphyton while DER's condition or certification (Exhibit 5) provides for a sampling to include phytoplankton, zoo plankton, ichthyoplankton, nutrient analysis, benthos and fish. These samples would be taken at points above and below the plant intake and discharge for the obvious determination of the effects on the river ecological system resulting from the discharge of the used cooling water back into the system. In this regard it should be pointed out that the water to be discharged will be treated to remove heat, solids, and other concentrations that would affect compliance with the EPA standards. No valid cost estimates for the monitoring program proposed by either Gulf or DER was presented. One witness upon cross examination gave a ball park "guesstimate" of $50,000 per year for Gulf's proposed program and $100,000 per year for DER's program. The witness expressly disallowed any credit for the accuracy of these figures and accordingly they are disregarded. They are inserted here simply because cost of the end product, electricity, is a factor to be considered in determining under what conditions this certification should be granted. As noted above, Gulf proposes to continue the monitoring program for approximately 30 months (until one year after Unit II has come on line) while DER proposes a monitoring program that will continue for the life of the plant. The biological community sampling program contained in Exhibit 5, part II C should be followed. The time during which these programs should be continued will be discussed under Conclusions. III All parties generally agreed that the use of herbicides was required to clear vegetation from transmission line corridors in wet areas where mechanical equipment cannot operate. Gulf proposes to use Kuron, a herbicide approved by both state and federal authorities. It will be used in wet areas only at a frequency not to exceed once per year and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions admitted into evidence as Exhibit 22. At the hearing DER appeared to take the position that approval by DER should be obtained prior to each time the herbicide is used. The evidence presented clearly shows that Kuron is a safe non- persistent herbicide which, when applied in accordance with instructions, will cause no harm to untargeted vegetation. All of the transmission line routes were not finalized at the time of the hearing but when the remainder of these corridors are finalized there appears to be no reason that Gulf should not provide DER with a map of these corridors indicating thereon those areas in which herbicides will be used. IV No factual evidence regarding general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) was presented. Accordingly these will be treated solely as a matter of law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application of Gulf Power Company for a power plant site certificate be granted so as to authorize the construction and operation of a coal-fired steam generating electrical power plant near Carryville, Florida in accordance with Exhibit 1. It is further RECOMMENDED that this approval be conditioned upon compliance by Gulf with the conditions of certification contained in Exhibit 4 and 5 except conditions II D 1 (b) (Exhibit 5), general conditions 11(a) and (b), (Exhibit 4), and that condition II C (Exhibit 5) be modified to provide such monitoring shall commence not less than six months prior to completion of Unit I and continue for a period of three years after completion of Unit II. At this time Gulf may petition DER for authority to discontinue said monitoring or to modify same and if such request is not approved Gulf shall be entitled to a hearing at which evidence shall be presented from which a determination can be made whether the benefits of said monitoring program justify the costs involved. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the corridor for the Seminole Plant-Keystone-JEA Firestone 230 kV Transmission Line proposed by the Applicants, Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Jacksonville Electric Authority, is proper for certification under the Transmission Line Siting Act, Sections 403.52-403.5365, Florida Statutes (1989 and Supp. 1990).
Findings Of Fact Procedural Matters Determination of Need. The determination of need for the SKF Transmission Line was made by the PSC pursuant to Section 403.537, Florida Statutes, by Order No. 22713, dated March 20, 1990, attached as Appendix A to this proposed Recommended Order. The PSC determined that the SKF Transmission Line was needed for several reasons. First, the proposed transmission line will improve the reliability of electrical service to customers of CEC by replacing the radial, or dead-end, 69 kV transmission line that presently serves the Riverview, Florahome and Keystone substations. The proposed transmission line will provide looped service to these existing substations and prevent the occurrence of a single contingency outage. If a single outage occurs at some point along the proposed transmission line, all of the substations can continue receiving power from one direction or the other. Secondly, the proposed SKF Transmission Line will improve the reliability of service to JEA's Firestone Substation by preventing future overloads and low voltage conditions on the JEA system. Finally, the proposed transmission line will improve the transfer capability of the SECI's transmission system by providing an interconnection with the JEA transmission system allowing SECI to purchase more economical generation capacity outside the State of Florida. The estimated economic benefit over the next 20 years to SECI's customers is $48.2 million and to JEA customers is $544,000. The PSC determined that the proposed transmission line was needed in service by 1994. Filing of Application and Notices. On September 7, 1990, the Applicants, SECI and JEA, filed with DER the Seminole Plant-Keystone-JEA Firestone 230 kV Transmission Line Application for Corridor Certification. Notices of the Application and the certification hearing were properly published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and in newspapers of general circulation within the counties to be crossed by the proposed transmission line corridor. No party properly filed an alternate corridor for consideration in this proceeding. Project Design As described in the Application, the Applicants propose a single 230 kV transmission line which will originate at the Seminole Plant in Putnam County and terminate at the JEA Firestone Substation in the City of Jacksonville/Duval County. The total length of the proposed transmission line corridor is approximately 70 miles. Approximately 35 miles of the proposed corridor is located along existing transmission line rights-of-way and the proposed transmission line will replace or be collocated with existing transmission lines within these rights-of-way. The majority of the remaining proposed corridor is located along major linear facilities such as S.R. 100, S.R. 21, and the proposed Branan Field-Chaffee Limited Access Road. A map of the proposed SKF Transmission Line corridor is shown in Appendix B to this Recommended Order. Between the Seminole Plant and the JEA Firestone Substation, the SKF Transmission Line will connect to four existing substations. In Putnam County, the proposed transmission line will connect to the Riverview and Florahome substations. In Clay County, the proposed transmission line will connect to the Keystone and Black Creek substations. SECI will be responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed transmission line in Putnam County and Clay County. JEA will be responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed transmission line in the City of Jacksonville/Duval County. Location of the Preferred Corridor, Existing Land Use and Cover Seminole Plant to Riverview Substation. The proposed transmission line corridor originates at the Seminole Plant and proceeds west along SECI's existing 230 kV transmission line right-of-way. Approximately two miles west of the Seminole Plant, the corridor turns south toward the Riverview Substation. In this section of the corridor, the developed land uses include the Seminole Plant and the Putnam County Landfill. Agricultural land uses include pasture and planted pine. Natural vegetative areas include some mixed swamp forest along the Moccasin Creek, cypress domes west of the Seminole Plant, and some sandhill. Surface water bodies in this portion of the corridor include Moccasin Creek, an unnamed pond and a tributary leading to the St. Johns River. Riverview to Florahome Substation. From the Riverview Substation, the proposed corridor generally heads west toward the Florahome substation following the existing CEC 69 kV transmission line right-of-way. The corridor widens near Bardin to include an existing SECI 230 kV transmission line right-of-way. Land uses in this portion of the corridor include primarily planted pine, pasture, and some low density residential. Vegetative communities include sandhill, pine plantation, and mixed swamp forest around the Etonia and Simms Creeks. Several small unnamed canals, ditches, ponds and streams are crossed by this portion of the corridor. Named water bodies crossed by the corridor in this area include Simms Creek and Etonia Creek. Florahome to Keystone Substation. The proposed transmission line corridor heads west and north from the Florahome Substation to the Keystone Substation. The corridor continues to follow the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way into the City of Keystone Heights. Pursuant to a Stipulation between the City of Keystone Heights and SECI, the proposed transmission line corridor will turn south from the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way on the east side of Commercial Circle and proceed to the Keystone Substation along S.R. 100. Developed land uses in the area of the Florahome Substation are sparse and are comprised of mostly pasture and low density residential. As the proposed corridor approaches the City of Keystone Heights, residential areas become more prevalent. Within the City of Keystone Heights the land uses are primarily institutional, and commercial services with sparse residential development. Natural vegetation in this part of the corridor includes sandhill and disturbed oak hammock. Water bodies crossed by the corridor in this area include small unnamed ponds, lakes, streams, and canals. Keystone to Black Creek Substation. From the Keystone Substation, the proposed transmission line corridor follows S.R. 21 north to the intersection of C.R. 215. At this point the corridor continues north and then east following the existing CEC 115 kV transmission line right-of-way to the Black Creek Substation. SECI will locate the SKF Transmission Line within the existing CEC 115 kV transmission line right-of-way. Land uses in this area of the corridor include some commercial/services near the City of Keystone Heights, industrial, such as the Gold Head Mine, Gold Head Branch State Park, the Camp Blanding military reservation along S.R. 21, and some residential areas near the community of Middleburg. The vegetative communities include primarily sandhill and pine plantation, with some mixed swamp forest near the Black Creek and its tributaries, and smaller areas of cypress domes and sand pine scrub. The corridor crosses several named water bodies in this area including a narrow portion of Brooklyn Lake adjacent to S.R. 21, Ates Creek, the South Fork of Black Creek, Bull Creek, Mill Creek, Dillaberry Branch, the North Fork of Black Creek and Grog Branch. Several smaller unnamed streams, ponds, canals, and tributaries associated with these water bodies are also crossed. Black Creek to JEA Firestone Substation. The proposed transmission line corridor proceeds north from the Black Creek Substation centered on the existing Branan Field Road and the proposed Branan Field-Chaffee Limited Access Road to a point directly west of the JEA Firestone Substation where the corridor turns to the east. The corridor heads east and intersects and follows an existing JEA 138 and 230 kV transmission line right-of-way to the JEA Firestone Substation. In this section of the corridor, the land uses include some residential areas to the north of the Black Creek Substation and along the edges of the existing transmission line right-of-way west of the JEA Firestone Substation. The corridor crosses areas of pine flatwoods, pine plantation, and sandhill. Wetland areas include some cypress domes and some mixed swamp forest near the north and south prong of the Double Branch River, and the Ortega River. Water bodies crossed by the corridor in this area include unnamed canals and ponds, the South and North Prong of the Double Branch, the Ortega River and several unnamed tributaries associated with these water bodies. Proposed Design, Construction and Maintenance of the SKF 230 kV Transmission Line SECI Structures. In Putnam County and Clay County, SECI will use one of five typical transmission line structures. In rural areas along the majority of the proposed transmission line corridor, SECI will use an H-frame transmission line structure. In more urbanized areas, either single pole vertical or delta transmission line structures may be used. Where it is feasible to locate distribution lines on the same structure with the transmission line, SECI will use a single pole vertical with distribution underbuilt structure. Where it is feasible to collocate the proposed transmission line with an existing transmission line or where it is necessary to double-circuit the proposed transmission line, SECI will use a single-pole, double-circuit transmission line structure. The span lengths between the transmission line structures will vary between 600 to 1,200 feet. Overhead ground wires will be attached to the top of each structure and may contain a fiber optic cable. The minimum clearance for the SECI portion of the transmission line will be 26 feet. JEA Structures. In the City of Jacksonville/Duval County, JEA will use a single pole vertical structure where new right-of-way is acquired. Where the proposed transmission line is collocated with the existing JEA 138 kV transmission line, the conductors will be located on the existing single pole vertical transmission line structures. The minimum clearance for the JEA portion of the proposed transmission line will be 22.5 feet. Right-of-Way Requirements for SECI and JEA. In Putnam County and Clay County where the proposed transmission line replaces the SECI 69 kV transmission line or is collocated with the CEC 115 kV transmission line, the proposed transmission line will be located in the existing 100-foot-wide right-of-way. Where the SECI portion of the transmission line is located adjacent to an existing road or railroad right-of-way, the right-of-way width may vary between 25 to 100 feet in width. In the City of Jacksonville/Duval County, the transmission line right-of-way may be up to 130 feet wide. Phases of Construction. The primary phases of construction for the SKF Transmission Line include surveying the right-of-way, right-of-way clearing, access road and structure pad construction, and structure erection and conductor stringing. The phases of construction will generally be the same for both the SECI and JEA portions of the proposed transmission line. Surveying. In the first phase of construction, the boundaries for new right-of-way within the proposed corridor will be determined and staked for clearing. The boundaries where new access roads and structure pads are required will also be determined. Right-of-Way Clearing. After surveying is completed, vegetation in the new right-of-way, and where necessary in the existing right-of-way, will be cleared. In upland areas, the right-of-way will be cleared to the ground level, leaving the existing root mat. In wetland areas, restrictive clearing, as defined in DER Condition of Certification S-2.B and SJRWMD Condition of Certification S-23 B.(1), will be used. (A compilation of the Conditions of Certification is attached hereto as Appendix C to this Recommended Order.) Access Road and Structure Pad Construction. Due to the location of the majority of the proposed transmission line along existing transmission line rights-of-way and roads, new access road and structure pad construction will be minimized. New access roads and structure pads will be required in areas where soft soil conditions do not support the weight of the equipment required to construct and maintain the proposed transmission line. Where access roads and structure pads are constructed, fill material will only be used when the existing soil cannot be properly compacted for construction. Structure Erection and Conductor Stringing. The transmission line structures will be erected using cranes and other support vehicles such as bulldozers, tractors and light vehicles. Foundations for the structures may be either native soil, crushed rock or, in the case of heavy line angles, concrete. After the structures have been erected, the conductors will be installed using various tension machines and cable pullers. Duration of Construction Phases. Each phase of construction along a typical mile of the transmission line will last two to five days. The construction time for the entire SKF Transmission Line will be approximately 18 months. Transmission Line Load Design. The SECI portion of the proposed transmission line is designed for a nominal voltage of 230 kV with a maximum current rating (MCR) of 2000 amperes. The JEA portion of the transmission line is also designed for a nominal voltage of 230 kV with a MCR of 1,677. Transmission Line and Right-of-Way Maintenance. Transmission line and right-of-way maintenance is typically the same for both the SECI and JEA portions of the transmission line. The transmission line will be patrolled approximately every two months. Repairs and maintenance to the transmission line, access roads and culverts will be performed at this time, if necessary. The right-of-way will be mowed approximately every two years. Where mowing is not feasible, herbicides will be used in accordance with DER Condition of Certification S-7 as set forth in Appendix C to this Recommended Order. Compliance with Codes and Engineering Standards. The proposed transmission line will be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code (Ed. 1990), REA Transmission Line Design Guidelines, the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide (May 1990), and Chapter 17-274, Florida Administrative Code. Materials used for the construction of the proposed transmission line will comply with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Testing Material (ASTM), and American Concrete Institute (ACI). Stipulations Concerning Transmission Line Design. The Applicants have agreed with various state, regional and local agencies regarding conditions of certification applicable to the construction and location of the proposed transmission line. All of the conditions of certification regarding the design or location of the proposed transmission line are encompassed within the ranges of design and location proposed in the Application. The Conditions of Certification affecting the construction and location of the SKF Transmission Line are included in Appendix C to this Recommended Order. Impacts of the SKF Transmission Line Upon the Public Impacts on Existing Land Uses. The SKF Transmission Line will have a minimal impact on existing land uses. Approximately 35 miles of the 70 mile corridor follows existing transmission line rights-of-way where the SKF Transmission Line will replace or be collocated with the existing transmission lines. Approximately 33 of the remaining 35 miles of the corridor parallel existing or proposed linear facilities; i.e., S.R. 100, S.R. 21, the Georgia Southern and Florida Railroad, Branan Field Road and the proposed Branan Field- Chaffee Limited Access Road. The use of existing transmission line rights-of- way and the paralleling of linear facilities minimizes disruption to existing land uses and minimizes the need for new access road construction. Additionally, other than some residential areas near the City of Keystone Heights and Middleburg, most of the corridor traverses undeveloped land and agricultural land. The Applicants have stipulated with the City of Keystone Heights and Clay County on Conditions of Certification for the location and construction of the transmission line in the City of Keystone Heights and surrounding area, and in the community of Middleburg. These Conditions of Certification are included in Appendix C to this Recommended Order. Construction Noise. Construction activities, such as right-of-way clearing, are minimized by locating the majority of the proposed corridor along existing transmission line rights-of-way. Construction activities will take place in short phases where the total time in any one area will be one to two weeks. Noise associated with construction activities is confined to machinery used intermittently during construction and will occur only during daylight hours. Electric Shock. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) sets standards for the installation, operation and maintenance of electric and communication facilities necessary to protect the safety of the public and operators of those facilities. The proposed transmission line will comply with the requirements of the NESC. Lightning. Lightning is generally attracted and diverted to the tallest object on the ground in a particular area. Transmission line structures, often the tallest structures in an area, are frequently struck by lightning. To protect the transmission line against large surges in voltage and current which can cause damage, the Applicants will protect the SKF Transmission Line by placing ground wires above the conductors to interrupt the lightning and safely route it to an extensive grounding system at the base of the structures consistent with the NESC. This structural design should produce no risk to people or residents adjacent to the transmission line and may provide additional safety in the vicinity of the transmission line by diverting lightning to the transmission line grounding system. Transmission Line Noise. During fair weather transmission line noise will be below ambient noise levels. Measurable noise will only be generated by the transmission line during foul weather or when the conductors are saturated with water. During these periods, the maximum noise levels will range between 39 dBA to 48 dBA. In all instances, the noise levels generated by the transmission line will comply with applicable local government noise ordinances. Radio and Television Interference. The proposed transmission line will not interfere with frequency modulated (FM) radio reception. The transmission line may interfere with amplitude modulated (AM) radio reception depending on the frequency level of the transmission, the location of the receiver, and the strength of the radio transmission. No interference from the transmission line is expected to AM radio reception from a Type A station where the receiver is located at least 20-25 feet from the edge of the transmission line right-of-way. Interference from the transmission line to AM radio reception from a Type B station may occur if the receiver is located within 100 feet of the transmission line. Foul weather may increase the level of interference. Interference to AM radio reception from the transmission line can usually be corrected by adjusting the position of the antenna for the radio receiver. The audio portion of television is transmitted using FM frequency and will not experience interference from the transmission line. The video portion of television is transmitted using the AM frequency and therefore may experience interference from the transmission line. This interference should be limited to the weaker Grade B television transmissions, during foul weather, on channels two through six. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S-5 shown in Appendix C to this Recommended Order, the Applicants will investigate complaints regarding radio and television interference and provide appropriate mitigation for all impacts. Interference with Other Communication Systems. The transmission line will not interfere with cable television reception or telephone reception. Pursuant to the Condition of Certification S-10 shown in Appendix C, SECI will perform a base line communication measurement for the Keystone Fire Tower and take any necessary steps to correct any interference the transmission line may cause to the Keystone Fire Tower communications system. Electric and Magnetic Fields. Electric and magnetic fields are produced by virtually all electrical equipment. Transmission lines also produce electric fields, measured in kilovolts per meter (kV/m), and magnetic fields, measured in milligauss (mG). Standards for electric and magnetic fields produced by transmission lines are set forth in Chapter 17-274, Florida Administrative Code. The calculations for electric fields within and at the edge of the right-of-way, and for magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of- way, are made using the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Corona and Field Effects Program. Pursuant to Chapter 17-274, calculations for electric and magnetic fields are made under a worst case scenario; e.g. maximum conductor voltage, minimum conductor to ground clearance, and maximum current rating. The calculated electric and magnetic fields for the proposed SKF Transmission Line are shown on Appendix D to this Recommended Order. Depending on the final engineering of the transmission line, the actual electric and magnetic field levels will likely be lower than those shown in Appendix D. Pursuant to Chapter 17-274, Florida Administrative Code, the electric field for a 230 kV transmission line shall not exceed 8 kV/m within the right-of-way and 2.00 kV/m at the edge of the right-of-way, and the magnetic field shall not exceed 150 mG at the edge of the right-of-way. See, Rule 17-274.450(3) F.A.C. The proposed SKF Transmission Line complies with these standards. Further, a review of these standards is being undertaken by DER in deference to the rule's recognition of "a potential for adverse health effects" associated with electrical and magnetic fields emanating from electrical transmission and distribution lines. In accordance with Condition of Certification S-6 of appendix C, applicants agree to comply with presently existing electrical and magnetic field standards as well as any amendments to those standards which may result from DER's review of the state of the science in this area. Impacts of the SKF Transmission Line Upon the Environment: Water Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife Water Resources Flood Levels. The proposed SKF Transmission Line will not adversely impact flood elevations in the area of the preferred corridor. The majority of the preferred corridor is located along existing transmission line rights-of-way and other major linear facilities, such as S.R. 100, S.R. 21, and the Branan Field-Chaffee Limited Access Road, thereby minimizing the amount of fill required for new access roads. Additionally, all the surface water bodies along the corridor can be spanned by the proposed transmission line thus eliminating the need for any fill or structures in open water. Water Quality. The location and construction of the proposed transmission line within the corridor will not adversely affect water quality. The use of existing rights-of-way for the proposed transmission line will minimize disturbances to the ground cover in the area of the preferred corridor thereby reducing the potential for erosion. Where new access roads or structure pads are built the soil will be compacted and erosion control devices such as mulch and fiber fences will be used to control erosion that could affect water quality. Water Quantity. The proposed transmission line will not adversely affect the water quantity in the area of the preferred corridor. The location of the transmission line within existing rights-of-way and along roadways will minimize the need for new access roads. Where new access roads must be built, culverts will be installed where appropriate to maintain existing hydroperiods. Low-lying vegetation in areas not occupied by existing or new access roads and structure pads will be allowed to grow, thereby maintaining the infiltration and runoff rates in the area of the corridor. Ground Water. Limited dewatering may be required for construction of the transmission line and will not exceed the consumptive use permitting thresholds or exemptions adopted by the SJRWMD. Where dewatering is required for the placement of a structure foundation, the water will be discharged on site and allowed to percolate through the ground to recharge the surficial aquifer. Conditions of Certification Regarding Water Resources. The Applicants have agreed with DER and SJRWMD on Conditions of Certification regarding water resources. If constructed in accordance with these Conditions of Certification, the proposed transmission line will comply with the water quality, and water quantity and wetland standards for DER and the SJRWMD. Vegetation Impacts on Vegetation and Clearing. The impacts to vegetation from the location, construction and maintenance of the SKF Transmission Line within the proposed corridor will be minimal. For approximately one-half the length of the corridor, the SKF Transmission Line will be located within existing transmission line rights-of-way. Location of the SKF Transmission Line within existing transmission line rights-of-way virtually eliminates the need for new clearing of vegetation within those portions of the corridor. Approximately 33 of the remaining 35 miles of the proposed corridor follows existing linear facilities such as roads and railroads. The use of existing linear facilities will facilitate access to the SKF Transmission Line thereby reducing the amount of new access road construction and permanent clearing. Vegetation that will be cleared within the corridor is not regionally unique, nor does it provide critical habitat to wildlife species. Moreover, where clearing does occur, low lying vegetation will be allowed to revegetate. In wetland areas, clearing practices will be used to minimize the impacts to those communities. In freshwater marsh areas where access roads and structure pads are not required, no clearing will occur. Pursuant to DER Condition of Certification S-2.B. and SJRWMD Condition of Certification II b.(1), restrictive clearing shall be used in forested wetland areas to minimize impacts to wetland vegetation. Wildlife Wildlife Habitats. Wildlife habitats within the SKF Transmission Line corridor are primarily sandhill communities, various pine communities, pasture land and various freshwater and forested wetland areas where the corridor is crossed by creeks and rivers. Along the majority of the corridor, the proposed transmission line will be located adjacent to or within existing linear facilities thereby minimizing the clearing required in the various wildlife habitats. No federally designated Critical Habitat is crossed by the corridor. Threatened and Endangered Species. The corridor was screened for 51 species of wildlife designated by various federal, state, and regional agencies as Threatened and Endangered, Rare, or Species of Special Concern. Other than the gopher tortoise and associated commensurals, none of the 51 species were found to be dependent upon any of the wildlife habitats within the corridor. In respect to gopher tortoises, a regionally common species throughout the area, structure locations can be varied to minimize impacts to this species. Stipulations with DNR and GFWFC. Prior to the location of the transmission line right-of-way across any portion of the Mike Roess Gold Head Branch State Park, the Applicants will consult with DNR and ensure that the location of the right-of-way complies with the Incompatible Use Policy. (Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes.) Prior to any clearing activities, the Applicants will conduct a threatened and endangered species survey. The survey will be submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and GFWFC for review and appropriate steps taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to any identified species. Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies The Applicants have expressly accepted the Conditions of Certification attached hereto as Appendix C to insure that the location, construction and maintenance of the SKF Transmission Line within the Applicants' corridor will comply with the nonprocedural requirements of state, regional and local government agencies. Two special exceptions required for the SKF Transmission Line were identified in the Application. A special exception will be needed for the location of the proposed transmission line in any zoning district in Putnam County. In the City of Jacksonville/Duval County, a special exception will be required for the location of the transmission line within the General Floodplain District. Evidence admitted at hearing, including that regarding corridor selection methodology, transmission line design and construction techniques, together with the Conditions of Certification attached as Appendix C, support the issuance of the special exceptions in Putnam County and the City of Jacksonville/Duval County. Compliance with Comprehensive Plans The location of the SKF Transmission Line within the Applicants' corridor will be compatible with existing land uses and consistent with the applicable comprehensive plans of Putnam County, Clay County, City of Jacksonville/Duval County, and the City of Keystone Heights.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving SECI's and JEA's Seminole Plant-Keystone-JEA-Firestone 230 kV Transmission Line Application for Corridor Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification as set forth in Appendix C to this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Siting Board should approve (on appropriate conditions) or deny petitioners' application for a certificate authorizing construction and operation of the proposed Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, an electrical power plant?
Findings Of Fact As far as the evidence showed, petitioners never analyzed the costs of a natural gas facility as compared to those of a coal-fired facility. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, natural gas is not commercially available in the quantities necessary to fire the plant. If fueled by natural gas, instead of by coal as proposed, the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project would require 50 million cubic feet of natural gas per day, on a firm basis. Natural Gas Availability The Florida Gas Transmission system, a branch of which (the "Brooker lateral") serves People's Gas System, the only local distribution company in Jacksonville, (RT.60) has no transmission capacity not already fully allocated to existing users. Among Florida Gas Transmission Company's customers are other power plants, including some operated by Jacksonville Electric Authority. Florida has "roughly 6,000 megawatts of power [generating capacity] that is primarily gas fired . . . [and] another 5,000 megawatts of power [generating capacity] that uses natural gas as a secondary fuel." RT.62. It would take more than "the entire capacity of the Florida Gas Transmission system to move . . . the fuel required to generate . . . 6,000 megawatts." Id. Jacksonville Electric Authority buys natural gas on an interruptible basis, because it has been unable to obtain a commitment to a constant or "firm" supply. The Florida Gas Transmission Company has plans to expand its transmission capacity by 100 million cubic feet a day to a total of 925 million cubic feet a day in 1991 or early 1992. But allocation of the increase -- an issue in obtaining approval from the FERC -- has already been accomplished, and the expansion will make no firm capacity available to new users. Talk of another expansion has already begun, but so far the company has done little more than collect questionnaires (which suggest demand for double the existing service.) At one time, liquefied natural gas came from Algeria to Elba Island near Savannah, Georgia, by ship. A 20- inch pipeline connects the terminal with the Sonat system on the mainland. But no Sonat pipeline comes within some 150 miles of Jacksonville, and shipments of liquefied natural gas to Elba Island ceased with the decline of oil prices after the mid-l970s. At present, the Florida Gas Transmission Company has a monopoly in Jacksonville and peninsular Florida. But `a system. in southern Georgia "called Mobile Bay" (RT.77) has plans to extend a 12-inch pipeline from an existing line near Live Oak to Jacksonville. With respect to some or all of this planned capacity, "certain commitments have been made." RT.59. Under pressure, the proposed 12-inch pipeline could transmit over 40 million cubic feet of natural gas a day, but only if that much gas reached Live Oak, and "the South Georgia system is constrained during certain parts of the year," RT.59, as it is. From the fact that a pipeline is to be constructed to bring less natural gas to Jacksonville than would be required to fuel the Cedar Bay project it might be inferred that the project itself would justify construction of a pipeline. But the opinion of petitioners' expert, Mr. Van Meter that natural gas is not an available or reasonable fuel for the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (RT.65, 74, 79) -- and would not have been even if natural gas had been planned for earlier -- went unrebutted. Likewise unrebutted was the testimony of another of petitioners' experts that, from an economic standpoint, "Base load power plants['] most desirable fuels would be coal and nuclear." RT. 103. Construction Dewatering The applicants have modified their dewatering plan, and now propose new construction techniques for the railcar unloading facility; sequential installation of underground pipes; sequential excavation of pump pits; and an advanced effluent treatment system. (RT. 147, 149-52, 171-76, 178, 185-92; AES Ex. 4R) A cofferdam or groundwater barrier encircling the railcar unloading area would drastically reduce the amount of groundwater seeping into the excavation during construction. (RT. 173; AES Ex. 4R, 7R). Sheet piling is to be driven into perimeter trenches filled with bentonite cement. (RT. 174-75; AES Ex. 4R, 7R, 8R). Using a jet grouting technique, a five- to ten-foot thick seal would be created underneath the planned excavation. (RT. 175-76; AES Ex. 4R, 7R, 9R). Steel tie-back rods would strengthen the cofferdam, and a pump would move seepage to the surface from a sump designed to collect groundwater seeping through the cofferdam and up through the grout into the excavation. (RT. 176-77; AES Ex. 4R, 7R) The modified construction techniques now proposed would reduce maximum groundwater drawdown outside the cofferdam from approximately the 30 feet below grade originally contemplated to a currently anticipated level of approximately 5.5 feet below grade. (RT. 279; AES Ex. 10R). Excavations to install circulating water piping and to create pits to house runoff pumps would be scheduled to keep down the volume of dewatering effluent at any given time. (RT. 178-79, AES Ex. 4R) Installing a cofferdam, jetting in grauting, and sequencing construction, as now proposed, would reduce dewatering effluent flows from the 1000 to 2000 gallons per minute originally contemplated to no more than 200 gallons per minute. (RT. 180, 185; AES Ex. 4R, pp. 1 and 2) In another modification, the applicants now propose an advanced treatment system to improve the quality of (a diminished quantity of) dewatering effluent, prior to its introduction into Seminole Kraft's cooling water system. The proposed treatment system would employ as many as five treatment technologies, if needed, to ensure that cooling water system discharges to the St. Johns River containing dewatering effluent would meet Class III water quality standards. Equipment necessary to bring each technology to bear would be on site and available for use before dewatering began. (RT. 151, 185, 193, 196; AES Ex. 4R) Mixing dewatering effluent with lime would remove dissolved metals from solution. Then a clarifier would precipitate and separate solids. These first two stages of the treatment process now proposed comprise the whole of the treatment process originally proposed. (RT. 149-50, 185-68; AES Ex. 4R) Additional treatment, as needed, would include sand filtering, to eliminate the need for any turbidity mixing zone (RT. 151, 190, 198, 201; AES Ex. 4R); using a carbon filter to remove organic compounds (and some heavy metals), obviating the need for a phenol mixing zone (RT. 190-191, 198, 201; AES Ex. 4R); and, finally, selective ion exchange, to provide additional metals removal, if needed. (RT. 151, 191, 201-02; AES Ex. 4R) The applicants are to ascertain and report the quality of effluent as long as dewatering takes place. They must use a composite sampling method once a week for the first month. Thereafter they may use a single "grab" sample, but must continue assessing effluent quality once a week until dewatering ceases. The proposed monitoring program must be capable of detecting whether water quality standards are being met. (RT. 166, 195, 321-22; AES Ex. 4R). The applicants' modified dewatering plan is an environmental improvement over the previous plan and would ensure compliance with water quality standards. (RT. 193, 196, 261) DER has recommended and the applicants have agreed to accept modified Conditions III.A.12. (Construction dewatering), III.A.13 (Mixing Zones), and III.A.14. (Variances to Water Quality Standards). (RT. 152; AES Ex. SR as modified by the Joint Recommended Order filed November 1990). Based upon the applicants' modified dewatering plan, a reasonable allocation of water for construction dewatering is a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed .288 million gallons. Modified Condition V.D. is reasonable and the applicants accept its terms. (RT. 254, 294-295; SJRWMD Ex. IR) Water for Cooling Purposes The applicants now propose to use either reclaimed water or river water for cooling, to the extent practicable, in an effort to avoid using groundwater as the permanent, primary source of cooling water. September drought conditions caused record low readings for the Floridan aquifer at 23 monitoring wells in the northern part of the St. Johns River Water Management "District, including wells in Duval County." RT. 248. The original proposal called for withdrawing four million gallons of water a day from the Floridan aquifer for cooling, when power generation begins. Under the modified proposal, groundwater would still be used as makeup for the steam or power generation system, as service water, and for potable purposes, but (except in emergencies) not for cooling, assuming the applicants obtain the regulatory approval they would be obliged to seek. The applicants have agreed to accept modified Condition XXV (Use of Water for Cooling Purposes). (RT. 155-158, 204-208; AES Ex. 6R, 12R, 13R) Condition IV.C. has been modified to reflect the reduced withdrawal of groundwater that would be necessary if groundwater is not used for cooling. For the next seven years, a maximum annual withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer for non- cooling uses of no more than 530.7 million gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of no more than 1.45 million gallons represent amounts that are considered reasonably necessary and efficient. Unless the City of Jacksonville has agreed, on or before December 1, 1990, to supply reclaimed water for cooling, the applicants will redesign the cooling system so that river water can be used for cooling. Salt in the Broward and St. Johns rivers requires the use of highly corrosion-resistant materials for certain system components. Constructing these system components with such materials would enable the cooling system to use river water, reclaimed water from the City, or Seminole Kraft wastewater. (RT. 155-56, 159-60, 216-17; AES Ex. 6R). If river water is used, existing Seminole Kraft intake and discharge structures would be utilized. In order to reduce ill effects on aquatic organisms, the applicants would install screening and filter systems upstream of the pumps. Brackish river water must be changed or "cycled" more often than groundwater, lest evaporation cause scaling that would clog the system. The volume of river water required for cooling tower makeup is estimated at approximately 14 million gallons per day. Because cooling with river water would require more water, the applicants propose to increase piping and valve sizes for the cooling system. (RT. 155-57, 168, 215-16, 219-20; AES Ex. 6R) Modified Condition XXV specifies a procedure for amending site certification to require use of one of two primary cooling water sources: reclaimed water from the City or surface water from the Broward or St. Johns rivers. The applicants have agreed to apply within six months for modifications concerning design and operation of the plant cooling system. The application must contain information necessary to demonstrate that operation of the cooling system without using groundwater as the primary cooling water source would comply with all relevant non-procedural agency standards or qualify for a variance. The application must also detail the reasons for selection of one requested source over other possible sources. There would be no delegation to DER's Secretary for determinations under Condition XXV. Final authority to render determinations under Condition XXV would remain with the Siting Board. (RT. 207, 269; SJRWMD Ex. 2R) As drafted by the parties, modified proposed Condition xxv provides that groundwater may be utilized for cooling only in the event that neither river water nor reclaimed water from the City of Jacksonville obtains necessary environmental approvals of the preferred primary cooling sources are denied on the grounds of unavailability, or environmental or economic impracticability, as set forth in the condition. (RT. 207, 228-30; AES Ex. 12R) The applicants modified cooling system plans and modified Condition XXV, as drafted by the parties, are designed to ensure that the cooling system will use either river water or reclaimed water, to the extent it is economically and environmentally practicable. Use of either of these sources for this proposed cooling facility is viewed by the SJRWMD as equally appropriate to fulfill its conservation and reuse standards and the state water policy, which require consumptive users to utilize, to the extent practicable, the lowest quality water suitable for the proposed use. (RT. 242-43, 299-300) The applicants have stipulated that it is economically feasible and practicable for them to pay $.18-1/2 per thousand gallons for reclaimed water without phosphorous treatment or $.22 per thousand gallons for treated reclaimed water, unless expenditures have already been made to construct the cooling system to utilize river water. They also stipulated that the river water cooling option is economically feasible and practicable, if the facility is authorized to operate with the same type of cooling tower discharge operation variances granted to the St. Johns River Power Park. (RT. 206, 218, 245, 295j AES Ex. 12R) The St. Johns River Power Park, a power plant in Duval County which was certified under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, utilizes river water for cooling tower makeup and discharges its cooling tower blowdown into the St. Johns River. When river water is used for cooling, evaporation increases concentrations of pollutants already in the river. The St. Johns River Power Park's certification conditions include variances from Class III water quality standards which allow the facility to operate its cooling system with river water. These variances have been granted for two-year periods, with the permittee being required to obtain variance renewals every two years in order to continue operation of the cooling system. (RT. 206, 218-19, 288-89). Salt drift as well as concentrations of pollutants in the blowdown are being assessed. RT. 284. Use of Seminole Kraft's current wastewater is not mentioned in modified Condition XXV, as drafted by the parties. By the time the Cedar Bay cogeneration facility needs cooling water, the Seminole Kraft plant may have become a cardboard recycling facility, which would discharge a different and potentially more useful wastewater than is currently being discharged by Seminole Kraft. The precise quality of any such future effluent cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty at this time. (RT. 222-23, 238-43) But the applicants should "evaluate the practicability under [SJRWMD] rules of utilizing Seminole Kraft wastewater . . . [using] the best information . . . available," (RT. 243) during the post- certification proceeding new Condition XXV calls for, at least if reclaimed water is unavailable from the City of Jacksonville. If a primary source of cooling water other than groundwater proves unavailable or environmentally or economically impractical, as set out in modified Condition XXV, a maximum annual withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer for all facility uses not to exceed 1,990 million gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed seven million gallons are reasonable for a period of seven years. (RT. 211,12, 296-97; AES Ex. 14R) In the event groundwater became the primary cooling source, proposed Condition xxv would require the applicants to implement their groundwater mitigation plan. (RT. 207, 229-30; AES Ex. 12R). Under this plan, the applicants would fund a free- flowing well inventory in Duval County. Additionally, they would provide a contribution of $380,000 per year for plugging free- flowing wells to reduce discharges from these wells by seven million gallons a day, if discharges of such magnitude are found. Thereafter, the applicants' annual contributions, which are to continue as long as groundwater is used for cooling, would fund a water conservation and reuse grants program in Duval County. The plan represents not only a water conservation measure but also serves as an economic incentive to the applicants to pursue necessary approvals for use of another primary cooling water source. Overall Evaluation Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. testified without contradiction that the project as now proposed "would produce minimal adverse effects on human health . . . the environment the ecology of the land and its wildlife . . . [and] the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life." RT.277. He also testified that the applicants' proposal would comply "with relevant agency standards." (RT.273) (although the evidence showed variances would be needed for cooling tower blowdown, at least if reclaimed water is not used.) Mr. Oven explained that he used permitting agencies' "criteria as a measuring stick to show compliance and to try to produce the minimal adverse impacts as allowed by regulatory policy." RT.274. Like Mr. Oven, Stephen Smallwood, Director of DER's Division of Air Resources Management interprets "minimal" as used in the Florida Electric Power Plant Siting Act to mean "minimal with respect to the standards of the agencies." DER's Exhibit No. 2R, P. 11. Otherwise, he explained, "[Y]ou'd have to perhaps conclude . . . that you couldn't license any coal-fired units [. T]hey'd either all have to be natural-gas fired or . . . nuclear or . . . solar." Id. DER staff concluded that the proposed Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project effects a reasonable balance between the need for the project and the environmental impacts associated with the project. On this basis, DER recommended that the project be certified subject to recommended conditions of certification.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Siting Board grant the site certification application filed by AES Cedar Bay, Inc. and Seminole Kraft Corporation, as amended, subject to the agreed conditions of certification attached to the recommended order as an appendix, and on condition that the facility use reclaimed wastewater as cooling tower make-up within seven years of beginning operation. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 29th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION When a condition is intended to refer to both AES Cedar Bay, Inc. and Seminole Kraft Corp., the term "Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project or the abbreviation "CBCP" or the term "permittees" will be used. Where a condition applies only to AES Cedar Bay, Inc. the term "AES Cedar Bay, Inc." or the abbreviation "AESCB" or the term "permittee," where it is clear that AESCB is the intended responsible party, will be used. Similarly, where a condition applies only to Seminole Kraft Corp., the term "Seminole Kraft Corp." or the abbreviation "SK" or the term "permittee," where it is clear that SK is the intended responsible party, will be used. The Department of Environmental Regulation may be referred to as DER or the Department. BESD represents the City of Jacksonville, Bio-Environmental Services Division. SJRWMD represents the St. Johns River Water Management District. GENERAL The construction and operation of CBCP shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of at least the following regulations of the Department Chapters 17-2, 17-3, 17-4, 17-5, 17-6, 17-7, 17-12, 17-21, 17-22, 17-25 and 17-610, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) or their successors as they are renumbered. AIR The construction and operation of AESCB shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-2, F.A.C. In addition to the foregoing, AESCB shall comply with the following condition of certification as indicated. Emission Limitations for AES Boilers Fluidized Bed Coal Fired Boilers (CFB) The maximum coal charging rate of each CFB shall neither exceed 104,000 lbs/hr, 39,000 tons per month (30 consecutive days, nor 390,000 tons per year (TPY). This reflects a combined total of 312,000 lbs/hr, 117,000 tons per month, and 1,170,000 TPY for all three CFBs. The maximum wood waste (primarily bark) charging rate to the No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs each shall neither exceed 15,653 lbs/hr, nor 63,760 TPY. This reflects a combined total of 31,306 lbs/hr, and 127,521 TPY for the No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs. The No. 3 CFB will not utilize woodwaste, nor will it be equipped with wood waste handling and firing equipment. The maximum heat input to each CFB shall not exceed 1063 MMBtu/hr. This reflects a combined total of 3189 MMBtu/hr for all three units. The sulfur content of the coal shall not exceed 1.7% by weight on an annual basis. The sulfur content shall not exceed 3.3% by weight on a shipment (train load) basis. Auxiliary fuel burners shall be fueled only with natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.3% by weight. The fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.3% by weight. The fuel oil or natural gas shall be used only for startups. The maximum annual oil usage shall not exceed 160,000 gals/year, nor shall the maximum annual natural gas usage exceed 22.4 MMCF per year. The maximum heat input from the fuel oil or gas shall not exceed 1120 MMBtu/hr for the CFBs. The CFBs shall be fueled only with the fuels permitted in Conditions 1a., 1b and 1e above. Other fuels or wastes shall not be burned without prior specific written approval of the Secretary of DER pursuant to condition XXI, Modification of Conditions. The CFBs may operate continuously, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr. Coal Fired Boiler Controls The emissions from each CFB shall be controlled using the following systems: Limestone injection, for control of sulfur dioxide. Baghouse, for control of particulate. Flue gas emissions from each CFB shall not exceed the following: Pollutant lbs/MMBtu Emission lbs/hr Limitations TPY TPY for 3 CFBs CO 0.19 202 823 2468 NOx 0.29 308.3 1256 3767 SO2 0.60(3-hr avg.) 637.8 -- -- 0.31(12 MRA) 329.5 1338 4015 VOC 0.016 17.0 69 208 PM 0.020 21.3 87 260 PM10 0.020 21.3 86 257 H2SO4mist 0.024 25.5 103 308 Fluorides 0.086 91.4 374 1122 Lead 0.007 7.4 30 91 Mercury 0.00026 0.276 1.13 3.4 Beryllium 0.00011 0.117 0.5 1.5 Note: TPY represents a 93% capacity factor. MRA refers to a twelve month rolling average. Visible emissions (VE) shall not exceed 20% capacity (6 min. average), except for one 6 minute period per hour when VE shall not exceed 27% capacity. Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined by EPA reference method tests included in the July 1, 1988 version of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 and listed in Condition No. 7 of this permit or be equivalent methods after prior DER approval. The CFBs are subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da; except that where requirements within this certification are more restrictive, the requirements of this certification shall apply. Compliance Tests for each CFB Initial compliance tests for PM/PM10, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, lead, fluorides, mercury, beryllium and H2SO4 mist shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f). Annual compliance tests shall be performed for PM. SO2, NOx, commencing no later than 12 months from the initial test. Initial and annual visible emissions compliance tests shall be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(b) and (e). The compliance tests shall be conducted between 90-100% of the maximum licensed capacity and firing rate of each permitted fuel. The following test methods and procedures of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 or other DER approved methods with prior DER approval shall be used for compliance testing: Method 1 for selection of sample site and sample traverses. Method 2 for determining stack gas flow rate. Method 3 or 3A for gas analysis for calculation of percent O2 and CO2. Method 4 for determining stack gas moisture content to convert the flow rate from actual standard cubic feet to dry standard cubic feet. Method 5 or Method 17 for particulate matter. Method 6, 6C, or 8 for SO2. Method 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, or 7E for nitrogen oxides. Method 8 for sulfuric acid mist. Method 9 for visible emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11. Method 10 for CO. Method 12 for lead. Method 13B for fluorides. Method 25A for VOCs. Method 101A for mercury. Method 104 for beryllium. Continuous Emission Monitoring for each CFB AESCB shall use Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMS) to determine compliance. CEMS for opacity, SO2, NOx, CO, and O2 or CO2, shall be installed, calibrated, maintained and operated for each unit, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a and 40 CFR 60 Appendix F. Each continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) shall meet performance specifications of 40 CFR 60, Appendix B. CEMS data shall be recorded and reported in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-2, F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60. A record shall be kept for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. A malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment or process equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation or any other preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions. The procedures under 40 CFR 60.13 shall be followed for installation, evaluation and operation of all CEMS Opacity monitoring system data shall be reduced to 6-minute averages, based on 36 or more data points, and gaseous CEMS data shall be reduced to 1-hour averages, based on 4 or more data points, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h). For purposes of reports required under this certification, excess emissions are defined as any calculated average emission concentration, as determined pursuant to Condition No. 10 herein, which exceeds the applicable emission limit in Condition No. 3. Operations Monitoring for each CFB Devices shall be installed to continuously monitor and record steam production, and flue gas temperature at the exit of the control equipment. The furnace heat load shall be maintained between 70% and 100% of the design rated capacity during normal operations. The coal, bark, natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil usage shall be recorded on a 24-hr (daily) basis for each CFB. Reporting for each CFB A minimum of thirty (30) days prior notification of compliance test shall be given to DER's N.E. District office and to the BESD (Bio-Environmental Services Division) office, in accordance with 40 CFR 60. The results of compliance test shall be submitted to the BESD office within 45 days after completion of the test. The owner or operator shall submit excess emission reports to BESD, in accordance with 40 CFR 60. The report shall include the following: The magnitude of excess emissions computed in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h), any conversion factors used, and the date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess emissions (60.7(c)(1)). Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the furnace boiler system. The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known) and the corrective action taken or preventive measured adopted (60.7(c)(2)). The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and span checks, and the nature of the system repairs of adjustments (60.7(c)(3)). When no excess emissions have occurred or the continuous monitoring system has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall be stated in the report (60.7(c)(4)). The owner or operator shall maintain a file of all measurements, including continuous monitoring systems performance evaluations; monitoring systems or monitoring device calibration; checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or devices; and all other information required by this permit recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection (60.7(d)). Annual and quarterly reports shall be submitted to BESD as per F.A.C. Rule 17-2.700(7). Any change in the method of operation, fuels utilized, equipment, or operating hours or any other changes pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-2.100, defining modification, shall be submitted for approval to DER's Bureau of Air Regulation. AES - Material Handling and Treatment The material handling and treatment operations may be continuous, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr. The material handling/usage rates shall not exceed the following: Handling/Usage Rate Material TPM TPY Coal 117,000 1,170,000 Limestone 27,000 320,000 Fly Ash 28,000 336,000 Bed Ash 8,000 88,000 Note: TPM is tons per month based on 30 consecutive days, TPY is tons per year. The VOC emissions from the maximum No. 2 fuel oil utilization rate of 240 gals/hr, 2,100,000 gals/year for the limestone dryers; and 8000 gals/hr, 160,000 gals/year for the three boilers are not expected to be significant. The maximum emissions from the material handling and treatment area, where baghouses are used as controls for specific sources, shall not exceed those listed below (based on AP-42 factors): Particulate Emissions Source lbs/hr TPY Coal Rail Unloading Coal Belt Feeder neg neg neg neg Coal Crusher 0.41 1.78 Coal Belt Transfer neg neg Coal Silo neg neg Limestone Crusher 0.06 0.28 Limestone Hopper 0.01 0.03 Fly Ash Bin 0.02 0.10 Bed Ash Hopper 0.06 0.25 Ash Silo 0.06 0.25 Common Feed Hopper 0.03 0.13 Ash Unloader 0.01 0.06 The emissions from the above listed sources and the limestone dryers are subject to the particulate emission limitation requirement of 0.03 gr/dscf. However, neither DER nor BESD will require particulate tests in accordance with EPA Method 5 unless the VE limit of 5% opacity is exceeded for a given source, or unless DER or BESD, based on other information, has reason to believe the particulate emission limits are being violated. Visible Emissions (VE) shall not exceed 5% opacity from any source in the material handling and treatment area, in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-2. The maximum emissions from each of the limestone dryers while using oil shall not exceed the following (based on AP-42 factors, Table 1, 3-1, Industrial Distillate, 10/86): Pollutant lbs/hr Estimated TPY Limitations TPY for 2 dryers PM/PM10 0.25 1.1 2.2 SO2 5.00 21.9 43.8 CO 0.60 2.6 5.2 NOx 2.40 10.5 21.0 VOC 0.05 0.2 0.4 Visible emissions from the dryers shall not exceed 5% opacity. If natural gas is used, emissions limits shall be determined by factors contained in AP-42 Table 1. 4-1, Industrial 10/86. The maximum No. 2 fuel oil firing rate for each limestone dryer shall not exceed 120 gals/hr, or 1,050,000 gals/year. This reflects a combined total fuel oil firing rate of 240 gals/hr, and 2,100,000 gals/year, for the two dryers. The maximum natural gas firing rate for each limestone dryer shall not exceed 16,800 CF per hour, or 147 MMCF per year. Initial and annual Visible Emission compliance tests for all the emission points in the material handling and treatment area, including but not limited to the sources specified in this permit, shall be conducted in accordance with the July 1, 1988 version of 40 CFR 60, using EPA Method 9. Compliance test reports shall be submitted to BESD within 45 days of test completion in accordance with Chapter 17- 2.700(7) of the Florida Administrative Code. Any changes in the method of operation, raw materials processed, equipment, or operating hours or any other changes pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-2.100, defining modification, shall be submitted for approval to DER's Bureau of Air Regulation (BAR). Requirements for the Permittees Beginning one month after certification, AESCB shall submit to BESD and DER's BAR, a quarterly status report briefly outlining progress made on engineering design and purchase of major equipment, including copies of technical data pertaining to the selected emission control devices. These data should include, but not be limited to, guaranteed efficiency and emission rates, and major design parameters such as air/cloth ratio and flow rate. The Department may, upon review of these data, disapprove the use of any such device. Such disapproval shall be issued within 30 days of receipt of the technical data. The permittees shall report any delays in construction and completion of the project which would delay commercial operation by more than 90 days to the BESD office. Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate emissions during construction, such as coating of roads and construction sites used by contractors, regrassing or watering areas of disturbed soils, will be taken by the permittees. Fuel shall not be burned in any unit unless the control devices are operating properly, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da. The maximum sulfur content of the No. 2 fuel oil utilized in the CFBs and the two unit limestone dryers shall not exceed 0.3 percent by weight. Samples shall be taken of each fuel oil shipment received and shall be analyzed for sulfur content and heating value. Records of the analysis shall be kept a minimum of two years to be available for DER and BESD inspection. Coal fired in the CFBs shall have a sulfur content not to exceed 3.3 percent by weight. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and recorded in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a. AESCB shall maintain a daily log of the amounts and types of fuel used and copies of fuel analysis containing information on sulfur content and heating values. The permittees shall provide stack sampling facilities as required by Rule 17-2.700(4) F.A.C. Prior to commercial operation of each source, the permittees shall each submit to the BAR a standardized plan or procedure that will allow that permittee to monitor emission control equipment efficiency and enable the permittee to return malfunctioning equipment to proper operation as expeditiously as possible. Contemporaneous Emission Reductions This certification and any individual air permits issued subsequent to the final order of the Board certifying the power plant site under 403.509, F.S., shall require, that the following Seminole Kraft Corporation sources be permanently shut down and made incapable of operation, and shall turn in their operation permits to the Division of Air Resources Management's Bureau of Air Regulation, at the time of submittal of performance test results for AES's CFBs: the No. 1 PB (power boiler), the No. 2 PB, shall be specifically informed in writing within thirty days after each individual shut down of the above reference equipment. This requirement shall operate as a joint and individual requirement to assure common control for purpose of ensuring that all commitments relied on are in fact fulfilled. WATER DISCHARGES Any discharges into any waters of the State during construction and operation of AESCB shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-3, and 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, and 40 CFR, Part 423, Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, except as provided herein. Also, AESCB shall comply with the following conditions of certification: Plant Effluents and Receiving Body of Water For discharges made from the AESCB power plant the following conditions shall apply: Receiving Body of Water (RBW) - The receiving body of water has been determined by the Department to be those waters of the St. Johns River or Broward River and any other waters affected which are considered to be waters of the State within the definition of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Point of Discharge (POD) - The point of discharge has been determined by the Department to be where the effluent physically enters the waters of the State in the St. Johns River via the SKC discharge outfall 001, which is the existing main outfall from the paper mill emergency overflow to the Broward River. Thermal Mixing Zones - The instantaneous zone of thermal mixing for the AESCB cooling system shall not exceed an area of 0.25 acres. The temperature at the point of discharge into the St. Johns River shall not be greater than 95 degrees F. The temperature of the water at the edge of the mixing zone shall not exceed the limitations of Section 17-3.05(1)(d), F.A.C. Cooling tower blowdown shall not exceed 95 degrees F as a 24-hour average, nor 96 degrees F as an instantaneous maximum. Chemical Wastes from AESCB - All discharges of low volume wastes (demineralizer regeneration, floor drainage, labs drains, and similar wastes) and chemical metal cleaning wastes shall comply with Chapter 17-6, F.A.C. at OSN 006 and 007 respectively. If violations of Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. occur, corrective action shall be taken by AESCB. These wastewaters shall be directed to an adequately sized and constructed treatment facility. pH - The pH of the combined discharges shall be such that the pH will fall within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at the POD to the St. Johns River and shall not exceed 6.5 to 8.5 at the boundary of a 0.25 acre mixing zone. Polychlorinated Bipheny Compounds - There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated bipheny compounds. Cooling Tower Blowdown - AESCB's discharge from Outfall Serial Number 002 - Cooling Tower Blowdown shall be limited and monitored as specified below: a. Parameter Discharge Limit Monitoring Frequency Requirement Type Discharge Flow (mgd) Report 1/day Totalizer Discharge Temp (F) Instantaneous Maximum Continuous Recorder Total Residual Instantaneous Continuous Recorder Oxidants Maximum-.05 mg/l Time of Total 120 minutes Continuous Recorder Residual Oxidant per day Discharge (TR) Iron Instantaneous 1/week grab Maximum-0.5 mg/l pH 6-9 1/week grab There shall be no detectable discharge of the 125 priority pollutants contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance. Notice of any proposed use of compounds containing priority pollutants shall be made to the DER Northeast District Office not later than 180 days prior to proposed use. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at OSN 002 prior to mixing with any other waste stream. Seminole Kraft Corporation (SKC) shall shut down the mill's once thru cooling system upon completion of the initial compliance tests on the AESCB boilers conducted pursuant to Condition II.A.7. SKC shall inform the DER NE District Office of the shutdown and surrender all applicable operating permits for that facility. Combined Low Volume Wastes shall be monitored at OSN 006 with weekly grab samples. Discharge limitations are as follows: Daily Max Daily Avg Oil and Grease 20.0 mg/l 15.0 Copper-dissolved 1.0 mg/l* N/A Iron-dissolved 1.0 mg/l* N/A Flow Report N/A Heavy Metals Report (See Below) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0* standard units and shall be monitored once per shift, unless more frequent monitoring is necessary to quantify types of nonchemical metal cleaning waste discharged. Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes. Heavy metal analysis shall include total copper, iron, nickel, selenium, and zinc. *Limits applicable only to periods in which nonchemical metal cleaning waste is being discharged via this OSN. Length of composite samples shall be during the periods (s) of nonchemical metal cleaning waste generation and discharge and shall be adequate to quantify differences in sources of waste generated (air preheater vs. boiler fireside, etc.). Chemical Metal Cleaning AESCB's discharge from outfall serial number 007 - metal cleaning wastes discharged to the Seminole Kraft treatment system. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: a. Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limits Monitoring Requirements Instantaneous Max Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow - m3/day (MGD) - 1/batch Pump log Copper, Total 1.0 mg/l 1/ grab Iron, Total Batches 1.0 mg/l Report 1/ 1/batch grab logs Chemical metal-cleaning wastes shall mean process equipment cleaning including, but not limited to, boiler tubes cleaning. Waste treated and discharged via this OSN shall not include any stream for which an effluent guideline has not been established (40 CFR Part 423) for total copper and total iron at the above levels. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirement specified above shall be taken at the discharge from the metal-cleaning waste treatment facility(s) prior to mixing with any other waste stream. Storm Water Runoff - During construction and operation discharge from the storm water runoff collection system from a storm event less than the once in ten year twenty-four hour storm shall meet the following limits and shall be monitored at OSN 003 by a grab sample once per discharge, but not more often than once per week:* Discharge Limits Effluent Characteristic Instantaneous Maximum Flow (MGD) Report TSS (mg/l) 50 pH 6.0-9.0 During plant operation, necessary measures shall be used to settle, filter, treat or absorb silT.containing or pollutanT.laden storm water runoff to limit the suspended solids to 50 mg/l or less at OSN 003 during rainfall periods less than the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall. Any underdrains must be checked annually and measures must be taken to insure that the underdrain operates as designed. Permittees will have to modify the underdrain system should maintenance measures be insufficient to achieve operation of the underdrains as designed. AES Cedar Bay must back flush the exfiltration/underdrain system at least once during the first six months of calendar each year. These backflushings must occur no closer than four calendar months from each other. In advance of backflushing the exfiltration/underdrain systems, the permittees must notify BESD and SJRWMD of the date and time of the backflushing. Control measures shall consist at the minimum of filters, sediment, traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting. Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as possible to minimize silt, and sedimenT.laden runoff. The pH shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 in the discharge to the St. Johns River and 6.5 to 8.5 in the Broward River. Special consideration must be given to the control of sediment laden runoff resulting from storm events during the construction phase. Best management practices erosion controls should be installed early during the construction period so as to prevent the transport of sediment into surface waters which could result in water quality violations and Departmental enforcement action. Revegetation and stabilization of disturbed areas should be accomplished as soon as possible to reduce the potential for further soil erosion. Should construction phase runoff pose a threat to the water quality of state waters, additional measures such as treatment of impounded runoff of the use of turbidity curtains (screens) in on-site impoundments shall be immediately implented with any releases to state waters to be controlled. It is necessary that there be an entity responsible for maintenance of the system pursuant to Section 17- 25.027, F.A.C. Correctional action or modification of the system will be necessary should mosquito problems occur. AES Cedar Bay shall submit to DER with copy to BESD, erosion control plans for the entire construction project (or discrete phrases of the project) detailing measures to be taken to prevent the offsite discharge of turbid waters during construction. These plans must also be provided to the construction contractor prior to the initiation of construction. All swale and retention basin side slopes shall be seeded and mulched within thirty days following their completion and a substantial vegetative cover must be established within ninety days of seeding. Boiler Blowdown Discharge from boiler blowdown to the cooling tower from outfall serial Number 004 shall be limited and monitored as specified below: Effluent Discharge Limits Monitoring Characteristic Requirements Daily Sample Measurement Maximum Type Frequency TSS 30.0 grab 1/Quarter Oil and Grease 15.0 grab 1/Quarter Flow - Calculation 1/Quarter Construction Dewatering Discharge of construction dewatering to the SKC once-through cooling system from outfall serial number 005 shall be limited and monitored as specified below: Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limits Monitoring Requirements Instantaneous Maximum Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow - m3/day (MGD) - daily Totalizer Turbidity (NTU) 164 1/week grab Aluminium mg/l 1.5 1/week grab Copper mg/l 0.046 daily composite Iron mg/l 0.3 1/week grab Lead mg/l 0.5 1/week grab Mercury mg/l 0.002 1/week grab Phenol ug/l 35.7 daily grab TSS mg/l 50.0 1/week grab pH 6.0-9.0 1/week grab Variance - In accordance with the provisions of Section 403.201 and 403.511(2), F.S., AES Cedar Bay is hereby granted a variance to water quality standards of Chapter 17- 3.121, F.A.C. for copper subject to the following conditions. AES Cedar Bay shall treat the construction dewatering discharge so as not to exceed 0.046 milligrams per liter for copper in the effluent from the dewatering treatment system. AES Cedar Bay shall do sufficient bench testing to demonstrate that it can meet the above limit for copper. AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of the bench testing, and allow DER and BESD to be present if they so desire to observe the bench testing. In addition, AES Cedar Bay shall determine the amount of treatment and removal provided for iron, aluminum and lead by the method of treatment selected for copper. A report shall be submitted to DER and BESD summarizing the results of the bench testing of the proposed treatment technique. The variance shall be valid beginning with the start of dewatering and lasting until the end of construction dewatering but not to exceed a period of two years (not including periods of interruption in the construction dewatering). The Secretary has been delegated the authority to grant additional variances or mixing zones from water quality standards should AES Cedar Bay demonstrate any to be necessary after consideration of comments from the parties, public notice and an opportunity for hearing, pursuant to section 120.57 F.S., with final action by the Siting Board if a hearing is requested. In the absence of such final action by the Secretary, compliance with water quality standards shall be measured at the designated POD to the St. John River unless a zone of mixing is granted. Project discharge descriptions - Dewatering water, outfall 005, includes all surficial groundwater extracted during all excavation construction on site for the purpose of installing structures, equipment, etc. Discharges to the SKC once through cooling water system at a location to be depicted on an appropriate engineering drawing to be submitted to DER and BESD. Final discharge after treatment is to the St. Johns River. The permittee shall report to BESD the date that construction dewatering is expected to begin at least one week prior to the commencement of dewatering. Mixing zones - The discharge of the following pollutants shall not violate the Water Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., beyond the edge of the designated instantaneous mixing zones as described herein. Such mixing zones shall apply when the St. Johns River is in compliance with the applicable water quality standard. Plant Dewatering Operations for two years from the date construction dewatering commences: Parameter Mixing Zone Aluminum 125,600 m2 31 acres Copper " 31 " Iron " 31 " Lead " 31 " Turbidity 12,868 m2 3.2 " Phenol 12,868 " 3.2 " The permittee shall report the date construction dewatering commences to the BESD. During operation of CBCP for the life of the facility: Iron 125,600 m2 (31 acre) mixing zone Chlorine 0 - not measurable in river Temp 1,013 m2 (0.25 acre) pH 1,013 m2 (0.25 acre) Variances to Water Quality Standards - In accordance with the provisions of Sections 403.201 and 403.511(2), F.S., permittees are hereby granted variances to the water Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3.121, F.A.C. for the following: During construction dewatering for a period not to exceed two years -- copper. The Secretary of DER may authorize variances for aluminum, iron, and lead upon a showing that treatment for copper can not bring these metals into compliance, however, any variance granted shall not cause or allow an exceedance of acute toxicity standards. During Operation -- iron. Such variances shall apply only as the natural background levels of the St. Johns River approach or exceed those standards. In any event, the discharge from the CBCP shall comply with the effluent limitations set forth in Paragraph III.A.12. At least 90 days prior to start of construction, AES shall submit a bioassay program to assess the toxicity of construction dewatering effluent to the DER for approval. Such program shall be approved prior to start of construction dewatering. Sanitary wastes from AESCB shall be collected and discharged for treatment to the SKC domestic wastewater treatment plant. Water Monitoring Programs Necessity and extent of continuation, and may be modified in accordance with Condition No. XXI, Modification of Conditions. Chemical Monitoring - The parameters described in Condition III.A. shall be monitored during discharge as described in condition III A. commencing with the start of construction or operation of the CFBs and reported quarterly to the Northeast District Office: Coal, Ash, and Limestone Storage Areas - runoff from the coal pile, ash and lime stone storage areas shall be directed to the SK waste-water treatment facility for discharge under its existing waste-water permit. Monitoring of metals, such as iron, copper, zinc, mercury silver, and aluminum, shall be done once a month during any month when a discharge occurs at OSC 008 or once per month from the collection pond. The ground water levels shall be monitored continuously at selected wells as approved by the SJRWMD. Chemical analysis shall be made on samples from all monitored wells identified in Condition III.F. below. The location, frequency and selected chemical analysis shall be as given in Condition IV.F. The ground water monitoring program shall be implemented at least one year prior to operation of the CFBs. The chemical analysis shall be in accord with the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Waistwater. The data shall be submitted within 30 days of collection/analysis to the SJRWMD. GROUND WATER Prior to the construction, modification, or abandonment of a production well for the SK paper mill, the Seminole Kraft must obtain a Water Well Construction Permit from the SJRWMD pursuant to Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code. Construction, modification, or abandonment of a production well will require modification of the SK consumptive use permit when such construction, modification or abandonment is other than that specified and described on SK's consumptive use permit application form. The construction, modification, or abandonment of a monitor well specified in condition IV.H. will require the prior approval of the Department. All monitor wells intended for use over thirty days must be noticed to BESD prior to construction or change of status from temporary to permanent. Well Criteria, Tagging and Wellfield Operating Plan Leaking or inoperative well casings, valves, or controls must be repaired or replaced as required to put the system back in an operative condition acceptable to the SJRWMD. Failure to make such repairs will be cause for deeming the well abandoned in accordance with Chapter 17.21.02(5), Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 373.309, Florida Statutes and Chapter 366.301(b), and .307(a), Jacksonville ordinance code. Wells deemed abandoned will require plugging according to state and local regulations. A SJRWMD issued identification tag must be prominently displayed at each withdrawal site by permanently affixing such tag to the pump, headgate, valve or other withdrawal facility as provided by Section 40C-2.401, Florida Administrative Code. The SK must notify the SJRWMD in the event that a replacement tag is needed. The permittees must develop and implement a Wellfield Operating Program within six (6) months of certification. This program must describe which wells are primary, secondary, and standby (reserve); the order of preference for using the wells; criteria for shutting down and restarting wells; describe AES Cedar Bay and SKC responsibilities in the operation of the well field, and any other aspects of well field management operation, such as who the well field operator is and any other aspects of wellfield management operation. This program must be submitted to the SJRWMD and a copy to BESD within six (6) months of certification and receive District approval before the wells may be used to supply water for the AES Cedar Bay Cogeneration plant. Maximum Annual Withdrawals Maximum annual withdrawals for AESCB from the Floridan aquifer must not exceed 1.99 billion gallons. Maximum daily withdrawals from the Florida aquifer for the AESCB must not exceed 7.0 million gallons. The use of the Floridan aquifer potable water for control of fugitive dust emissions is prohibited when alternatives are available, such as treated discharges, shallow aquifer wells, or stormwater. The use of Floridan aquifer potable water for the sole purpose of waste stream dilution is prohibited. Water Use Transfer The SJRWMD must be notified, in writing, within 90 days of the transfer of this certification. All transfers are subject to the provisions of Section 40C-2.351, Florida Administrative Code, which state that all terms and conditions of the permit shall be binding of the transferee. Emergency Shortages Nothing in this certification is to be construed to limit the authority of the SJRWMD to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes. In the event of a water shortage, as declared by the District Governing Board, the AESCB shall adhere to reductions in water withdrawals as specified by the SJRWMD. Monitoring and Reporting The permittee shall maintain records of total daily withdrawals for the AESCB on a monthly basis for each year ending on December 31st. These records shall be submitted to the SJRWMD on Form EN-3 by January 31st of each year. Water quality samples shall be taken in May and October of each year from each production well. The samples shall be analyzed by an HRS certified laboratory for the following parameters: Magnesium Sulfate Sodium Carbonate Potassium Bi-Carbonate (or alkalinity if pH is 6.9 or lower) Chloride Calcium All major ion analysis shall be checked for anion-cation balance and must balance within 5 percent prior to submission. It is recommended that duplicates be taken to allow for laboratory problems or loss. The sample analysis shall be submitted to the SJRWMD by May 30 and October 30 of each year. AESCB shall mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted hereinon legal uses of water existing at the time of permit application. The SJRWMD has the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates or water allocations if the withdrawals of water cause an adverse impact on legal uses of water which existed at the time of permit application. Adverse impacts are exemplified but not limited to: Reduction of well water levels resulting in a reduction of 10 percent in the ability of an adjacent well to produce water; Reduction of water levels in an adjacent surface water body resulting in a significant impairment of the use of water in that water body; Saline water intrusion or introduction of pollutants into the water supply of an adjacent water use resulting in a significant reduction of water quality; or Change in water quality resulting in either impairment or loss of use of a well or water body. The AESCB shall mitigate any adverse impact cause by withdrawals permitted herein on adjacent land uses which existed at the time of permit application. The SJRWMD had the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates of water allocations if withdrawals of water cause any adverse impact on adjacent land use which existed at the time of permit application. Adverse impacts are exemplified by but not limited to: Significant reduction in water levels in an adjacent surface water body; Land collapse or subsidence caused by a reduction in water levels; or Damage to crops and other types of vegetation. Significant increases in Chloride levels such that it is likely that wells from the plant or those being impacted from the plant, will exceed 250 mg/l. Ground Water Monitoring Requirements After consultation with the DER, BESD, and SJRWMD, AESCB shall install a monitoring well network to monitor ground water quality horizontally and vertically through the aquifer above the Hawthorm Formation. Ground water quantity and flow directions will be determined seasonally at the site through the preparation of seasonal water table contour maps, based upon water level data obtained during the applicant's preoperational monitoring program. From these maps and the results of the detailed subsurface investigation of site stratigraphy, the water quality monitoring well network will be located. A ground water monitoring plan that meets the requirements of Section 17-28.700(d), F.A.C., shall be submitted to the Department's Northeast District Office for review. Approval or disapproval of the ground water monitoring plan shall be given within 60 days of receipt. Ground water monitoring shall be required at AESCB's pelletized ash storage area, each sedimentation pond, the lime mud storage area, and each coal pile storage area. Insofar as possible, the monitoring wells may be selected from the existing wells and piezometers used in the permittees preoperational monitoring program, provided that the wells construction will not preclude their use. Existing wells will be properly sealed in accordance with Chapter 17-21, F.A.C., whenever they are abandoned due to construction of facilities. The water samples collected from each of the monitor wells shall be collected immediately after removal by pumping of a quantity of water equal to at least three casing volumes. The water quality analysis shall be performed monthly during the year prior to commercial operation and quarterly thereafter. No sampling or analysis is to be initiated until receipt of written approval of a site-specific quality assurance project plant (QAPP) by the Department. Results shall be submitted to the BESD by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following the month during which such analysis were performed. Testing for the following constituents is required around unlined ponds or storage areas: TDS Cadmium Conductance Zinc pH Copper Redox Nickel Sulfate Selenium Sulfite Chromium Color Arsenic Chloride Beryllium Iron Mercury Aluminum Lead Gross Alpha Conductivity shall be monitored in wells around all lined solid waste disposal sites, coal piles, and wastewater treatment and sedimentation ponds. Leachate Zone of Discharge Leachate from AESCB's coal storage piles, lime mud storage area or sedimentation ponds shall not cause or contribute to contamination of waters of the State (including both surface and ground waters) in excess of the limitations of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., beyond the boundary of a zone of discharge extending to the top of the Hawthorne Formation below the wastelandfill cell or pond rising to a depth of 50 feet at a horizontal distance of 200 feet from the edge of the landfill or ponds. Corrective Action When the ground water monitoring system shows a potential for this facility to cause or contribute to a violation of the ground water quality standards of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., at the boundary of the zone of discharge, the appropriate ponds or coal pile shall be bottom sealed, relocated, or the operation of the affected facility shall be altered in such a manner as to assure the Department that no violation of the ground water standards will occur beyond the boundary of the zone of discharge. CONTROL MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION Storm Water Runoff During construction, appropriate measures shall be used to settle, filter, treat or absorb silT.containing or pollutanT.laden storm water runoff to limit the total suspended solids to 50 mg/1 or less and pH to 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN 003 during rainfall events that are lesser in intensity than the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall, and to prevent an increase in turbidity of more than 29 NTU above background in waters of the State. Control measures shall consist at the minimum of sediment traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting. Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as possible to minimize silT. and sedimenT.laden runoff. The pH shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN 003. Stormwater drainage to the Broward River or St. Johns River shall be monitored as indicated below: Monitoring Point Parameters Frequency Sample Type *Storm water drainage BOD5, TOC, sus- ** ** to the Broward River pended solids, from the runoff turbidity, dis- treatment pond solved oxygen, pH, TKN, Total phosphorus, Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform Oil and grease ** ** *Monitoring shall be conducted at suitable points for allowing a comparison of the characteristics of preconstruction and construction phase drainage and receiving waters. **The frequency and sample type shall be as outlined in a sampling program prepared by the applicant and submitted at least ninety days prior to start of construction for review and approval by the DER Northeast District Office. The District Office will furnish copies of the sampling program to the BESD and SJRWMD and shall indicate approval or disapproval within 60 days of submittal. Sanitary Wastes Disposal of sanitary wastes from construction toilet facilities shall be in accordance with applicable regulations of the Department and the BESD. Environmental Control Program Each permittee shall establish an environmental control program under the supervision of a qualified person to assure that all construction activities conform to good environmental practices and the applicable conditions of certification. A written plan for controlling pollution during construction shall be submitted to DER and BESD within sixty days of issuance of the Certification. The plan shall identify and describe all pollutants and waste generagted during construction and the methods for control, treatment and disposal. Each permittee shall notify the Department's Northeast District Office and BESD by telephone within 24 hours if possible if unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible environmental damage are detected by it during construction, shall immediately report in writing to the Department, and shall within two weeks provide an analysis of the problem and a plan to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage and a plan to prevent reoccurrence. Construction Dewatering Effluent Maximum daily withdrawals for dewatering for the construction of the railcar unloading facility must not exceed 1.44 million gallons, except during the first 30 days of dewatering. Dewatering for the construction of the railcar unloading facility shall terminate no later than nine months from the start of dewatering. Should the permittee's dewatering operation create shoaling in adjacent water bodies, the permittee is responsible for removing such shoaling. All offsite discharges resulting from dewatering activities must be in compliance with water quality standards required by DER Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, F.A.C., or such standards as issued through a variance by DER. SAFETY The overall design, layout, and operation of the facilities shall be such as to minimize hazards to humans and the environment. Security control measures shall be utilized to prevent exposure of the public to hazardous conditions. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards will be complied with during construction and operation. The Safety Standards specified under Section 440.56, F.S., by the Industrial Safety Section of the Florida Department of Commerce will also be complied with. CHANGE IN DISCHARGE All discharges or emissions authorized herein to AESCB shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this certification. The discharge of any pollutant not identified in the application or any discharge more frequent than, or at a level in excess of, that authorized herein shall constitute a violation of this certification. Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process modification which will result in new, different or increased discharges or expansion in steam generating capacity will require a submission of new or supplemental application to DER's Siting Coordination Office pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION If, for any reason, either permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any limitation specified in this certification, the permittee shall notify the Deputy Assistant Secretary of DER's Northeast District and BESD office by telephone as soon as possible but not later than the first DER working day after the permittee becomes aware of said noncompliance, and shall confirm the reported situation in writing within seventy-two (72) hours supplying the following information: A description and cause of noncompliance; and The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying event. FACILITIES OPERATION Each permittee shall at all times maintain good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all of its treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this certification. Such systems are not to be bypassed without prior Department (Northeast District) after approval and after notice to BESD except where otherwise authorized by applicable regulations. ADVERSE IMPACT The permittees shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact resulting from noncompliance with any limitation specified in this certification, including, but not limited to, such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying event. RIGHT OF ENTRY The permittees shall allow the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and/or authorized DER representatives, and representatives of the BESD and SJRWMD, upon the presentation of credentials: To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source is located or in which records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; and To have access to and copy all records required to be kept under the conditions of this certification; and To inspect and test any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in this certification and to sample any discharge or emissional pollutants; and To assess any damage to the environment or violation of ambient standards. SJRWMD authorized staff, upon proper identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, and observe permitted and related CUP facilities in order to determine compliance with the approved plans, specifications, and conditions of this certification. BESD authorized staff, upon proper identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, sample any discharge, and observe permitted and related facilities in order to determine compliance with the approved plans, specifications, and conditions of this certification. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION This certification may be suspended, or revoked pursuant to Section 403.512, Florida Statutes, or for violations of any Condition of Certification. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY This certification does not relieve either permittee from civil or criminal responsibility or liability for noncompliance with any conditions of this certification, applicable rules or regulations of the Department, or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or regulations thereunder. Subject to Section 403.511, Florida Statutes, this certification shall not preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve either permittee from any responsibilities or penalties established pursuant to any other applicable State Statutes or regulations. PROPERTY RIGHTS The issuance of this certification does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, tangible or intangible, nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to public or private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. The permittees shall obtain title, lease or right of use to any sovereign submerged lands occupied by the plant, transmission line structures, or appurtenant facilities from the State of Florida. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this certification are severable, and, if any provision of this certification or the application of any provision of this certification to any circumstances is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of the certification shall not be affected thereby. DEFINITIONS The meaning of terms used herein shall be governed by the definitions contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of any dispute over the meaning of a term used in these general or special conditions which is not defined in such statutes or regulations, such dispute shall be resolved by reference to the most relevant definitions contained in any other state or federal statute or regulation or, in the alternative, by the use of the commonly accepted meaning as determined by the Department. REVIEW OF SITE CERTIFICATION The certification shall be final unless revised, revoked, or suspended pursuant to law. At least every five years from the date of issuance of this certification or any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Control Act Amendments of 1972 for the plant units, the Department shall review all monitoring data that has been submitted to it or it's agent(s) during the preceding five- year period for the purpose of determining the extent of the permittee's compliance with the conditions of this certification of the environmental impact of this facility. The Department shall submit the results of it's review and recommendations to the permittees. Such review will be repeated at least every five years thereafter. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS The conditions of this certification may be modified in the following manner: The Board hereby delegates to the Secretary the authority to modify, after notice and opportunity for hearing, any conditions pertaining to consumptive use of water, reclaimed water, monitoring, sampling, ground water, surface water, mixing zones, or variances to water quality standards, zones of discharge, leachate control programs, effluent limitations, air emission limitations, fuel, or solid waste disposal, right of entry, railroad spur, transmission line, access road, pipelines, or designation of agents for the purpose of enforcing the conditions of this certification. All other modifications shall be made in accordance with Section 403.516, Florida Statutes. FLOOD CONTROL PROTECTION The plant and associated facilities shall be construed in such a manner as to comply with the Duval County flood protection requirements. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION Certification and conditions of certification are predicated upon design and performance criteria indicated in the application. Thus, conformance to those criteria, unless specifically amended, modified, or as the Department and parties are otherwise notified, is binding upon the applicants in the preparation, construction, and maintenance of the certified project. In those instances where a conflict occurs between the application's design criteria and the conditions of certification, the conditions shall prevail. NOISE To mitigate the effects of noise produced by the steam blowout of steam boiler tubes, the permittees shall conduct public awareness campaigns prior to such activities to forewarn the public of the estimated time and duration of the noise. The permittees shall comply with the applicable noise limitations specified in Environmental Protection Board Rules or The City of Jacksonville Noise Ordinance. USE OF RECLAIMED WATER AESCB The AESCB shall design the Cogeneration Facility so as to be capable of using reclaimed and treated domestic wastewater from the City of Jacksonville for use as cooling tower makeup water. Reclaimed water shall be utilized as soon as it becomes available. Ground water may be used only as a backup to the reclaimed water after that time. Before use of reclaimed water from the City by the permittee, it will be treated to a level suitable for use as cooling tower makeup water. Reclaimed water used in the AESCB cooling tower shall be disinfected prior to use. Disinfectant levels in the cooling tower makeup water shall be continuously monitored, prior to insertion in the cooling tower. The reclaimed water shall be treated so as to obtain no less than a 1.0 mg/liter free chlorine residual after fifteen (15) minutes contact time or its equivalent. Chlorination shall occur at a turbidity of 5 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU) or less, unless a lesser degree of disinfection is approved by the Department upon demonstration of successful viral kill. Within 120 days following issuance of a modification to the City of Jacksonville's DER wastewater discharge permit allowing Jacksonville, as part of its comprehensive reuse plan, to supply reclaimed water to the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, AES Cedar Bay, Inc. shall submit a request for modification to DER for use of reclaimed water for cooling purposes, seeking to make any necessary modifications to their facility and the conditions of certification as may be necessary to allow use of reclaimed water. Its request shall include plans, technical analyses, and modelling needed to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed modifications. Its request for modification shall also include a financial analysis of the costs of any necessary modifications to its facility, additional operating costs, and the financial impact of these additional costs on AES Cedar Bay, Inc. If DER requires data or analyses concerning the cogeneration facility or its operation, or its discharges or emissions in order to evaluate Jacksonville's application to modify its domestic wastewater discharge permit, AES will supply the necessary information in a timely fashion. The Secretary, as prescribed in Condition XXI, Modification of Conditions, may modify the conditions of certification contained herein as may be necessary to implement the use of reclaimed water. The use of reclaimed water shall be contingent upon a determination of it being financially practicable, and it meeting applicable environmental standards. Prior to any such action by the Secretary, the Secretary shall request and consider a report by the SJRWMD as to the request for modification for the use of reclaimed water by AES Cedar Bay, Inc. Possible Use of Reclaimed Water The use of reclaimed water as described above shall not be limited to cooling tower makeup. Reuse water, if available may be used for fugitive particulate emission control, washdown, and any other feasible use for non-potable water which would not require additional treatment. ENFORCEMENT The Secretary may take any and all lawful actions as he or she deems appropriate to enforce any condition of this certification. Any participating agency (federal, state, local) may take any and all lawful actions to enforce any condition of this certification that is based on the rules of that agency. Prior to initiating such action the agency head shall notify the Secretary of that agency's proposed action. BESD may initiate any and all lawful actions to enforce the conditions of this certification that are based on the Department's rules, after obtaining the Secretary's written permission to so process on behalf of the Department. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Prior to start of construction, AESCB shall survey the site for endangered and threatened species of animal and plant life. Plant species on the endangered or threatened list shall be transplanted to an appropriate area if practicable. Gopher Tortoises and any commensals on the rare or endangered species list shall be relocated after consultation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. A relocation program, as approved by the FGFWFC, shall be followed. PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS AES Cedar Bay shall provide clean-up of the #1 underground diesel fuel storage tank site, which is listed under the EDI program, in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-770. AES shall complete an Initial Remedial Action (IRA) in accordance with Rule 17-770.300, F.A.C., prior to construction dewatering. DER and BESD will receive written notification ten working days prior to initiation of the IRA. AES shall determine the extent of contamination. AES Cedar Bay shall then design and install a pump and treatment system at the site, which will create a reverse hydraulic gradient that will prevent the further spread of the contamination by the dewatering operation. This plan shall be submitted to DER and BESD for approval, thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering, and shall be implemented prior to commencement of the dewatering operation. Furthermore, AES Cedar Bay shall submit a Quality Assurance Report (CAR) and a Remedial Action plan (RAP), in accordance with a F.A.C. Chapter 17-770 to DER for approval with copies to BESD thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering. AES Cedar Bay shall provide complete site rehabilitation in accordance with F.A.C Chapter 17-770. AES Cedar Bay shall develop a QAPP, CAR, and RAP as required and in accordance with Chapter 17-700, F.A.C. for the site listed in XXVIII, C and D below, and submit these plans to DER for approval with copies to BESD thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering. Prior to construction dewatering, at the underground diesel fuel storage tank #2 site, AES Cedar Bay shall: Perform an IRA with F.A.C. Rule 17-770.300. Determine the extent of down gradient contamination and submit that information to BESD, and DER prior to installation of the well described in paragraph C.4 below. Establish a series of groundwater level monitoring wells at intervals of approximately 250 feet from the coal unloading site to the #2 tank for determination of the groundwater dewatering cone of influence. Daily groundwater levels shall be recorded for each of these wells during construction dewatering. A background well with a continuous water level recorder shall be installed, at a site that would not be influenced by the dewatering operations, to determine ambient conditions at the site. Install a monitoring well with a continuous water level recorder which will be used to trigger implementation of the RAP. The well will be located 150 feet down gradient from the boundary of the plume of contamination determined above in XXVII C.2. If the epiezometric head in the trigger well drops 6 inches below ambient conditions as compared to the background well, then AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of a verified drop of 6 inches or more in the trigger well within three working days and the appropriate portion of the RAP shall be implemented by AES Cedar Bay. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for the location and construction of the monitoring wells described above in paragraph C.3 and C.4 to DER and BESD for approval. AES Cedar Bay shall submit monthly reports of the groundwater level recordings to DER and BESD. Prior to construction dewatering, at each of the following tank sites: underground diesel fuel storage tank #3; underground #6 fuel oil shortage tank #5; above-ground #6 fuel oil storage tank #2: "pitch tank" located North of the lime kilns; AES Cedar Bay shall: Install 2 down gradient monitoring wells. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for location and construction of these 8 wells to DER and BESD for approval. BESD shall have the opportunity to observe the construction of these wells. Sample the above reference wells for parameters listed in 17-770.600(8), F.A.C. In addition, AES Cedar Bay shall sample the monitoring wells at the above-ground tank sites for acetone and carbon disulfide. AES Cedar Bay shall split samples with BESD if BESD so requests and submit a report of the analytical results to DER and BESD within ten days of receipt of analysis by AES Cedar Bay. If contamination is found in the above reference wells in excess of the clean-up criteria referenced in 17- 770.730(5)(a)2., F.A.C., a QAPP, CAR and an RAP will be development and, DER and BESD shall be provide with that information prior to the installation of the well described in paragraph D.4 below. Install a trigger well with a continuous water level recorder which will be located 150 feet down gradient from the boundary of the plume of contamination determined above in XXVIII.D.3. If the piezometric head in the trigger well drops 6 inches below ambient conditions as compared to the background well then AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of a verified drop of 6 inches or more in the trigger well within three working days and the appropriate portion of the RAP shall be implemented by AES Cedar Bay. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for the location and construction of the monitoring wells described above in paragraph D.4, to DER and BESD for approval. AES Cedar bay shall submit monthly reports of the groundwater level recordings to DER and BESD. Implementation of the appropriate portion of the RAP shall commence within 14 days of the determination that the construction dewatering cone of depression will reach any of contaminated sites. AES Cedar Bay shall monitor the construction dewatering effluent from their treatment system, once a week during dewatering, for the following criteria: Benzene 1 ugle; Total VOA 40 ug/l Total Naphthalenes (Total-naphthalenes = methyl napthalenes) 100 ugle; and Total Residual Hydrcarbons 5 mg/l. If the concentrations of contaminants in the effluent rise above those in the above list, AES Cedar Bay shall take corrective actions to return concentrations to acceptable levels. If any disagreement arises regarding this condition, the parties agree to submit the matter for an expedited hearing to the DOAH and shall request assignment of the hearing officer who has heard the case, if possible, pursuant to 403.5064, F.S. The informal dispute resolution process shall be used. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Cole, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road Suite C Tallahassee, FL 32301 Betsy Hewitt, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kathryn Mennella, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Richard L. Maguire, Esquire Towncentre, Suite 715 421 West Church Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Katherine L. Funchess, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William C. Bostwick, Esquire 1550-2 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32201 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses adduced at the hearing and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following: The Beker-Manatee transmission line was planned and given budget approval by Petitioner in 1974. This action was taken by Petitioner as a result of a documented request by Beker Phosphate Corporation to provide high-voltage service to the proposed Beker Phosphate Corporation mine in Manatee County, Florida. Right-of-way acquisition was begun in June, 1975, and more than one- half of the right-of-way has now been acquired by Petitioner. The original projected in-service date for the transmission line was July 1, 1976, however, completion was delayed due to, inter alia, alleged environmental problems encountered by Beker Phosphate Corporation in bringing its phosphate mine into production. Presently, Petitioner plans to complete construction and have the Beker-Manatee transmission line energized by the Spring of 1980. Additionally, Petitioner plans to construct an electrical transmission line between the proposed Keentown substation in Manatee County, and a proposed substation in DeSoto County near Arcadia, Florida, which is called the Whidden Substation. (Herein, sometimes called the Keentown-Whidden transmission line). The Keentown-Whidden transmission line was planned and budgeted by Petitioner during late 1975 as the most appropriate means of satisfying Petitioner's needs including providing reliable and adequate service to the Arcadia area; to provide service for specific customers (future) near the Keentown-Whidden transmission line and utilization of its existing facilities including existing transmission lines; to provide bulk power transfer capacity from Manatee into other parts of Petitioner's service area and to improve all transfer capacity between Tampa Bay and the lower west coast of Florida for mutual load supporting generation for emergency and economic reasons. According to its present plans, Petitioner plans to complete construction and have the Keentown-Whidden transmission energized by the summer of 1981, that is more than one year after the Beker-Manatee line is built and energized. On October 14, 1977, Respondent issued a binding letter of interpretation concluding that the Beker-Manatee transmission line is a development of regional impact within the guides of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and pertinent regulations since it formed a part of the Keentown-Whidden transmission line. However, in support of this position, Respondent introduced testimony and statements during the hearing indicating that its decision that the subject line is a development of regional inpact is based on five factors as follows: The Beker-Manatee transmission line is a 240 KV line, That the Beker-Manatee Line connects to the Keentown-Whidden transmission line, One of the functions of the Keentown-Whidden transmission line is to transfer bulk power, That the subject line is "the" source of power to energize the Keentown-Whidden transmission line and The Beker-Manatee and Keentown-Whidden lines are inseparable because without the Beker-Manatee transmission line the Keentown-Whidden transmission come not be energized. An examination of these factors revealed that the first three factors are applicable to all 240 KV lines of Petitioner as well as all other power companies. Specifically, testimony was introduced without rebuttal that all other 240 KV transmission lines connect with the subject line as well as the Keentown-Whidden line and form a statewide transmission system in what is commonly referred to as the "Grid". And of course, a primary function of all 240 KV transmission lines is to transmit bulk power. The remaining two factors, when examined, indicate that the Respondent relied on erroneous factors and/or conclusions in reaching its determination that the subject line is a development of regional impact. In this regard, testimony was introduced to the effect that the Beker-Manatee transmission line could be energized through any transmission line within the electrical grid provided the right switching devices were activated. It was also noted that the Keentown-Whidden transmission line could be energized without the Beker-Manatee transmission line provided again that the appropriate switching devices were activated. Throughout the engineering profession, transmission lines are customarily defined by the electric utility industry and by federal and state governmental agencies involved in the regulation of transmission lines, as a line extending from an electric generating power plant to the nearest substation or from a substation to the nearest substation. For example, the Federal Power Commission and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers' Standard Dictionary of Electrical Terms (1971) define transmission lines in this manner. With this in mind, it was noted that the Beker-Manatee transmission line is a line which extends from a substation to the nearest substation and it does not cross a county line. Respondent failed to demonstrate why the subject transmission line should not be reviewed as similar lines have been throughout the electric utility industry. Consideration was given to Respondent's argument that the subject line must be viewed as an integral electrical transmission line which when completed will connect and cross portions of DeSoto, Hardee and Manatee counties. However, evidence was introduced that when the subject line is completed, it like all other 240 KV lines form a contiguous segment of the entire electrical grid throughout the United States, and in that respect, such a consideration is not a distinguishing factor for this or any other 240 KV transmission line.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Division of State Planning issue a binding letter of interpretation to Florida Power and Light Company holding that the proposed Beker-Manatee line does not meet the criteria of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and Section 22F-2.03, Florida Administrative Code and therefore is not a development of regional impact. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of February, 1978. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The principal issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether certification should be issued to Florida Power Corporation (FPC) for approval to operate a nominal 269 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle generating unit located at FPC's Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility west of Ft. Meade, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.501(2), Florida Statutes. The second issue to be resolved in this consolidated proceeding is whether the site of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility is in compliance and consistent with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances of Polk County, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Florida Power Corporation is an investor-owned utility that provides electric service to more than 1.2 million customers in its Florida service area. Tiger Bay Limited Partnership completed the construction of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility in late 1994. FPC entered into a power purchase agreement to purchase the power provided by the Tiger Bay Facility. On January 20, 1997, FPC agreed to purchase the Tiger Bay Facility from the Tiger Bay Limited Partnership. FPC now operates the Tiger Bay Plant as one of its electric generating facilities. The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility is an existing combined-cycle electrical generating plant which has been in operation since January 1995. The Facility consists of a combustion turbine (CT) and a steam turbine generator, that is currently limited to generating no more than 74.9 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The steam turbine has been specifically operated to produce no more than 74.9 MW. Therefore, the Plant was not subject to the Power Plant Siting Act. However, FPC has determined that the generating capacity of the steam turbine is nominally 10-15 MW greater than the capacity currently being used at the Plant. The Tiger Bay Facility is currently operating under separate environmental and other permits and approvals issued by FDEP, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), Polk County and other agencies. The Tiger Bay Facility has been operated in compliance with those permits and approval, and no violations of those permits have occurred since the Plant began operation. By this certification application, FPC is seeking to consolidate the current permits and approvals for the Tiger Bay Facility into a single PPSA certification to authorize the use of the Plant's incremental steam-electric generating capacity. FPC proposes to utilize the additional steam-electric generating capacity in the steam turbine which would increase the generating capacity above the 75 MW threshold of the Power Plant Siting Act. Therefore, certification under the PPSA is required before FPC can obtain the additional electricity from the Plant. No physical changes to the facility or new construction are required to obtain the additional electricity. Only a minor operational change in the steam turbine controls is required to produce the incremental electricity through more efficient utilization of the steam. The Tiger Bay Facility is located on a 6.2 acre tract of land that is leased from the U. S. Agri-Chemical (USAC), Ft. Meade Chemical Complex. The lease extends until 2025 and may be renewed for an additional 25 years. The project's site boundaries will not be expanded to obtain the additional electrical generation. The site is located in southwest Polk County, Florida, approximately 3 miles west of Ft. Meade. The site is bounded on the north by S. R. 630. The project site is in the unincorporated area of Polk County. Ft. Meade is the only local government within a 5-mile radius of the Facility. The area surrounding the Tiger Bay Facility has been dominated by phosphate mining operations. Most of the land within a 5-mile radius of the Plant consists of active phosphate mining, reclaimed mine land, and lands in various stages of reclamation. Other land uses in the area include pasture land and citrus groves, along with limited residential, commercial and industrial uses. The nearest residence is over one mile from the project site. Land use in this area of Polk County is in transition as the phosphate industry completes mining phosphate deposits in the County. The Tiger Bay Plant site contains no significant environmental features. No wetlands, trees, shrubs or listed species or habitats exist within the site. Site vegetation consisted of ruderal and grassy communities prior to development for this project. No jurisdictional natural wetlands exist on the project site. No archaeological or historical sites were found on the project site when developed for this facility. The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility consists of one combustion turbine and electric generating unit, and one heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and one steam turbine generator. In the CT, compressed air and fuel are ignited to provide energy to the air as it passes through the expansion section of the CT. The CT drives an electrical generator which has a nominal electrical output of 184 MS. Exhaust gases from the combustion turbine are then routed to the HRSG where water is boiled into steam. The steam from the HRSG powers a steam turbine which drives a second electrical generator, which will now generate 85.5 MW (nominal) of electricity. As a Cogeneration facility, the Tiger Bay Plant also exports up to 75,000 pounds per hour of low-pressure steam to the adjacent USAC Plant for use in its processes. This steam is extracted from the steam turbine part way through the steam electric generation process. The combined cycle facility is fired primarily with natural gas, with fuel oil as a backup fuel. Natural gas is supplied by a pipeline connected to the Florida Gas Transmission System. Oil will be stored in an onsite tank. The increase in steam generating capacity will be obtained by more efficient use of the steam that is already being produced in the HRSG. Currently, the steam is not fully utilized because its pressure is throttled by an internal control valve. To obtain the additional steam-generated electricity, the controls on this valve will be adjusted to increase the volume and pressure of the steam passing through the steam turbine. This increased steam pressure will generate additional electricity in the steam turbine generator. However, no physical modifications to the Tiger Bay Facility are required to obtain this additional steam generating capacity. Further, no increase in fuel use is required to obtain this additional capacity, and no increase in air emissions will result. All of the air emissions form the Facility are associated with the operation of the combustion turbine, which operates independently from the heat recovery steam generator. The main plant cooling-system begins with a steam condenser which cools the steam exhausted from the steam turbine. Heated cooling water is circulated to the on-site cooling tower where it is sprayed within the cooling tower to release the heat to the atmosphere. Fans at the top of the tower pull air into the tower in the opposite direction to the falling water. Cooled water collects in the bottom of the cooling tower and its returned back to the steam condenser. Approximately five percent of the cooling-water is lost in the cooling tower through evaporation and through drift, or water entrained in the air flowing through the tower. Two deep wells on site supply the makeup water for the cooling-water system. The other on-site water use is the potable water system, permitted for up to 1,000 gallons per day. Water is piped from an on-site well, filtered, and treated in a chlorinator before being distributed for use in the Plant. Wastewaters from the Plant consist of blowdown, or water withdrawn from the cooling tower and the heat recovery steam generator. This blowdown is necessary to prevent a buildup of dissolved solids in the waters from scaling in the circulating water system. Process wastewater and stormwater that contacts industrial processes are collected and recycled or routed to the adjacent USAC Plant where the wastewater is used in the phosphate production process. The Tiger Bay Facility has no off-site discharges of wastewater to either surface water or groundwater. The Facility also includes a back-up zero liquid discharge unit, which treats cooling-tower blowdown and process waters to remove the solids. The recovered high-quality water is recycled back into the Plant's process water stream. Domestic wastewater is treated and disposed on site through a septic tank system. Solid wastes that are generated at the Plant are typical of those associated with a light industrial facility. These wastes are re-cycled or re-used as much as possible. Solid wastes not re-cycled are picked up and disposed of in the Polk County landfill. The back-up zero liquid discharge system, when operational, produces a filter cake as result of drying the wastewater discharge. The non-hazardous material is also sent to the Polk County landfill for disposal. Electricity generated at the Plant is distributed from an on-site switchyard into the Florida Power Corporation transmission system. No changes to this transmission system are required for the additional electricity to be produced. Project Impacts: The Tiger Bay site is located in an area classified by FDEP as in "attainment" of all criteria air pollutants. The area is designated as Class II from a "prevention of significant deterioration" standpoint. The nearest Class I air-quality area is over 100 km to the northwest of the project site. The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility operates under an existing FDEP-issued Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. Nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions are controlled with the use of low NOX burners when using natural gas, and with steam or water injection when firing oil. Particulate matter (PM) emissions are controlled through the use of clean fuels and combustion controls. Carbon monoxide and volatile organic compound emissions are also controlled through good combustion practices. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and metals, such as lead, mercury, beryllium and arsenic, are controlled through the use of clean fuels. PSD increments and ambient air-quality standards will be protected when the facility is being operated. The operation of the Plant at its increased steam generating capacity of 85.5 MW will not require any changes or additions to the facility. No increase in environmental impacts will result from the 10-15 MW (nominal) increase in steam generating capacity. The Plant will continue to operate within the currently permitted quantities of water for the facility, under the existing SWFWMD consumptive use permit. The project will not result in an increase in project- related traffic. The project also will not result in an increase in noise levels at the Plant site. The benefits of the project are that additional electricity is obtained without increasing either fuel use or environmental impacts from the Tiger Bay Plant. These "free megawatts" result from enhancing the efficiency of the Tiger Bay Plant, resulting in savings to FPC's customers. The project also conserves energy by using the additional existing generating capacity without increasing fuel use in the Plant. Consistency with Local Land-Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances: The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility is located in a future land-use classification of "PM" or phosphate mining on the Polk County future land-use map. Electrical power plants like the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility are permitted in that land- use category. The project site is zoned by Polk County as "RC" or rural conservation, which allows electric power generating facilities as a conditional use in that zoning district. Polk County issued a conditional use permit and site approval for the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility on November 20, 1992. The continued operation of the Tiger Bay Plant with its increased electrical output under site certification will be consistent with the land-use and zoning designations for the project site as well as the conditional use permit since there will be no physical changes made to the facility. The Polk County development approvals for the Tiger Bay Facility were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time the approvals were granted. Further amendments to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan are not retroactively applied to projects once they have received necessary development approvals. Agency Positions and Stipulations: The DEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (FG&FWFC), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Polk County each prepared written reports on the Project, and all recommended approval of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Project. The DCA determined the project, if certified, would be consistent and on balance with the state comprehensive plan. In its report, Polk County indicated that no changes to zoning at the project site were required as a result of certification of the project. Polk County also determined that the Facility would still meet the conditions of the County's original conditional use permit for the project and no further actions would be required by the Applicant. The Central Florida Regional Planning Council did not submit a report to the Department of Environmental Protection as part of its review of the project. No state, regional or local agency has recommended denial of certification. The recommended Conditions of Certification incorporate the existing permits for the Facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the Evidence of Record, and the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is, RECOMMENDED that: Florida Power Corporation be granted final certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location and continued operation of the existing Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility and its increased steam- electric generation capacity, as proposed in the Site Certification Application, and subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto; and The Siting Board find that the site of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility, as described in the Site Certification Application, is consistent and in compliance with the existing land-use plans and zoning ordinances of Polk County, as they apply to the site, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Doug Roberts, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Division of Legal Services Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 James V. Antista, Esquire Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Earl Peterson, Director Division of Forestry Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3125 Conner Boulevard, C-19 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Hamilton Oven, Administrator Office of Siting Coordination Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Boulevard Mail Station 48 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Brian Sodt Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Mary Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 George W. Perry, Director Director of Historical Resources Archives and History R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Pepe Menendez, P.E. Department of Health Environmental Health Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0070 Rich Tshantz, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Merle Bishop Polk County Florida Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830 W. Jeffrey Pardue Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 MAC H2G St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Doug Roberts, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact set out in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 6, 7, and 8. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 2 are based upon a stipulation of the parties which is recorded in the transcript of the formal hearing, Volume III, pp. 181-182. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1 through 8, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene, Schaefer, and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 47, and 48. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 5 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 47, 48, and 49. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Conner, and Voigts; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 12, 35 through 45, 59, and 61. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 7 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 14,35, and 39 through 43. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 8 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 9 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Marin, Brown, Guillet, Lokey, Gilmartin and Watson; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibit 16. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown, Cartensen, and Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 49, 50, 51, and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 12 are based upon the testimony of the witness Brown. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown and Harp; and upon FPC exhibit 52. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witness Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 51 and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 16 are based upon the testimony of the witness Schaefer; and upon FPC exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witness Koszulinski and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 70 through 73. ENTERED THIS 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 2nd day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether OUC should receive supplemental certification from the Siting Board for its proposed Unit 2 electrical power plant and associated facilities, including a transmission line and alternate access road, and what conditions, if any, should be incorporated within such supplemental certification to assure that minimal adverse consequences result from the new electrical power plant and associated facilities. The parties have reached substantial agreement on issues of fact and upon conditions of certification necessary to assure compliance with applicable nonprocedural requirements of the agencies having jurisdiction over the project. No party opposes the issuance of the supplemental certification sought by OUC, leaving a single dispute between OUC and SJRWMD as to SJRWMD's proposed condition of certification which would limit OUC's consumptive water use authorization to a ten-year period commencing on the date of certification and would essentially require OUC to reapply for subsequent consumptive use permits for water use thereafter.
Findings Of Fact The Co-applicants. Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) is a statutory commission of the State of Florida and is part of the government of the City of Orlando. OUC generates and distributes electric power and water to persons within its service area. OUC owns the Stanton Energy Center site and will have a 75% ownership interest in Stanton 2. The Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) is a joint agency formed under the Interlocal Cooperation Act and exercises power under the Joint Power Act. FMPA has authority to undertake and finance electric projects and to plan, finance, acquire, construct, own, operate, maintain or otherwise participate jointly in Stanton 2 and other projects. FMPA members Fort Pierce, Homestead, Key West, Lake Worth, Starke and Vero Beach will be participants in Stanton 2; FMPA members Bushnell, Clewiston, Green Cove Springs, Jacksonville Beach, Leesburg and Ocala will be participants through FMPA's All Requirements Project. The FMPA will have an approximate 21% ownership interest in Stanton 2. Kissimmee Utility Authority (KUA) is a public body, organized and existing as part of the government of the City of Kissimmee. KUA generates, transmits and distributes electric power. KUA will have an approximate 4% ownership interest in Stanton Unit 2. The Stanton Site and the proposed project. OUC owns the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, a 3280-acre site, with associated railroad, utility and transmission corridors located in Orange County, approximately twelve miles east-southeast of the City of Orlando, Florida. On December 14, 1982, the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, sitting as the Siting Board, certified the Stanton Energy Center site for an ultimate generating capacity of approximately 2000 megawatts. On July 1, 1987, Stanton Energy Center Unit 1, a 465 megawatt gross, 440 megawatt net, coal-fired electrical generating plant, went into commercial operation. The certified facilities associated with the Stanton site include a railroad corridor containing a railroad spur for coal train access to the site, a cooling water pipeline for the treated sewage effluent used for cooling water obtained from the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, a plant access road, and associated transmission lines. The associated facilities are sized to accommodate the ultimate 2000 megawatt site development; additional associated transmission lines will be required for the ultimate site development. Certain facilities constructed with Stanton Unit 1 were sized to accommodate Stanton 2. These include the following: cooling water storage pond, coal handling and storage areas, two potable water wells, wastewater treatment systems and a landfill for disposable wastes and flue gas sulfur sludge. Development of the site for Stanton 1 and its associated facilities directly affected approximately 960 acres. The construction of the Stanton 2 power block will affect approximately nine additional acres which were originally graded and prepared during Stanton 1 construction. The proposed Unit 2 is a 465 megawatt gross (440 megawatt net) coal- fueled, steam electric generating plant which is intended by OUC to be virtually identical to the existing Unit 1. New plant facilities to be constructed with Unit 2 include electrostatic precipitators, sulfur-dioxide removal equipment, a chimney and a cooling tower. Unit 2 will have a Babcock and Wilcox natural circulation steam generator with a maximum continuous rating of 3,305,000 lb. hr. of steam at 2,640 psig and 1005/1005 degree F. The unit will have a Westinghouse Turbine Generator with a 516,200 KVA generator nameplate rating. The boiler will be equipped with low NOx burners. The unit will have an electrostatic precipitator and wet limestone scrubber, consisting of two scrubber modules and one spare module. Treated sewage effluent provided by Orange County's Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant will be used for cooling water. No cooling water or wastewater will be discharged from the Stanton site. A natural draft cooling tower will be used for cooling and evaporation of water. New linear facilities to be constructed for Unit 2 consist of a 14- mile 230 kV transmission line (which includes a new unpaved access road) and a new 1.4-mile alternate access road. The existing certified transmission line corridor, which is 220 feet wide, extends approximately 32 miles east and west from a point one-fourth mile north of the SEC site boundary. This corridor contains two sets of transmission lines and structures which connect Unit 1 to OUC's Indian River Power Plant, near Titusville, Florida, and to OUC's Pershing Substation located at Orlando, Florida. One set of lines comprises two 115 kV lines on wooden structures, while the other set is a 230 kV line on steel structures. In order to integrate the power generated by Unit 2 into OUC's transmission system, a new 230 kV transmission line is required. This proposed Stanton-Mud Lake 230 kV transmission line will originate at the existing Stanton Energy Center 230 kV Substation and will interconnect with the existing OUC Transmission Line 7-0615 after its relocation near Mud Lake. The new Stanton- Mud Lake Transmission Line, approximately 14.0 miles in length, is to be constructed within OUC's existing OUC coal-haul railroad corridor, which runs from the Stanton Energy Center to its interconnection with existing transmission line 7-0615. This corridor, which varies in width along its route, from 260 feet to 400 feet, was certified along with Unit 1 in 1982. The 1.4-mile alternate access road will be paved. It will provide a second access to the Stanton site during construction. It will also provide access from the Bee Line Expressway for OUC personnel, and for fire, ambulance or other emergency vehicles. Approximately 60 OUC employees will use the alternate access road on a daily basis. The daily use of this alternate access road will increase during plant outages. Secondary access to the SEC site was previously provided by a road across the adjacent Orange County landfill during the construction of Unit 1. However, expansion of the landfill has resulted in this particular road not being available for Unit 2. Stanton's solid waste management and disposal area was placed along the western boundary of the SEC site because existing upland surface elevations allowed the use of the area as a source of fill material and because an existing sanitary landfill was located on adjacent property to the west. The railroad track loop for coal trains is placed along the south side of the complex because the railroad spur from Orlando approaches the site from the south. All coal is received by rail. Rail service to the site is provided by the CSX railroad system from its main line connecting Jacksonville to Orlando and Tampa. A rail spur branches from the CSX main line at a point about three miles south of Taft and runs easterly, skirting the south boundary of Orlando International Airport and associated residential-commercial development. The spur turns due north just before it crosses the Bee Line Expressway, enters the SEC site and terminates in the site's rail loop, utilized for unloading coal. The headwaters of the Hart, Cowpen, Green and Turkey Creek tributaries of the Econlockhatchee River are located on the eastern part of the site which includes the power block, transmission line and associated proposed access roads. The location and arrangement of the Unit 2 power block does not encroach upon these tributaries. Wetlands on site consist of both isolated wetlands and those connected to other wetland systems or bodies of water. No wetlands will be cleared for the construction of the Unit 2 power block. Colonies of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) inhabit portions of the SEC site. When Unit 1 was built there were 63 RCW cavity trees on site, of which five had to be removed for construction. One of these was an active cavity tree. No existing cavity trees will be removed for construction of Unit 2. The approximately 2000 undeveloped acres of the site are being managed currently by OUC, pursuant to condition number XXXI of the site certification to provide foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. The construction of Unit 2 should not have any significant adverse impact upon red- cockaded woodpeckers or their habitat on the Stanton site. Land use planning considerations. Originally, the site, including the corridor certified for railroad use, consisted predominantly of sandy areas of little topographical relief, supporting native forest vegetation or improved pasture and pine forest. These terrain conditions are referred to as flatwoods. Prior to OUC's acquisition of the site, it was logged and used for the grazing of livestock. There are scattered wooded and wet areas on the site. The east half of Sections 13 and 14 and the northeast quarter of Section 23 were under lease for hunting purposes. There were no residences on the site. The site is located four and three-fourths miles south of Highway 50 and one mile north of Bee Line Highway in eastern Orange County, Florida. The Econlockhatchee River is about three-fourths mile east of the northeast corner of the site boundary; four tributaries cross the site. The Orange County landfill, or solid waste disposal facility, is adjacent to the site along the west boundary. There are no incorporated areas within five miles of the plant. The community of Bithlo, at the periphery of a five-mile radius, was incorporated from about 1895 to 1977. In 1977, the incorporation was dissolved and the area reverted as part of unincorporated Orange County, which now determines zoning and provides services for the area. Some residential development has occurred north and east of the site. Existing development in the Bithlo region begins about three and one-half miles north-northeast of the plant. To the south of the plant, near the Bee Line Expressway, International Corporate Park is attempting to develop an office/industrial complex. A state prison is located south of the site immediately north of the Bee Line and east of the railroad spur. Some zoning of the plant site and area within a five-mile radius of the plant is classified as "A-2," which is defined as a Ranch and Farmland Rural District with a minimum one-half acre lot size. Exceptions are the Bithlo area northeast of the plant and the proposed development area northwest of the plant. The Bithlo and Cape Orlando areas are predominantly classified at "R-1A," which is defined as a Single Family Residential District with a minimum 7500 square feet lot size. A portion of the Cape Orlando area is zoned "R-1AA," which is Single Family Residential with 10,000 square feet lot size. The area of proposed development to the northwest of the plant is classified as "P-D," which is defined as a Planned Development District. Citrus groves occur between the four and five mile radii to the northeast, southeast, and northwest of the plant site. No citrus groves are located within four miles of the plant location. There are no prime or unique farmlands, as identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, within five miles of the plant site. There are no state or federally owned lands within five miles of the plant site. Water resources in the site vicinity (five mile radius) which could be affected include four tributaries of the Econlockhatchee River, isolated wetlands and the surficial and Floridan aquifer. These surface water resources are east and west of the developed portions of the site, respectively, while the surficial and Floridan aquifers underlie all of Orange County. The Floridan aquifer will supply plant service and potable water, and the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Facility supplies cooling tower make- up water. No municipal water supply or wastewater facilities are located on- site or are proposed. No natural lakes are on-site or within the five-mile site vicinity. Numerous small lakes to the west and south of the site are used for recreation and irrigation water supply. The cooling water reservoir occupying 93 acres was constructed on site to serve the existing and proposed units. Proximity to and impacts on transportation system. One alternate access road for vehicular access to the site will be constructed. This alternate access road will extend southward for 1.4 miles along the rail spur to the Bee Line Expressway. The existing access to the site is by Alafaya Trail, a two lane road which ends at the existing plant site. This road was constructed contemporaneously with Stanton 1 and was subsequently conveyed to Orange County. The maximum traffic generated by Stanton 2 will occur during a period in 1995 when up to an estimated 983 construction workers will be employed on site. Most of these construction workers will travel eastward from Orlando to work during the morning, with the reverse being true in the evening hours. There will be no substantial adverse effects on traffic congestion as a result of construction or operation of Stanton Unit 2, except at some intersection movements during construction. Traffic would use the East-West Expressway to bypass the more congested State Road 50, therefore not adding substantially to existing conditions at the State Road 50 and Alafaya Trail intersection. During construction, truck traffic to the plant will be scattered throughout the day and will not pose major problems other than some added wear and tear on roadways. However, the substantial portion of heavy equipment and material needed for Unit 2 is expected to arrive by rail, entering the plant site via the existing rail spur. Unit 2 is expected to employ only 85 additional personnel spread between three shifts. These employees will have minimal impact upon the transportation system during Unit 2 operation. Soil and foundation conditions. The soil and foundation conditions at the Stanton Energy Center Site were described in the original site certification application. There have been no significant changes in these conditions since the site certification. There will be no impact upon or changes to these conditions or factors as a result of the construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2. The soils underlying Unit 2 and its associated facilities have sufficient strength to support Unit 2 and its associated facilities with conventional foundation systems. The foundation systems will have no detrimental impact on the environment on site. The strata beneath the site to a depth of 209 feet are divided into five stratigraphic layers: a surficial sand layer, an intermediate cohesive layer, a lower sand layer, a lower cohesive layer and limestone bedrock. The soil and foundation conditions were extensively described in the original site certification application. These conditions are suitable for the construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2. Impact on archaeological sites and historic preservation areas. There are no recorded historic, scenic, cultural or natural landmarks located on the plant site. The National Registry of Natural Landmarks does not include any sites for Orange County, Florida. An archaeological and historic survey was conducted on accessible portions of the Stanton Energy Center site. The site survey was conducted by personnel from the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Archives, History and Records Management. Four sites were found during the survey. Three were prehistoric archaeological sites and one was a historic hunting lodge from the early 20th century. This lodge is located just off the site near the southwest corner of the property line. The Division of Archives, History and Records Management concluded that the sites did not represent significant archaeological or historical resources. No known landmarks or scenic areas will be affected by the proposed transmission line. During Stanton 1 construction, the railroad spur was realigned to miss a historical site that would have required salvaging. There are no historically, culturally or archaeologically significant areas within or along the new transmission line right-of-way that will be affected. Although archaeological site #8-OR-2208 is located along the new transmission line right-of-way, as first identified in the 1989 Lake Hart DRI review, the upper 30 cm. of soil in the area had previously been disturbed. Since the transmission line will span the 100 meter site, this project will have no impact on that site. Impacts to wetland and riparian habitat regulation zone resources. Installation of the proposed transmission line corridor and access roads will require clearing and filling of wetlands. Impacts to these wetlands are regulated by DER, SFWMD and SJRWMD. Those portions of the site which are located in the SJRWMD jurisdiction lie within a regulatory basin known as the Econlockhatchee River Hydrologic Basin (Econ Basin). Within the Econ Basin is a special area known as the Riparian Habitat Regulation Zone (RHRZ), regulated to provide additional habitat protection for certain contiguous wetlands and uplands. Of the total acres of wetland to be cleared, 13.19 acres are DER jurisdictional wetlands and 21.18 acres are regulated as isolated or connected by the SFWMD. Of the total wetland acres to be filled during construction of the transmission line and access roads, fill impacts include 4.12 acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands and 1.87 acres of SFWMD wetlands. The SJRWMD and SFWMD wetland acreage totals include the DER wetland acreages. As a result of construction of the transmission line and access roads, approximately a total of 8.9 acres of SJRWMD wetlands, and 6.6 acres of uplands within the Riparian Habitat Regulation Zone and 1.1 acre of isolated SJRWMD wetlands will be impacted. Construction of the access roads will result in the filling of 2.7 acres of herbaceous wetlands, and 0.1 acre of forested wetlands, and 0.9 acre of an isolated wetland. Approximately 0.1 acre of forested and 0.1 acre of herbaceous uplands within the RHRZ will be filled. Clearing impacts associated with the transmission line will result in the loss of 5.5 acres of forested wetlands and 6.4 acres of uplands within the RHRZ and 0.2 of an acre of isolated SJRWMD wetland. OUC's mitigation plan, as approved by SJRWMD, provides 67.75 acres of wetlands mitigation (compared to SJRWMD jurisdiction impacts of 4.3 acres filled and 5.7 acres cleared) and 81.95 acres of upland mitigation, including 32.55 acres of RHRZ (compared to SJRWMD jurisdiction RHRZ uplands impact of 6.6 acres). Surface water management considerations. The surface water management system and stormwater management system (the system) which OUC proposes to construct and operate includes the Unit 2 power block facilities, transmission line, structure pads and support structures, unpaved access road and paved alternate access road. Surface and stormwater runoff from the power block facility will be conveyed by new ditches and piping systems connecting to existing drainage systems to the Recycle Basin and Make-up Water Supply Storage Pond which is part of the power block facilities. The basin and pond are designed to retain runoff from the ultimate build-out (four units) of the power block area. The transmission line will be maintained through the use of the unpaved access road and the paved alternate access road. The unpaved access road consists solely of intermittent fill segments. No excavation or filling will occur for the unpaved access road in upland areas; however, fill will be placed in wetland areas which exist in the proposed unpaved access road alignment. These areas of fill will be contained with erosion and sediment control practices during construction and stabilized with vegetation upon final grading so as to prevent erosion and sediment transport into the Econlockhatchee RHRZ. The unpaved access road will allow passage of maintenance vehicles during normal climatic conditions for maintenance and repair of the transmission line and structures; maintenance is expected to occur approximately twice per year. Due primarily to its infrequent use and low impervious nature, the operation of this unpaved, stabilized access road is not expected to be a concern regarding stormwater pollution or to increase peak runoff rates. Placement of fill will occur for the length of the proposed paved alternate access road. Runoff from this road will be directed to proposed swales with ditch blocks and overflow structures. The proposed system meets SJRWMD's peak discharge criteria because plans and calculations demonstrate that: Runoff from the Unit 2 power block is directed to an adequately sized existing facility which attenuates peak discharge from the 25-year and 2.3-year, 24-hour regulatory storm events; The transmission line with its unpaved access road has a very low impervious nature; therefore, only an insignificant increase in runoff is expected; and Runoff from the paved alternate access road will be directed to the proposed roadside swale system which will attenuate peak discharge from the SJRWMD regulatory storm events. The proposed system meets SJRWMD's post-development volume criterion because there is no discharge from the proposed system to a landlocked basin. The proposed system meets the floodway conveyance and floodplain storage criteria of SJRWMD because plans and calculations show that: Existing culverts under the railroad track bed will be extended underneath both access roads and an additional bridge adjacent to the existing bridge will be constructed, such that floodway conveyance capabilities will not be impaired. The proposed extended culverts and bridge will be the same sizes as the existing culverts and bridges; and Necessary compensating storage for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain due to construction of the unpaved access road south of the Bee Line Expressway will be provided by excavating uplands adjacent to the floodplain. The proposed system will not decrease the flows of adjacent streams, impoundments or other watercourses so as to cause adverse impacts because: The applicants propose no new impoundments which might impair low flow discharges; and The applicants propose no deep excavations which might impair base flow. Anticipated construction dewatering will be temporary and will not unacceptably reduce water tables. The proposed system meets the SJRWMD's water quality criteria and standards because plans and calculations demonstrate that: Runoff from the Unit 2 power block will be directed to an adequately designed retention facility sized to treat a volume in excess of 1/2 inch of runoff from the contributing site; The transmission line with its unpaved access road will be stabilized, has a low impervious nature and will be used only to access the transmission line and poles. The operation of this road is not expected to increase pollutant loading to receiving waters; therefore, no additional stormwater management controls are proposed since they are not needed and would only result in additional impact to the RHRZ adjacent to the proposed road; Runoff from the paved alternate access road will be treated in roadside swales designed to provide storage and recovery of the required pollution abatement volume; and Adequate temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented to protect the quality of receiving waters. The proposed system is a gravity flow system. It has no high maintenance pumps or filter drain systems which can be difficult to operate and maintain. The system will be easily maintained through mowing, as necessary, and through inspection of culverts to ensure no obstruction at least twice per month from June through October and once per month from November through May. There are no Works of the District (SJRWMD) in the vicinity of the plant site, proposed transmission line or proposed roads. There have been no minimum flows or levels yet established in the SJRWMD pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The area of influence of any dewatering associated with the proposed system will not extend to any area where the surficial aquifer is used by others. The operation of the proposed system will not induce saltwater intrusion. The proposed system has been designed to provide attenuation of peak runoff rates, to maintain floodway conveyance and floodplain storage, and to provide treatment of the required pollution abatement volume. No damage to property of the public is likely to be caused by operation of the system. Plant communities. Plant communities at the SEC site at the time of the original site certification application were described in that certification application. The plant communities existing on site are typical of those in the region, predominated by nearly level flatwoods with scattered wetlands and low ridges on the western portion and in the center of the already certified site. Construction and operation of Unit 2 will not affect any endangered or threatened plant species. No additional protected state listed species pursuant to 581.185(5)(a), Florida Statutes, have been identified on site within the plan proposed for alteration for Unit 2. Spoonflower (Peltandra sagittifolia), a listed species, was observed in a hardwood bay stand in summer 1981; however, this stand is not proposed for development as a result of the construction of Stanton Unit 2. Animal communities. The animal species found on or utilizing the SEC site were described in the original site certification application. The red-cockaded woodpeckers are restricted primarily to the scrub oak and pine flatwoods habitats. However, they are known to also utilize the wetlands on site as foraging habitat. Habitat improvements to the longleaf pine flatwoods have resulted from the Habitat Management Plan which has been implemented since construction of Unit 1. The distribution of animal communities on site reflects the variety of site conditions. Primarily upland species may utilize a variety of habitat types. The cypress strand wetlands on site provide habitat requirements for a wide array of wildlife species. Animal species found on the Stanton site include game animals and resident fur-producing species. Common small game species of wildlife consist of bobwhite quail, mourning dove, cottontail rabbit, marsh rabbit and gray squirrel. Populations of white-tailed deer and feral swine are present in much of the area and some adjoining lands. The land seasonally attracts a few migratory species. A wide selection of fur-bearing mammal species occur on the site. The endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana), the only American representative of the stork family, is a large white bird locally common in southern swamps, freshwater marshes and ponds. Its primary foods are fish, frog, young alligators and other aquatic animals. Wood storks have been observed on site. Red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) are characterized as inhabiting mature, open pine forest. Several trees on site have nest cavities of the red-cockaded woodpeckers. Prior to construction of Unit 1, surveys of the Stanton site revealed a total of 45 active cavity trees and 35 red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the proposed project. Once the presence of the birds was known, the plant site layout was revised to preserve as many cavity trees and as much foraging habitat as possible, although two clans left the area following the construction of Unit 1. Nine clans occurred on the site in 1981 and six clans now live on the site, with others located nearby. One active cavity tree was to be removed for Unit 1 development. No other active trees are destined to be removed for ultimate site development. A management/study plan was developed for the purpose of minimizing and assessing impacts on woodpeckers. OUC has implemented the management plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker. The threatened Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma c. cocrulescens) is characteristic of oak scrub communities and is confined mainly to such habitats. The range of this subspecies is restricted to peninsular Florida, primarily along the east coast with scattered populations in the central portion and western coastline of Florida. The Florida scrub jay has been observed on the southwest portion of the property. No activities are proposed in this area and no impact to this species is anticipated. Scrub habitat found along the southern portion of the transmission corridor south of the Bee Line was surveyed and no scrub jays were found. The threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais) occurs in peninsular Florida, in a few widely scattered areas of the Georgia Coastal Plain, and in parts of the Florida panhandle. This snake occupies a wide variety of habitat types. Indigo snakes have been observed on site. The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), a species of special concern, is commonly encountered in central Florida. On-site populations of gopher tortoise are centered mainly on the higher elevation in the western and south-central portion of the property. No impacts to the gopher tortoise are anticipated as a result of the construction, including the clearing, of the transmission line corridor. No tortoises occur within the alternate access road corridor. The proposed transmission line corridor follows the existing railroad corridor from the site to the existing OUC transmission line 7-0615 near Mud Lake southeast of Orlando International Airport. The corridor was surveyed in 1982 and in the summer of 1991 for the presence of threatened and endangered species. One sandhill crane nest was observed within the corridor. Construction activities in the vicinity of the known sandhill crane nest will be arranged and scheduled to avoid any adverse impacts to this nest. Air Quality Issues. The only new air emission point for Unit 2 will be the 550-foot chimney. This source was previously evaluated with regard to its effect on air quality and is included as an approved source in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the project (Units 1 and 2) during the initial permitting process that commenced in 1981. However, because combustion parameters and emissions rates for Unit 2 have been revised, an additional review has verified that air quality impacts remain below all applicable PSD increments and ambient air quality standards. The air quality impact analysis required by the PSD regulations include: an analysis of existing air quality; a PSD increment analysis (NOx, PM and SO2 only); an Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) analysis; an analysis of impacts on soils, vegeta- tion, and visibility and of growth-related air quality impacts; a "Good Engineering Practice" (GEP) stack height determination. The analysis of existing air quality generally relies on pre- construction monitoring data collected with EPA-approved methods. The AAQS analysis depends on the air quality dispersion modeling carried out in accordance with EPA guidelines. Based on these required analyses, there is reasonable assurance that the proposed facility, as subject to the applicable conditions of certification, will not cause or contribute to violation of any PSD increment or ambient air quality standard. The PSD increment represents the amount that new sources in an area may increase ambient ground-level concentrations of a given pollutant. The purpose of these increment limitations is to prevent areas which currently have good air quality from being significantly degraded. If an area currently has ambient concentrations near the ambient air quality standards for NO2, PM or SO2, the increased emissions from new sources must not cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standard and the allowed increments would be reduced to prevent such exceedances. The Stanton site is located in a Class II area and must meet the increments defined for this class. The nearest Class I area (Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area) is about 130 kilometers west of the site. Stanton is not expected to influence this Class I area. All of the emissions of NO2, PM and SO2 at Stanton will consume Class II increments. No other sources near Stanton have been identified which would be expected to significantly affect increment consumption in the area of the Stanton Site. Air modeling results indicate that Stanton does not contribute to a violation of the PSD Class II increments. Of the pollutants subject to review, only CO, NO2, PM, SO2 and ozone have AAQS with which to compare. In general, the total ambient air quality impact for each pollutant is obtained by adding the estimated background concentration to the maximum predicted modeled concentrations of the proposed facility and other modeled background sources. Ozone is a photochemically formed pollutant resulting mainly from motor vehicle emissions. The regulated pollutant for ozone formation is volatile organic compounds (VOC) which cannot be modeled for source-specific applications. Ozone, by way of VOC's, is regulated through BACT. Given existing air quality in the area of the proposed facility, emissions from Stanton are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of any AAQS. Impacts on soils, vegetation, visibility and growth-related air quality impacts are not expected to change from the original OUC's proposal. This project does not change the original GEP stack height. BACT Determination Considerations. DER's BACT determination is based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques. In addition, Department BACT regulations require the Department to give consideration to any Environmental Protection Agency determination of Best Available Control Technology pursuant to Section 169, and any emission limitation contained in 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources) or 40 CFR Part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), and to: All scientific, engineering and technical material and other information available to the Department; The emission limiting standards or BACT determinations of any other state; and The social and economic impact of the application of such technology. The EPA currently stresses that BACT should be determined using the "top-down" approach. The first step in this approach is to determine for the emission source in question the most stringent control available for a similar or identical source or source category. If it is shown that this level of control is technically or economically infeasible for the source in question, the next most stringent level of control is determined and similarly evaluated. This process continues until the BACT level under consideration cannot be eliminated by any substantial or unique technical, environmental or economic objections. The air pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants can be grouped into categories based upon what control equipment and techniques are available to control emissions from these facilities. Using this approach, the emissions can be classified as follows: Combustion Products (e.g., Particulates). Controlled generally by good combustion of clean fuels and baghouse filters or electrostatic precipitators (ESP); Products of Incomplete Combustion (e.g., CO). Controlled generally by proper combustion techniques; and Acid Gases (e.g., NOx). Controlled generally by gaseous control devices. Grouping the pollutants in this manner facilitates the BACT analysis because it enables the equipment available to control the type or group of pollutants emitted and the corresponding energy, economic and environmental impacts to be examined on a common basis. Although all of the pollutants addressed in the BACT analysis may be subject to a specific emission limiting standard as a result of PSD review, the control of "nonregulated" (noncriteria) air pollutants is considered in imposing a more stringent BACT limit on a "regulated" (criteria) pollutant (i.e., particulates, sulfur dioxide, fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, etc.), if a reduction in "nonregulated" air pollutants can be directly attributed to the control device selected as BACT for the abatement of the "regulated" pollutants. Unit 2's major combustion equipment will consist of a pulverized coal (PC) boiler. The PC boiler will be started on No. 6 fuel oil and use No. 6 fuel oil for flame stabilization during low load operation. The PC boiler is rated at 3,305 MMBTU/hr. and has a maximum heat input of 4,286 MMBTU/hr. OUC has indicated the maximum annual tonnage of regulated air pollutants expected to be emitted from the facility based in 100 percent capacity to be as follows: PSD Significant Emissions Potential Emissions (tons/yr.) PC Boiler (tons/yr.) NOx 5943 40 SO2 6008 40 PM 375 25 PM10 375 15 CO 2816 100 VOC 282 40 H2SO4 653 7 BE 0.039 0.0004 Hg 0.041 0.1 Pb 0.701 0.6 Fluorides 1.58 3 Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-2.500(5)(c) requires a BACT review for all regulated pollutants emitted in an amount equal to or greater than the significant emission rates listed in the previous table. The BACT requirements are intended to ensure that a proposed facility will incorporate air pollution control systems that reflect the latest techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion) used in the particular industry. An evaluation of the air pollution control techniques and systems is required, including a consideration for energy requirements, environmental and economic impact. The appropriate best available control technology (BACT) emission rates for criteria pollutants for Stanton Unit 2 are shown on the following table: Sulfur Dioxide, lb/MBtu 30-day rolling average 0.25 24-hour emission rate 0.67 3-hour emission rate 0.85 Nitrogen Oxides lb/MBtu 30-day rolling average 0.17 Particulate Matter, lb/MBtu TSP 0.02 PM10 0.02 VOC, lb/MBtu 0.015 Carbon Monoxide, lb/MBtu 0.15 The BACT emission rates for non-criteria pollutants are shown on the following table: H2SO4, lb/MBtu 3.3 x 10-2 Be, lb/MBtu 5.2 x 10-6 Hg, lb/MBtu 1.1 x 10-5 Pb, lb/MBtu 1.5 x 10-4 Fluoride, lb/MBtu 4.2 x 10-4 Air emission considerations. The cause-effect-control relationship concerning air and pollutant emissions and the entire phenomenon of acid deposition or "acid rain" is extremely complex. Stanton Unit 2 will have less adverse impact upon air quality than other coal fueled units in the state which do not employ sulfur- dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen-oxides (NOx) emission controls that are as stringent as those required for Stanton Unit 2 to meet BACT emission limits. Stanton Unit 2 will utilize a flue-gas desulfurization system which includes wet limestone scrubber for control of sulfur dioxide emissions. Use of scrubbers and NOx control technologies represent practical and effective means of minimizing the contribution from Unit 2 to rain fall acidification. Given the location of the plant and the advanced air emission controls that will be utilized at Stanton Unit 2, this plant will not significantly contribute to acid rain or acid deposition in Florida. Potential adverse health effects of the criteria air pollutants expected to be emitted by Unit 2 have been analyzed utilizing the total expected concentrations of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and carbon monoxide. These concentrations were determined by adding together the maximum predicted impacts for both Stanton plants with measured, historical background concentrations. The resulting air levels are all below the Florida Ambient Air Quality Standard values and are not expected to adversely affect human health. The maximum levels of SO2 in the ambient air are predicted to be 17.2, 106.8, and 642.4 ug/m3 for annual, 24-hour and 3-hour averaging periods, respectively. These are total expected concentrations determined by adding the modeled Stanton impacts with the existing background concentrations. These levels are below the Florida AAQS of 60, 260, and 1,300 ug/m3 for annual, 24- hour and 3-hour values. These concentrations are also below levels at which any clinically evident health effects, such as shortness of breath or wheezing, have been demonstrated in laboratory tests in normal individuals or in sensitive individuals, including asthmatics, during exercise. The annual and 24-hour concentrations are less than those levels shown to have deleterious health effects during longer term epidemiology studies that are relevant to those averaging period. The annual and 24-hour total expected PM10 concentrations are 42 and 128 ug/m3. These levels are below the Florida AAQS values for annual and 24- hour averaging periods of 50 and 150 ug/m3. The annual total expected PM10 concentration of 42 ug/m3 is below the level associated with health effects in epidemiology studies comparing different annual particulate levels in different cities. The 24-hour total expected particulate level of 128.0 ug/m3 is below the level resulting in clinically significant symptoms, such as shortness of breath or wheezing in asthmatics during exercise. The 24-hour level of 128.0 ug/m3 is also below levels at which most studies on sensitive asthmatics have found changes in laboratory measures of lung function. 90 The annual total expected concentration of NOx is 26.0 ug/m3, which is well below the Florida AAQS of 100 ug/m3. The maximum predicted impact only contributes 2 ug/m3, and background contributes 24 ug/m3 to this value. This total expected concentration has not been found to produce health effects in epidemiology studies of long term NO2 exposures in children. A level of 26 ug/m3 is also well below the lowest dose at which minimal effects have been found in short term studies in sensitive subjects with asthma, chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema). The total expected concentrations of carbon monoxide are 31.0 and 106.4 ug/m3 for eight- and one-hour average periods, respectively, and are well below the Florida AAQS of 10,000 and 40,000 ug/m3. These values are also well below the level expected to cause any significant health effects. Carbon monoxide causes the production of carboxyhemoglobin, which is normally in the blood at 0.5% as a result of metabolism. Exposure to these maximum expected levels of CO would yield an insignificant increase in the normally present amount of carboxyhemoglobin. Certain trace elements exist in coal which can be released when the coal is burned. Those trace elements that remain in particulate form will be effectively removed from the flue gas by the electrostatic precipitator. Those trace elements that are volatilized in the boiler will be largely removed by the cooling of the flue gas in the scrubber and the subsequent of these elements after they have condensed on the fly ash particles. Other toxic air emissions are primarily prevented from forming by the complete combustion of the fuel. Water use considerations. Water used at the Stanton Energy Center will come from three sources: the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, wells and rain. The majority of the water will be used as make-up to the cooling towers. Cooling tower make-up will be primarily treated sewage effluent, up to 10.19 million gallons per day (MGD) for both units from the Orange County treatment plant, plus collected reuse water, site runoff and direct precipitation on the make-up water supply storage pond. A maximum of 2 MGD of well water from the Floridan aquifer is used for potable water, general plant uses and steam cycle make-up. Yearly use of the aquifer may not exceed 321 million gallons. The well water comes from two 850 gallons per minute (gpm) capacity on-site wells that pump from the Floridan aquifer. The well water is pumped directly to a solids contact unit for treatment by aeration, lime softening, filtration and chlorination. Unit 1 operations require withdrawal of 305 gpm from two existing Floridan aquifer wells. The construction of Unit 2 will require the pumping of those wells at the rate of 611 gpm for a daily average consumption of 879,840 gallons. The proposed consumptive uses represent quantities of water which are necessary for economic and efficient utilization because: The water will be used for household (or potable) dewatering and power production purposes, which are recognized classes of water use; Under current technology and economics, the proposed consumptive use amounts are reasonable for the purposes intended; and The plant, a "zero discharge" facility, employs many current water- saving technologies, in that once water enters the facility, it is recirculated and recycled in a number of processes to reduce quantities used; and the water is needed in order to meet electric power demands. The proposed consumptive uses are for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest because: The water will be put to a variety of purposes, all of which fit into accepted classes of use; Lower quality water in the form of treated sewage effluent, reuse water and stormwater will be employed for cooling purposes; and Water will be supplied to generate needed power. The known characteristics of the aquifer, the results of the 48-hour constant rate discharge pump test performed on each of the two existing Floridan aquifer wells with a withdrawal rate greater than the proposed consumptive use, as well as the fact that these wells have been supplying water for years without experiencing production problems, establish that the Floridan aquifer here is capable of producing the proposed consumptive use amounts. The projected effluent quantities from the Orange County Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, stormwater runoff and on-site reuse water are sufficient to supply the facility's cooling water needs. The proposed consumptive uses of water will not seriously harm the sources of the water and will not cause significant saline water intrusion or encroachment, will not result in any unacceptable amount of economic or environmental harm and will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water because: The drawdown effects due to the proposed consumptive use withdrawals on the Floridan aquifer were predicted utilizing the U.S. Geological Survey MODFLOW model. The proposed reduction in the surficial aquifer due to construction dewatering on the plant site was also analyzed. These analyses of the proposed groundwater consumptive use withdrawals showed limited drawdowns and that the radius of influence of these withdrawals will not extend beyond the boundaries of the facility. Based on currently available data, the proposed consumptive uses are not predicted to cause interference with other water users or result in other adverse economic impacts; and There is no known water quality or saline water intrusion or encroachment problem in the aquifers on-site. Based on current water quality data and the above-referenced hydrologic modeling, the proposed consumptive uses are not predicted to cause a water quality or saline water intrusion problem. OUC has submitted and will implement a water conservation plan. The Stanton facility now utilizes currently available conservation, recycling and reuse measures which are economically, environmentally and technologically feasible. OUC will utilize available treated sewage effluent in an average annual allocated amount of 10.19 million gallons/day for cooling tower make-up water needed for Stanton Units 1 and 2 from the Orange County Easterly Wastewater Treatment Facility. Effluent from the on-site treatment facility will also be used for this cooling purpose. The proposed consumptive uses of water utilize the lowest acceptable quality water source which is currently available and currently economically, environmentally and technologically feasible. No flooding damage will result from or be contributed to by the proposed consumptive uses because no wastewater from the plant use or dewatering will be discharged from the site. The proposed consumptive uses will cause no serious harm to any receiving body of water. The applicants will monitor withdrawals of water through metering devices. The SJRWMD Governing Board has not reserved water from use pursuant to Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes. The SJRWMD and OUC entered into a Stipulation agreeing, with one exception, to the imposition of conditions of certification that will ensure that OUC's water withdrawal will be in compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2 F.A.C. SJRWMD proposed the following condition which is opposed by OUC: Condition 7: During the tenth year following issuance of this certification order, OUC, et al., shall submit a report to SJRWMD and DER demonstrating compliance with these conditions of certification, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules of SJRWMD and DER, applicable to the consumptive use of water. Compliance shall be demonstrated with rules and statutory provisions in effect at that time. SJRWMD shall evaluate the report and notify DER in a report of any issues regarding compliance with this certification and applicable rules and statutory provisions, including whether the consumptive use of water complies with those provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and DER's and SJRWMD's rules applicable to consumptive use and whether any conditions of certification must be amended, added, or deleted in order to insure compliance with the referenced rules and statutory provisions. SJRWMD shall respond within 30 days of receipt of OUC, et al.'s report as to whether or not it contains information sufficient to make a determination as to compliance with the referenced rules and statutory provisions. Thereafter, DER shall notify OUC, et al., and SJRWMD as to its determination concerning sufficiency. SJRWMD shall file its report within ninety (90) days after DER's determination that OUC, et al.'s report is sufficient. Section 40C-1.610, Florida Administrative Code, shall apply. An opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, shall be afforded any party. In any hearing requested pursuant to this condition of certification, the burden of demonstrating compliance shall be on OUC, et al. The continued consumptive use of water for the Stanton Energy Center Unit 2, shall be dependent upon OUC, et al., demonstrating and presenting sufficient data to establish that its consumptive use meets the referenced rules and statutory provisions. The Board hereby delegates to the Secretary the authority to enter final orders regarding this condition in the event an administrative hearing is requested. SJRWMD asserts that its proposed condition is based on the regulatory standards found in Section 6.5.1, Applicants Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water (A.H.) and Section 373.236, Florida Statutes. SJRWMD believes that the proposed condition 7 is necessary for the following reasons: Section 6.5.1, A.H., sets forth a 10-year duration for consumptive use allocations where the applicant derives 50% or more of their total allocation from reclaimed water or stormwater. Water technology is constantly changing and improving. Water which is no longer needed by the applicant as a result of such changes and improvements could be allocated to other uses. Economic conditions change over time. As water becomes increasingly scarce and the demand for it increases, it is possible that even lower quality waters may be required to be used for this power plant. Knowledge about the water resource is continually improving. Knowledge gained in the future may change SJRWMD's ability to predict and allocate water. In order to allocate the water resource consistently with the public interest, the allocating agency needs to have the capability to require a user to periodically re-establish that its uses are not harming the water source or receiving water, are utilizing the must efficient and water-conserving technology, and are not impacting other users or land uses. The wording of condition 7 and the testimony of Mr. Jeffrey Elledge, Director of the SJRWMD's Department of Resource Management, makes it clear that under the proposed condition, after ten years the burden would be upon OUC to file a report with DER and SJRWMD demonstrating that OUC's continued consumptive use of water is still consistent with the criteria in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the District's rules in effect at that time. The District maintained that a review of the consumptive use of water by OUC after ten years is needed "to reevaluate the use periodically . . . to make sure that they are still efficient and still in the public interest." SJRWMD has issued water allocations and consumptive use permits to approximately 4000 consumptive water users. These allocations include public water supply, agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses. Each allocation has been for a specific duration. Since the passage of the Power Plant Siting Act in 1973, at least thirty power plants have been certified. Of these, only one, Cedar Bay, has had a time limitation on its consumptive water use allocation. Cedar Bay is a private company and it voluntarily accepted a condition of certification similar to condition 7. There is no consumptive use time limitation which was approved through the certification process for Unit 1. The other certified power plants in SJRWMD's jurisdiction do not have time limitations on their consumptive use of water. In fact, other than in Cedar Bay, the issue of duration for a consumptive use allocation has never been raised and contested in any other power plant certification proceeding. Mr. Elledge acknowledged that SJRWMD's interpretation of and intention in condition 7 is that OUC's ten year water allocation would be reviewed, with the burden being on OUC to convince the District and DER that the rule criteria would be met for the duration of the next allocation. If the burden was not satisfied, the allocation for Unit 2 could be totally rescinded. Although the condition uses the term "report" for the documentation which OUC would have to file, in fact the "report" is the procedural equivalent of a permit renewal application. Without the granting of that renewal, OUC would not have the authorization for further water use. The parties have agreed to conditions of certification which adequately protect other current and future water users in the event of water shortages and unforeseen impacts to existing users, adjacent land uses, and water quality. These conditions are adequate to address the nonprocedural requirements and the concerns of SJRWMD which are summarized above in Finding of Fact 107. Solid waste considerations. Solid waste is generated from a number of sources at the Stanton power plant. The largest quantity of solid wastes produced by the operation of the plant is sludge generated by the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. Coal combustion ash, in the form of fly ash and bottom ash, is the other major solid waste. Collectively, FGD waste and coal ash are referred to as "high volume solid wastes." Other comparatively small quantities of solid wastes, generated on an infrequent basis by the operation of the plant, include sludge from the sedimentation pond, retention basin, cooling towers and wastewater treatment facilities. Ash is the residue produced by the combustion of coal. It consists of the unburned organic matter and inorganic mineral constituents present in the coal. The quantity and chemical characteristics of ash depend on the coal, boiler operating conditions and air pollution control devices, among others. Two types of ash are produced during combustion - fly ash and bottom ash. Fly ash consists of the finer particles that are entrained in the flue gas stream. Bottom ash is the courser, heavier material that accumulates in the furnace bottom in the form of a loose ash or slag. Approximately 447,000 tons of bottom ash are expected to be generated over the life of the plant. Maximum rate of production of bottom ash is expected to be about 17 tons/hour for each unit. Fly ash and boiler hopper ash will be generated at a maximum rate of about 48,400 tons/year for each unit. Approximately 1.45 million tons of fly ash will be generated over the life of the plant. For the proposed Unit 2 wet limestone FGD scrubber, the sulfur dioxide in the flue gas reacts with the limestone slurry producing a waste which must be removed. The maximum rate of production of FGD sludge for the unit is estimated at about 201,000 tons/year. Total wastes produced over the life of the plant will be approximately 6.03 million tons. Periodic removal of sediments from the sedimentation pond also generates a solid waste. Due to the number of variables involved, such as rainfall frequency and duration, concentration of suspended solids in the influent, etc., quantities are difficult to predict. Frequency of sediment removal is approximately once per year. Solids removed are mainly coal dust and ash. Cooling towers are expected to be drained approximately once per year and the accumulated solids removed. The solids will contain suspended solids from the make-up water and particulates from the atmosphere. Based on ground water monitoring data, the concentrations of dissolved constituents in groundwater from the waste disposal area beyond all site boundaries does not exceed Florida Class I-B water quality standards for the inorganic constituents and does not exceed U.S. EPA secondary drinking water standards within the unconfined Hawthorn and Floridan aquifer systems beyond the site boundary. The construction and operation of Unit 2 will not adversely change these existing conditions beyond the site boundaries. Construction impacts. Site clearing necessary for the construction of Unit 2 power block was done in connection with Unit 1. The Alafaya Trail, which provides access from State Road 50, was paved during construction of Unit 1. No impacts along Alafaya Trail will result from construction of Unit 2. Construction waste materials will be disposed of in accordance with applicable Conditions of Certification, rules and regulations. General waste materials will be disposed of in dumpsters for collection and disposal at the county landfill adjacent to the site or other suitable and approved local landfill areas. Impacts are expected from the construction of the transmission line with an unpaved access road and alternate access road. These include the filling of wetlands and the clearing of uplands and wetlands on the plant site and within the existing certified corridor for the access roads and transmission line. The construction of the existing rail spur from the plant site to the CSX mainline converted land from its original use along its 18-mile length. This corridor will be used for the new 230 kV transmission line and access roads. Wetland impacts include the filling of wetlands (regulated by SJRWMD, SFWMD and DER) and the clearing of wetlands, 13.19 acres of which are DER jurisdictional. These wetlands vary in quality from cattail (Typha spp.) monocultural areas, swales and ditches adjacent to the existing cooling water reservoir, to cypress domes and mixed hardwood forests. Mitigation for these projected impacts has been proposed by OUC in the form of enhancement of wetlands located on the site through planting of forested wetland species and proposed reestablishment of "natural" hydroperiod to selected wetland stands, proposed creation of herbaceous wetlands and the proposed enhancement of upland buffers and upland habitats through the planting of longleaf pine forests. Mitigation for the projected impacts from the transmission line and the transmission line access road within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdiction has been proposed by OUC in the form of wetlands creation within the transmission line right-of-way, enhancement of wetlands located on the OUC plant site through the planting of forested wetland species, the reestablishment of "natural" hydroperiod to selected wetland stands, creation of herbaceous wetlands and the enhancement of upland buffers and sensitive upland buffers and sensitive upland habitats through the planting of longleaf pine forests. Neither DER nor the SFWMD has reviewed or approved final construction plans for this proposed mitigation; both agree that the plan is feasible, appropriate in concept and capable of being approved after certification with the submission to DER and SFWMD by OUC of sufficient additional details and plans following certification. The primary construction effects on upland areas will be clearing of some forested areas to accommodate the transmission line installation and construction of the access roads. Following clearing, the land under the transmission line can continue to be used for wildlife habitat or agricultural uses where such uses currently exist. A small segment of an orange grove will be crossed, but no clearing will be done there and fruit production will not be affected. The new transmission facilities should cause little inconvenience to the adjacent landowners since the land may continue to be used as it has in the past. The planned facilities also will not change traffic patterns from those already existing. Right-of-way clearing will affect existing vegetation. Upland habitat provided by trees and other vegetation will be reduced along the six miles of expanded transmission corridor. Of course, the cleared areas will continue to be utilized by some wildlife. Deer, birds and small mammals are often seen in these areas. Growth retardants, chemicals, biocides, sprays, etc., will not be used during construction. If recommended conditions are followed, no significant erosion is anticipated because of the construction of the new transmission line facilities. The construction techniques used will be similar to those utilized previously in Florida to construct transmission facilities. As outlined in the application, construction procedures, including runoff control facilities and practices to avoid contamination of state waters, will be implemented. The construction site is isolated from the general public by appropriate means which include fences and guards. Compliance with OSHA standards and the provisions of Section 440.56, Florida Statutes, should adequately protect construction workers and operating personnel. Comprehensive plan considerations. The Department of Community Affairs concluded as a result of its overall evaluation of the consistency of the Stanton Energy Center Unit 2 with the state comprehensive plan that the power plant was consistent with the state comprehensive plan and should be certified with appropriate conditions of certification. The construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2 will be consistent with the state comprehensive plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statutes), the Orange County Plan and the East Central Florida Regional Policy Plan. Noise impacts. There are no applicable federal, state or local laws, regulations or ordinances that govern the permittable noise levels in the vicinity of the Stanton Energy Center that will be caused by the proposed construction and operation of Stanton Unit 2. Both the State of Florida and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have recommended noise guidelines, both of which recommend a 24-hour equivalent noise level of 55 DBA or less in outdoor areas where people spend varying amounts of time. This recommended community noise level should ensure that there is no annoyance or interference with outdoor activities. Because the majority of site clearing and preparation for Stanton Unit 2 was completed during construction of Unit 1, the noise impacts of Unit 2 construction will be lower than the noise impacts caused during construction of Unit 1. The estimated average construction noise impacts for Unit 2 are below the 55 DBA level at the site boundaries. Therefore, the estimated construction noise impacts will not be significant to the closest residential land uses, which are well beyond the Stanton Energy Center site boundaries. The off-site noise impacts from the operation of Unit 2 equipment will result in an increase to the existing ambient noise level of approximately 2 DBA. A 2 DBA increase in noise is not noticeable to the average person. No area outside of the Stanton Energy Center site boundary will have noise impacts that exceed 55 DBA. Therefore, the expected noise impacts resulting from the operation of Stanton Unit 2 will be insignificant. Regional economic impacts. The local Orlando economy (defined as Orange County, Lake County, Osceola County, and Seminole County) will realize significant and positive, direct regional economic benefits due to the construction and operation of Stanton 2. Direct economic benefits realized by the local Orlando economy due to the construction of Unit 2 include approximately 1,863 man-years of employment, $25.1 million in local supply and material purchases, and $91.8 million (1991 dollars) of construction expenditures. Direct annual economic benefits realized by the local Orlando economy due to the operation of Stanton 2 include approximately $7.0 million (1990 dollars) in fixed operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures and capital addition expenditures, and a Stanton 2 work force of 85 persons. In addition to the direct economic benefits, the local Orlando economy will also realize indirect economic benefits through output, employment and earnings multiplier effects. Total (direct and indirect) Stanton 2 construction economic impacts include approximately 3,878 man-years of employment, $181.6 million (1991 dollars) in earnings and $49.5 million (1991 dollars) in output. Total annual Stanton 2 operational (arising from fixed O&M and capital additions) economic impacts include approximately 263 man-years of employment, $7.7 million (1990 dollars) in earnings, and $9.7 (1990 dollars) in local output.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting a supplemental site certification for Unit 2 and the associated facilities of the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in Appendix A. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX A TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1813EPP STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION CURTIS H. STANTON ENERGY CENTER UNIT 2 PA 81-14/SA1 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I I/I ENTITLEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I/II SCOPE OF LICENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I/III JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I/IV DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I/V TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I/VI SEVERABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I/VII PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I/VIII RIGHT OF ENTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I/IX DESIGN STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I/X LIABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I/XI PROPERTY RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I/XII COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I/XIII POST-CERTIFICATION REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I/XIV COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 I/XV COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 I/XVI OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . 6 I/XVII REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I/XVIII CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I/XIX ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I/XX FIVE YEAR REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I/XXI MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PART II II/I AIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 II/II WETLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 II/III ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 II/IV OTHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 PART III III/I WILDLIFE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 III/II NESTING SANDHILL CRANES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 III/III MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 PART IV IV/I LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . 21 IV/II SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . 23 IV/III ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 PART V V/I WATER SHORTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 V/II WELL CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR ABANDONMENT . . 30 V/III WELL MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 V/IV MITIGATION OF WITHDRAWAL IMPACTS ON EXISTING LEGAL USERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 V/V MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES . . . . 31 V/VI IDENTIFICATION TAGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V/VII MAXIMUM ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V/VIII MAXIMUM DAILY WITHDRAWALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V/IX LIMITATION ON USE OF WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V/X DEWATERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 V/XI OFF-SITE DISCHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 V/XII DISCHARGES FROM MAKE-UP WATER SUPPLY POND . . . . . 32 V/XIII WELL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 V/XIV WATER TREATMENT PLANT REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V/XV WELL WATER FLOW MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V/XVI CONSERVATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V/XVII WELL WATER FLOW METERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V/XVIII CALIBRATION OF FLOW METERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V/XIX MAINTENANCE OF FLOW METERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V/XX DELINEATION OF LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . 33 V/XXI BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 V/XXII COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . 34 V/XXIII INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF ENHANCEMENT MITIGATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 V/XXIV CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS OF ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 V/XXV MONITORING PLAN FOR ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION . . . 34 V/XXVI SURVEY OF ENHANCEMENT AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 V/XXVII MONITORING REPORTS FOR THE ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 V/XXVIII REVISIONS TO ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION . . . . . . 35 V/XXIX EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION . . 36 V/XXX EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING OPERATION . . . 36 V/XXXI INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . 36 V/XXXII COMPLETION OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM . . . 36 V/XXXIII RETENTION/DETENTION STORAGE AREAS . . . . . . . . . 36 V/XXXIV ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 V/XXXV ACCESS ROAD FILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 V/XXXVI CONTRACTOR REVIEW AND POSTING OF CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 VI/I PART VI CONSTRUCTION IMPACT MITIGATION PROGRAM . . . . . . . 38 PART VII VII/I RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT AREA IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 VII/II USE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RCW AREA . . . . . . . . 39 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION (COCs) PART I Administrative Conditions I/I. ENTITLEMENT Pursuant to s. 403.501-519, F.S., the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, this certification is issued to Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida Municipal Power Agency, and Kissimmee Utility Authority as joint owner/operators of Curtis H. Stanton Unit 2. I/II. SCOPE OF LICENSE Certification has previously been issued by the Governor & Cabinet on 12/14/82 for the Stanton site, including associated transmission and rail spur lines, with subsequent modifications thereto. These Conditions of Certification address the supplementary changes related to the construction and operation of Unit 2 and associated transmission line and alternate access road (shown on Attachment I). Where these conditions supersede the original COC and modifications thereto, such COC are rendered void; otherwise, the original COC and modifications thereto remain in effect. Unit 2 certification is limited to 516,200 KVA (465 MW at a 0.9 power factor) nameplate capacity. I/III. JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES The following agencies are deemed to have jurisdictional interest in the certification, and thus regulatory authority over the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility: Department of Environmental Regulation (& Central District Office) [DER or DER/CDO] South Florida Water Management District [SFWMD] St. Johns River Water Management District [SJRWMD] Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission [GFWFC] Department of Natural Resources [DNR] Department of Community Affairs [DCA] Department of Transportation [DOT] Orange County [OC] I/IV. DEFINITIONS Licensee: References herein to the "Licensee" apply to Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida Municipal Power Agency, and Kissimmee Utility Authority as joint owners of Stanton Unit 2, or to their successors or assigns. (See COC-I/V regarding transfer of certification). Completeness/sufficiency: The term "complete" as used herein shall have the same meaning as contained in Chapter 120, F.S., not Chapter 403, F.S., i.e., a complete application shall also provide sufficient information for an agency to perform an analysis of compliance with the conditions of certification and applicable regulations. Where agency-recommended COCs have used the Ch. 403 FS term of "sufficient", that shall have the same meaning as the term "complete" as used herein. Affected agencies: References to the "affected agencies" apply to the jurisdictional agencies listed in COC-I/III. Other terms: The meaning of terms not otherwise specified in A-C, as used herein, shall be governed by the definitions contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and any regulations adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of any dispute over the meaning of a term in these conditions which is not defined in such statutes or regulations, such dispute shall be resolved by reference to the most relevant definitions contained in any other state or federal statute or regulation. I/V. TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATION If contractual rights, duties, or obligations are transferred under this Certification, notice of such transfer or assignment shall immediately be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Affected Agencies by the previous certification holder (Licensee) and the Assignee. Included in the notice shall be the identification of the entity responsible for compliance with the Certification. Any assignment or transfer shall carry with it the full responsibility for the limitations and conditions of this Certification. I/VI. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this certification are severable, and if any provision of this certification or the application of any provision of this certification to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provisions to other circumstances and the remainder of the certification shall not be affected thereby. I/VII. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION Where post-certification submittals are required by these conditions, drawings shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer, or Professional Geologist, as applicable, registered in the State of Florida. I/VIII. RIGHT OF ENTRY The Licensee shall allow during operational or business hours the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and/or authorized representatives, including personnel of the Affected Agencies, upon the presentation of appropriate credentials: To have access during normal business hours (Mon.-Fri., 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm.) to any records required to be kept under the conditions of this certification for examination and copying; and To inspect and test any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in this certification and to sample any discharge or pollutants; and To assess any damage to the environment or violation of ambient standards; and To have reasonable escorted access to the power plant site and any associated linear facilities to inspect and observe any activities associated with the construction, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of the proposed project in order to determine compliance with the conditions of this Certification. The Licensee shall not refuse immediate entry or access upon reasonable notice to any Affected Agency representative who requests entry for the purpose of the above noted inspections and presents appropriate credentials. I/IX. DESIGN STANDARDS The facility shall be constructed pursuant to the design standards presented in the application and any approved post-certification submittals, and shall be considered the minimum design standards for compliance. I/X. LIABILITY The Licensee shall hold and save the Affected Agencies harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance and/or use of any facility authorized by this Certification, to the extent allowed under Florida law. I/XI. PROPERTY RIGHTS The issuance of this certification does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to public or private property or any invasion of personal rights nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. I/XII. COMPLIANCE Compliance with Conditions The Licensee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the Licensee so as to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this certification. All discharges or emissions authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this certification. The discharge of any regulated pollutant not identified in the application, or more frequent than, or at a level in excess of that authorized herein, shall constitute a violation of the certification. An environmental control program shall be established under the supervision of a qualified Environmental Engineer/Specialist to assure that all construction activities conform to applicable environmental regulations and the applicable Conditions of Certification. If a violation of standards, harmful effects or irreversible environmental damage not anticipated by the application or the evidence presented at the certification hearing are detected during construction, the Licensee shall notify the DER Central District Office and Siting Coordination office, as required in I/XII.B. Any anticipated facility expansions beyond the certified initial nameplate capacity, production increases, or process modifications which may result in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants, change in type of fuel, or expansion in steam generation capacity shall be reported by submission of a modification petition pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. In the event of a malfunction of Unit 2's pollution control system, that the Licensee shall comply with 40 CFR 60.46a. Non-compliance Notification If, for any reason, the Licensee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any limitation specified in this certification, the Licensee shall notify the Central District office of the Department of Environmental Regulation by telephone within a working day that said noncompliance occurs and shall confirm this in writing within seventy-two (72) hours of becoming aware of such conditions, and shall supply the following information: A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; and The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying event. Adverse Impact The Licensee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact resulting from noncompliance with any limitation specified in this certification, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. I/XIII. POST-CERTIFICATION REVIEW Further information may be required by these conditions for site-specific or more detailed review and approval to determine compliance with the conditions of certification. Compliance determinations of the Department and other reviewing agencies are subject to review pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In order to provide adequate lead time for review, such information, as developed, must be submitted for post-certification review at least 120 days prior to the intended commencement date of construction or operation of the feature undergoing review. Notification of the submittal of the information, and any determinations made pursuant to these COC, shall be provided to the DER Siting Coordination Office for record-keeping purposes. Where such information is required, it shall be submitted to the agency(ies) named in the condition, which shall then have 30 days in which to determine the completeness (sufficiency) of the information. If a written request for additional information is not issued within the 30 day time period, the information will be presumed to be complete (sufficient). Once the information has been determined complete (sufficient), the agency(ies) shall have 90 days, unless another time period has been specified herein, in which to make the determination regarding compliance. I/XIV. COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION At least 30 days prior to the commencement of construction, the Licensee or Project Engineer shall notify the DER Siting Coordination Office, the DER Central District Office, and Affected Agencies of theconstruction start date. Quarterly construction status reports shall similarly be submitted by the Licensee beginning with the initial construction start date. The report shall be a short narrative describing the progress of construction. I/XV. COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION At least 30 days prior to the commencement of operation, the Licensee or Project Engineer shall notify the DER Siting Coordination Office and Affected Agencies of the operation start date. I/XVI. OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLANS Operating Procedures The Licensee shall develop and make available for viewing at the Stanton site by the DER operating instructions for all aspects of the operations which are critical to keeping the facility's pollution control equipment working properly and to keep the facility in compliance with air and water quality criteria. Contingency Plans The Licensee shall develop and make available for viewing at the Stanton site by the DER written contingency plans or procedures for the continued operation of the unit in event of pollution control equipment breakdown. Stoppages which compromise the integrity of the operations must have appropriate contingency plans. Such contingency plans shall identify critical spare parts to be readily available. Current Engineering Plans For all pollution control and monitoring systems, the Licensee shall maintain a complete current set of as installed engineering plans, equipment data books, catalogs and documents in order to facilitate the smooth acquisition or fabrication of spare parts or mechanical modifications. Application Modifications The Licensee shall furnish appropriate modifications to drawings and plot plans submitted as part of the application. I/XVII. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION This certification may be suspended or revoked for violations of any of its conditions pursuant to Section 403.512, Florida Statutes. I/XVIII. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY This certification does not relieve the Licensee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance with any conditions of this certification, applicable rules or regulations of the Department or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or regulations thereunder. Subject to Section 403.511, Florida Statutes, this certification shall not preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Licensee from any responsibilities or penalties established pursuant to any other applicable state statutes, or regulations. I/XIX. ENFORCEMENT The Department of Environmental Regulation, as supported by the applicable Affected Agency, may take any and all lawful actions to enforce any condition of this Certification. Any agency which deems enforcement to be necessary shall notify the Secretary of DER of the proposed actions. The agency may seek modification of this Certification for any change in any activity resulting from enforcement of this Certification which change will have a duration longer than 60 days. I/XX. FIVE YEAR REVIEW The certification shall be final unless revised, revoked, or suspended pursuant to law. At least every five years from the date of issuance of certification the Department shall review the project and these conditions of certification and propose any needed modifications. I/XXI. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS Pursuant to Subsection 403.516(1), F.S., the Board hereby delegates the authority to the Secretary to modify any condition of this certification not in conflict with Condition of Certification Part VII dealing with sampling, monitoring, reporting, specification of control equipment, related time schedules, emission limitations, variances or exceptions to water quality standards, transmission line, access road or pipeline construction, source of treated effluent cooling water, mitigation, transfer or assignment of the Certification or related federally delegated permits, or any special studies conducted, as necessary to attain the objectives of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. All other modifications to these conditions shall be made in accordance with Section 403.516, Florida Statutes. II/I. AIR Part II Conditions Recommended by the Department of Environmental Regulation The construction and operation of Unit 2 at Orlando Utilities Commission, Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center (CHSEC) steam electric power plant site shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-2, 17-4, and 17-5, Florida Administrative Code except for NOx, and SO2 which shall be governed by 40 CFR Part 60 regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In addition to the foregoing, the permittee shall comply with the following conditions of certification: A. Emissions Limitations The proposed steam generating station shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the capabilities and specifications of the application including the proposed 465 (gross) megawatt generating capacity and the 4286 MMBtu/hr heat input rate for each steam generator. Based on a maximum heat input of 4286 million Btu per hour, stack emissions from CHSEC Unit 2 shall not exceed the following when burning coal: SO2 - lb/million Btu heat input 30 - day rolling average 0.25 24 - hour emission rate 0.67 3 - hour emission rate 0.85 NOx - lb/million Btu heat input 30-day rolling average 0.17 PM/PM10 - lb/million Btu heat input lb/MBtu lb/hr PM 0.02 85.7 PM10 0.02 85.7 CO - 0.15 lb/million Btu heat input, 643 lb/hour. VOC - 0.015 lb/million Btu heat input, 64 lb/hour. H2SO4 - 0.033 lb/million Btu heat input 140 lb/hour. Be - 5.2 x 10-6 lb/million Btu heat input, 0.022 lb/hour. Hg - 1.1 x 10-5 lb/million Btu heat input, 0.046 lb/hour. Pb - 1.5 x 10-4 lbs/million Btu heat input, 0.64 lb/hour. Fluorides - 4.2 x 10-4 lb/million Btu heat input, 1.8 lb/hour. The height of the boiler exhaust stack for CHSEC Unit 2 shall not be less than 550 ft. above grade. Particulate emissions from the coal, lime and limestone handling facilities: All conveyors and conveyor transfer points will be enclosed to preclude PM emissions (except those directly associated with the coal stacker/reclaimer or emergency stockout, and the limestone stockout for which enclosure is operationally infeasible). Inactive coal storage piles will be shaped, compacted and oriented to minimize wind erosion. Water sprays or chemical wetting agents and stabilizers will be applied to storage piles, handling equipment, etc. during dry periods and as necessary to all facilities to maintain an opacity of less than or equal to 5 percent, except when adding, moving or removing coal from the coal pile, which would be allowed no more than 20%. Limestone day silos and associated transfer points will be maintained at negative pressures during filling operations with the exhaust vented to a control system. Lime will be handled with a totally enclosed pneumatic system. Exhaust from the lime silos during filling will be vented to a collector system. The fly ash handling system (including transfer and silo storage) will be totally enclosed and vented (including pneumatic system exhaust) through fabric filters; and Any additional coal, lime, and limestone handling facilities for Stanton Unit 2 will be equipped with particulate control systems equivalent to those for Stanton Unit 1 Particulate emissions from bag filter exhausts from the following facilities shall be limited to 0.02 gr/acf: coal, lime, limestone and flyash handling systems excluding those facilities covered by II/I.A.3.c above. A visible emission reading of 5% opacity or less may be used to establish compliance with this emission limit. A visible emission reading greater than 5% opacity will not create a presumption that the 0.02 gr/acf emission limit is being violated. However, a visible emission reading greater than 5% opacity will require the permittee to perform a stack test for particulate emissions, as set forth in Condition II/I.C. Compliance with opacity limits of the facilities listed in Condition II/I.A. will be determined by EPA referenced method 9 (Appendix A, 40 CFR 60). Construction shall reasonably conform to the plans and schedule given in the supplemental application. The permittee shall report any delays in construction and completion of the project which would delay commercial operation by more than 90 days to the DER Central District office in Orlando. Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate emissions during construction shall be to coat the roads and construction sites used by contractors, regrass or water areas of disturbed soils. Coal shall not be burned in the unit unless the electrostatic precipitator and limestone scrubber and other air pollution control devices are operating as designed except as provided under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The fuel oil to be fired in Stanton Unit 2 and the auxiliary boiler shall be "new oil" which means an oil which has been refined from crude oil and has not been used. On-site generated lubricating oil and used fuel oil which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 266.40 may also be burned. The quality of the No. 2 fuel oil used by the auxiliary boiler shall not contain more than 0.5% sulfur by weight and cause the allowable emission limits listed in the following table to be exceeded. Such emissions may be calculated in accordance with AP-42. Allowable Emission Limits Pollutant lb/MMBtu PM 0.015 S02 0.51 NOx 0.16 Visible emissions Maximum 20% Opacity The flue gas scrubber shall be put into service during normal operational startup, and shut down when No. 6 fuel oil is being burned. The No. 6 fuel oil shall not contain more than 1.5% sulfur by weight. No fraction of flue gas shall be allowed to bypass the FGD system to reheat the gases exiting from the FGD system, except that bypass shall be allowed during startup and shutdown. All fuel oil and coal shipments received shall have an analysis for sulfur content, ash content, and heating value either documented by the supplier or determined by analysis. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and recorded on a daily basis. Records of all the analysis shall be kept for public inspection for a minimum of two years after the data is recorded. Within 90 days of commencement of operations, the applicant will determine and submit to FDER the pH level range in the scrubber reaction tank that correlates with the specified limits for SO2 in the flue gas. Moreover, the applicant is required to operate a continuous pH meter equipped with an upset alarm to ensure that the operator becomes aware when the pH level of the scrubber reaction tank falls out of this range. The pH monitor can also act as a backup in the event of malfunction of the continuous SO2 monitor. The value of the scrubber pH may be revised at a later date provided notification to FDER is made demonstrating the emission limit is met. Further, if compliance data show that higher FGD performance is necessary to maintain the emission limit, a different pH value will be determined and maintained. The applicant will comply with all requirements andprovisions of the New Source Performance standard for electric utility steam generating units (40 CFR 60 Part Da). The Licensee shall submit to the Department at least 120 days prior to start of construction of the NOx control system, copies of technical data pertaining to the selected Nox control system. These data, if applicable to the technology chosen by the Licensee, should include but not be limited to design efficiency, guaranteed efficiency, emission rates, flow rates, reagent injection rates, or types of catalysts. The Department may, upon review of these data, disapprove the use of any such device or system if the Department determines the selected control device or system to be inadequate to meet the emission limits specified in l.b. above. Such disapproval shall be issued within 90 days of receipt of the technical data. B.Air Monitoring Program A flue gas oxygen meter shall be installed for Stanton Unit 2 to continuously monitor a representative sample of the flue gas. The oxygen monitor shall be used with automatic feedback or manual controls to continuously maintain air/fuel ratio parameters at an optimum. The flue gas manufacturing oxygen monitor shall be calibrated and operated according to established procedures as approved by DER. The document "Use of Flue Gas Oxygen Meter as BACT for Combustion Controls" may be used as a guide. The permittee shall install and operate continuous monitoring devices for Stanton Unit 2 main boiler exhaust for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and opacity. The monitoring devices shall meet the applicable requirements of Section 17-2.710, FAC., and 40 CFR 60.47a. The opacity monitor may be placed in the duct work between the electrostatic precipitator and the FGD scrubber. The permittee shall operate one continuous ambient monitoring device for sulfur dioxide in accordance with DER quality control procedures and EPA reference methods in 40 CFR, Part 53, and one ambient monitoring device for PM10, and one continuous NOx monitor. The monitoring devices shall be specifically located at a location approved by the Department. The frequency of operation of the particulate monitor shall be every six days commencing as specified by the Department. During construction and operation the existing meteorological station will be operated and data reported with the ambient data. The permittee shall maintain a daily log of the amounts and types of fuel used. The log shall be kept for inspection for at least two years after the data is recorded. Fuel analysis data including sulfur content, ash content, and heating values shall be determined on an as received basis and kept for two years. The permittee shall provide stack sampling facilities as required by Rule 17-2.700(4) F.A.C. The ambient monitoring program shall begin at least one year prior to initial start up of Unit 2 and shall continue for at least one year of commercial operation. The Department and the permittee shall review the results of the monitoring program annually and determine the necessity for the continuation of or modifications to the monitoring program. Stack Testing Within 60 calendar days after achieving the maximum capacity at which Unit 2 will be operated, but no later than 180 operating days after initial startup, the permittee shall conduct performance tests for particulates, SO2, NOx, and visible emissions during normal operations near (+ _ 10%) 4286 MMBtu/hr heat input and furnish the Department a written report of the results of such performance tests within 45 days of completion of the tests. The performance tests will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.46a and 48a. Compliance with emission limitation standards mentioned in specific Condition No. II/I.A. shall be demonstrated during the initial performance test using appropriate EPA Methods, as contained in 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources), or 40 CFR Part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), or any method as proposed by the Applicant and approved by the Department, in accordance with F.A.C. Rule 17- 2.700. EPA Method For Determination of Selection of sample site and velocity traverses. Stack gas flow rate when converting concentrations to or from mass emission limits. Gas analysis when needed for calculation of molecular weight or percent 02. Moisture content when converting stack velocity to dry volumetric flow rate for use in converting concentrations in dry gases to or from mass emission limits. Particulate matter concentration and mass emissions. 201 or 201A PM10 emissions. 6, 6C, or 19 Sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary sources. 7, 7C, or 19 Nitrogen oxide emissions from stationary sources. 9 Visible emission determination of opacity. At least three one hour runs to be conducted simultaneously with particulate testing for the emissions from dry scrubber/baghouse, and ash handling building baghouse. At least one lime truck unloading into the lime silo (from start to finish). 10 Carbon monoxide emissions from stationary sources. 12 or 101A Lead concentration from stationary sources. 13A or 13B Fluoride emissions from stationary sources. 18, 25, 25A Volatile organic compounds concentration. or 25B 101A or 108 Mercury emissions. 104 Beryllium emission rate and associated moisture content: The permittee shall provide 30 days written notice of the performance tests for continuous emission monitors or 10 working days written notice for stack tests in order to afford the Department the opportunity to have an observer present. Stack tests for particulates, NOx and SO2 and visible emissions shall be performed annually in accordance with Conditions C.2 and .3 above. Reporting For Stanton Unit 2, a summary in the EPA format of stack continuous monitoring data, fuel usage and fuel analysis data shall be reported to the Department's Central District Office and to the Orange County Environmental Protection Department on a quarterly basis commencing with the start of commercial operation in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 60, Section 60.7, and 60.49a and in accordance with Section 17-2.710(2), F.A.C. Utilizing the SAROAD or other format approved in writing by the Department, ambient air monitoring data shall be reported to the Bureau of Air Quality Management of the Department quarterly. Such reports shall be due within 45 days following the quarterly reporting period. Reporting and monitoring shall be in conformance with 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58. Beginning one month after certification, the permittee shall submit to the Department a quarterly status report briefly outlining progress made on engineering design and purchase of major pieces of air pollution control equipment. All reports and information required to be submitted under this condition shall be submitted to the Siting Coordination Office, Department of Environmental Regulation, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee Florida, 32301. Malfunction or Shutdown In the event of a prolonged (thirty days or more) equipment malfunction or shutdown of air pollution control equipment, operation may be allowed to resume or continue to take place under appropriate Department order, provided that the Licensee demonstrates such operation will be in compliance with all applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. During such malfunction or shutdown, the operation of Stanton Unit 2 shall comply with all other requirements of this certification and all applicable state and federal emission standards not affected by the malfunction or shutdown which is the subject of the Department's order. Exceedances produced by operational conditions for more than two hours due to upsets in air pollution control systems as a result of start-up, shutdown, or malfunctions as defined by 40 CFR 60 need not be reported as specified in Condition I/XII. Identified operational malfunctions which do not stop operation but prevent compliance with emission limitations shall be reported to DER as specified in Condition I/XII. Open Burning Open burning in connection with initial land clearing shall be in accordance with Chapter 17-256, F.A.C., Chapter 5I-2, F.A.C., Uniform Fire Code Section 33.101 Addendum, and any other applicable County regulation. Any burning of construction generated material, after initial land clearing that is allowed to be burned in accordance with Chapter 17-256, F.A.C., shall be approved by the DER Central District Office in conjunction with the Division of Forestry and any other County regulations that may apply. Burning shall not occur unless approved by the jurisdictional agency or if the Department or the Division of Forestry has issued a ban on burning due to fire safety conditions or due to air pollution conditions. Federal Annual Operating Permits and Fees DER Responsibilities The Department of Environmental Regulation shall implement the provisions of Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act for Stanton 2 developing Conditions of Certification requiring submission of annual operating permit information and annual pollutant emission fees in accordance with Federal Law and Federal regulations. OUC Responsibilities OUC shall submit the appropriate annual operating permit application information as well as the appropriate annual pollutant emission fees as required by Federal Law to the Department as specified in Condition 3. below. Annual Operating "Permit" Application and Fee (Reserved) II/II. WETLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The proposed transmission line from the Stanton Energy Center to the Mud Lake transmission line and the proposed alternate access road to the Stanton Energy Center from the south shall be routed as shown in the supplemental application. Prior to construction, the permittee shall submit drawings on 8.5" by 11" paper, showing the final design, including plan views and cross-sections for each area of filling or clearing in wetlands. The drawings shall show the existing and proposed ground elevations and all existing and proposed structure locations, sizes and invert elevations. All clearing and construction activities shall be confined to the limits of the clear zone necessary for the transmission line as shown on Figures 6.1-5 and 6.1-6 of the application drawings. Within 30 days of the completion of construction, the permittee shall arrange a site visit by DER District personnel from the Central District office in Orlando to verify that no wetland damage has occurred outside the transmission line clear zone. If wetland damage occurs outside the transmission line clear zone during construction, the permittee shall submit to the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management for review a plan to restore the wetland area which was damaged and to provide mitigation for the damage. The plan shall be implemented with 30 days of the Department approving the restoration and mitigation plan. This condition does not preclude the Department from taking enforcement action if unauthorized activities occur. Prior to initiating construction, the permittee shall submit a map and aerial photographs showing the location of all staging areas for the transmission line and alternate access road construction to the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management for review and written approval. These areas shall be upland areas which are not currently providing red-cockaded woodpecker nesting or foraging habitat. The staging areas shall not be used prior to receiving DER approval. Drainage structures shall be placed in the transmission line ROW and under the alternate access road at the same locations where drainage structures currently exist under the CSX Railroad berm. The drainage structures shall provide at least the same efficiency as the corresponding drainage structure currently existing in the CSX Railroad berm. The forested areas to be cleared shall be cleared using low-impact equipment so as to minimize soil disturbance. The rootmats and tree stumps shall be left in place to provide soil stabilization. During construction, best management practices, including but not limited to staked hay bales and filter cloth, shall be utilized to control erosion and turbidity. All side slopes shall be seeded and mulched within 72 hours of the final grading. Construction of the transmission line and alternate access road will result in the filling of 4.12 ac. of herbaceous wetlands the permanent clearing of 13.19 ac. of forested wetlands. The permittee shall provide mitigation to offset the wetland loss and habitat degradation resulting from the construction of this project. Prior to construction, the permittee shall propose a mitigation plan and shall provide the following information to the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management to allow the Department to review the proposed mitigation plan: detailed description of each wetland impact area; acreage of the type and quality of wetland being impacted at each site; narrative, drawings and aerial photographs showing and explaining the proposed mitigation; detailed description of the existing conditions at the mitigation area; acreage of the proposed mitigation by mitigation and wetland type; documentation providing reasonable assurance that the proposed mitigation will be successful. If the mitigation submittal is deemed by the Department to provide insufficient information for review, additional information requested by the Department shall be submitted. Upon receiving complete information, the Department will assess the mitigation plan within 90 days. If the Department, upon review of the proposed mitigation, determines that the proposed mitigation is inadequate to offset the wetland loss and habitat degradation from this project, the permittee shall propose additional mitigation. II/III. ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS The associated transmission line shall comply with the requirements of Ch. 17- 274, F.A.C. II/IV. OTHER For wastewater treatment, sanitary waste treatment, public water supply, surface water monitoring, and ground water monitoring see Unit 1's Conditions of Certification. For air and water monitoring programs, quality assurance plans shall be submitted by OUC within 90 days of certification. Such QA plans shall be submitted in conformance with Chapter 17-160, F.A.C. Part III Conditions Recommended by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission III/I. WILDLIFE SURVEY Prior to the construction of the proposed facility, a wildlife survey, consistent with methodology prescribed by the FGFWFC, shall be conducted for the presence of listed species (endangered, threatened, or species of special concern) and suitable habitat for same within the site. The results of said survey shall be submitted to the DER, the FGFWFC, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If construction of the proposed facility will impact any listed species, other than the previously identified impact on the foraging habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker resulting from the clearing of the transmission line right-of-way, the Permittee shall consult with the DER and the FGFWFC to determine the appropriate steps to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise appropriately address any adverse impacts within each agency's respective jurisdiction. III/II. NESTING SANDHILL CRANES Nesting sandhill cranes shall be avoided by limiting installation of transmission lines over wetlands utilized by nesting cranes to periods outside of the nesting season, which runs from January through June. III/III. MANAGEMENT PLAN Before construction, a management plan for the preserved areas shall be presented to the FGFWFC for review and approval. At a minimum, this plan shall include a statement of what habitat function the preserve is expected to provide; a schedule of fire management through a certified burn specialist and including, but not limited to, burn conditions, burn frequency, and measures taken to avoid spread of wildfire; measures taken to remove exotic vegetation from both wetlands and uplands; and the responsible entity. Part IV Conditions Recommended by the South Florida Water Management District IV/I. LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS These conditions also incorporate by reference the conditions contained in Part I, Administrative Conditions, of the Recommended Supplemental Conditions of Certification. GENERAL Compliance Requirements This project must be constructed, operated and maintained in compliance with and meet all non-procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40E-4 (Surface Water Management), F.A.C. Off-Site Impacts It is the responsibility of the Permittee to ensure based on information provided that adverse off-site water resource related impacts do not occur during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line and associated transmission line access roads within SFWMD. Post Certification Information Submittals Information submitted to the SFWMD subsequent to Certification, in compliance with the conditions of this Certification, shall be for the purpose of the SFWMD determining the Permittee's compliance with the Certification conditions and the non-procedural criteria contained in Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., as applicable, prior to the commencement of the subject construction, operation and/or maintenance activity covered thereunder. PROCESSING OF INFORMATIONAL REQUESTS Right-of-way Modifications At least ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line, the Permittee shall submit any proposed modifications to the transmission line right-of-way, identified on Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 (Figures 6.1-2, 6.1-3, and 6.1-4), to the SFWMD staff for review and approval. If the SFWMD staff does not issue a written request for additional information and/or an objection to the proposed right-of-waymodification within thirty (30) days, the modification shall be presumed to be complete and acceptable. Completeness and Review At least ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the linear facilities located in the SFWMD, the Permittee shall submit to SFWMD staff, for a completeness and sufficiency review, any pertinent additional information required under the SFWMD's Conditions of Certification for that portion proposed for construction. If SFWMD staff does not issue a written request for additional information within thirty (30) days, the information shall be presumed to be complete and sufficient. Compliance Review and Confirmation Within sixty (60) days of the determination by SFWMD staff that the submitted information is complete and sufficient, the SFWMD shall determine and notify the Permittee in writing whether the proposed activities conform to SFWMD criteria, as required by Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., and the Conditions of Certification. If necessary, the SFWMD shall identify what items remain to be addressed. No construction activities shall begin until the SFWMD has determined either in writing, or by failure to notify the Permittee in writing, that the activities are in compliance with the applicable SFWMD criteria. Revisions to Site Specific Design Authorizations The Permittee shall submit, consistent with the provisions of Condition IV/I.B, any proposed revisions to the site specific design authorizations specified in this Certification to the SFWMD for review and approval prior to implementation. The submittal shall include all the information necessary to support the proposed request, including detailed drawings, topographic maps, average wet season water table elevations, calculations and/or any other applicable data. Such requests may be included as part of the appropriate additional information submittals required by this Certification provided they are clearly identified as a requested modification to the previously authorized design. Dispute Resolution Since this Certification is the only form of permit required from any agency, it is understood that the Permittee and the SFWMD shall strive to resolve disputes by mutual agreement. Objections Objections to modifications of the terms and conditions of this Certification shall be resolved through the process established in Section 403.516, F.S. Changes to Information Requirements The SFWMD and the Permittee may jointly agree to vary the informational requirements. IV/II. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS Professional Engineer Certificate The operation of the surface water management system authorized under this certification shall not become effective until a Florida Registered Professional Engineer certifies, upon completion of each phase, that these facilities have been constructed in accordance with the design approved by the SFWMD. Within 30 days after completion of construction of the surface water management system, the Permittee or authorized agent shall submit the engineer's certification and notify the SFWMD Field Engineering Division that the facilities are ready for inspection and approval. Such notification shall include as-built drawings of the site which shall include elevations, locations, and dimensions of components of the surface water management system. Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Natural Environment Values and Water Quality The Permittee shall prosecute the work authorized under this Certification in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impacts of the authorized works on fish, wildlife, natural environment values, and water quality. The Permittee shall institute necessary measures during the construction period, including necessary compaction of any fill materials placed around newly installed structures and/or the use of silt screens, hay bales, seeding and mulching, and/or other similar techniques, to reduce erosion, turbidity, nutrient loading and sedimentation in the receiving waters. Correction of Water Quality Problems The Permittee shall be responsible for the correction of any sedimentation, turbidity, erosion, shoaling and/or maintenance of the works authorized under this Certification. Off-site Conveyances All off-site conveyances during construction and development of the transmission line and associated access roads shall be made only through the conveyance facilities authorized by this Certification. No roadway or structure pad construction shall commence on-site unless in conjunction with the construction of the permitted conveyance facilities and any associated detention areas. Water conveyed from the project shall be through facilities having a mechanism suitable for regulating upstream water stages. Stages may be subject to operating schedules satisfactory to the SFWMD. Additional Water Quality Requirements The Permittee may be required to incorporate additional water quality treatment methods into the surface water management system if such measures are shown to be necessary. Access Roads The Permittee shall, whenever available, utilize adjacent existing roads for access to the transmission line right of way for construction, operation and/or maintenance purposes. Finger roads connecting the existing roads to the structure pads and access roads which must be constructed in areas where an existing road is not available shall be constructed in a manner which does not impede natural drainage flows and minimizes impacts to on-site and adjacent wetlands. Correction of Drainage Problems The Permittee shall be responsible for the correction of any adverse on-site, upstream, and/or downstream drainage and/or wetland impacts which may occur as a result of the construction of the proposed access road and/or structure pads. These may include the placement and/or removal of culverts and/or other structures to remedy the impact. Modifications Subsequent modifications to the drawings and supporting calculation submitted to the SFWMD which may alter the quantity and/or quality of waters discharged off- site shall be made pursuant to Section 403.516, F.S., and Rule 17-17.211, F.A.C. They shall also be submitted to the SFWMD for a determination that the modifications are In compliance with the non-procedural requirements of Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-4, F.A.C., prior to the commencement of construction. SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN AUTHORIZATIONS Access/Maintenance Road and Structure Pads The Permittee is authorized to construct an access/maintenance road and associated conveyance facilities for the transmission line in the areas specifically identified on Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 (Figures 6.1-2, 6.1-3, and 6.1- 4). Areas where an access/maintenance road is not proposed will be accessed from existing roads. Authorized Receiving Water (Transmission Line Access Maintenance Roads only) Adjacent Wetlands ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Access/Maintenance Road and Structure Pad Construction Plans Prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line which affects the movement of waters, the Permittee shall submit plans for any construction activities for that portion of the transmission line which may obstruct, divert, control, impound or cross waters of the state, either temporarily or permanently, to the SFWMD, consistent with the provisions of Condition IV/I.B, for a determination of compliance with the non-procedural requirements of Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., in effect at the time of submittal. "Construction activities" in this situation shall include the placement of access/ maintenance roads, culverts, and/or fill materials, excavation activities, and any related activities. All plans, detail sheets and calculations shall be signed and sealed by a Florida Registered Professional Engineer. For all construction activities, the following information, referenced to NGVD, shall be submitted: A centerline profile of existing topographic features along the proposed access/maintenance road(s); A design of the proposed access/maintenance and finger road(s) with finished elevations marked; A typical cross-section of the proposed access/maintenance and finger road(s), including relative dimensions and elevations; A cross-section of each stream or creek at the point(s) to be crossed by the proposed access/maintenance and finger road, and/or other facility; Identification of wet season water table elevations for each basin in which facilities will be located; Specifications, including supporting assumptions and calculations, showing the type and size of water control structures (pipe, culvert, equalizer, etc.) to be used, with proposed flowline elevations marked, drainage areas identified, and design capacity verified; A cross-section of any proposed excavation areas showing the proposed depth of excavation; Calculations and supporting documentation which demonstrate that the proposed construction and/or excavation activities associated with the transmission line will not have an adverse water quantity and/or water quality impact on adjacent wetlands and/or permitted surface water management systems; If construction of the transmission line contributes to the necessity for future modifications to adjacent/existing roads, water quality treatment requirements of the requested road modifications must be addressed in the surface water management system design for the transmission line. IV/III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS GENERAL Wetland Avoidance The Permittee shall avoid impacting wetlands within the transmission line corridor wherever practicable. Where necessary and feasible, the location of the structure pads, other related facilities and/or the transmission line alignment shall be varied to eliminate or reduce wetland impacts. The Permittee shall work in accordance with the submitted plans in the supplemental site certification application as supplemented by final approved construction plans. Clearing and construction activities shall be confined to the limits of the clearing zone. Fill Materials No fill materials shall be obtained from excavated wetlands or within 200 feet of functional wetlands, unless in accordance with a mitigation plan submitted in compliance with the conditions of this Certification. Additional Wetlands Mitigation The Permittee may be required to provide additional mitigation and/or other measures if wetland monitoring and/or other information demonstrates that adverse impacts to protected, restored, incorporated, and/or mitigated wetlands have occurred as a result of project-related activities. Additional Environmental Review The Permittee shall submit any proposed changes in land use, project design, and/or the treatment of on-site wetlands to the SFWMD for additional environmental review in order to determine whether any additional mitigation activities will be required. Mitigation Areas Mitigation credits shall be given for mitigation areas within both the SFWMD and the SJRWMD. Mitigation credits shall be given for acreages and activities which have also been accepted by the DER as mitigation for impacts in areas of joint jurisdiction. Any acreages or activities proposed by the mitigation plan and its addendum which exceed the mitigation requirements of the SJRWMD, and meet the non- procedural requirements for wetland mitigation of the SFWMD, shall be credited as mitigation for impacts within the SFWMD. If required by SFWMD, OUC agrees to provide additional acreages and activities to offset impacts within SFWMD not credited by the Mitigation Plan (June 1991) and its addendum (Sept 1991). SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN AUTHORIZATIONS Authorized Wetland Impacts The Permittee is authorized to construct an access/maintenance road and associated conveyance facilities for the transmission line and structure pads in the wetland areas specifically identified on Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 (Figures 6.1- 2, 6.1-3, and 6.1-4). Sandhill Crane Nest Protection The Permittee shall protect the active sandhill crane nest located in the 0.58 acre marsh situated between stations 125 and 126 in accordance with the following requirements: The transmission line poles and structure pads shall be positioned so that the transmission line spans the marsh; Construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season for sandhill cranes; The marsh shall not be disturbed in any way; The access road shall be located in the swale adjacent to the railroad rather than in the marsh. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Wetlands Protection Prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line which will be located adjacent to the wetlands identified for preservation, the Permittee shall: Stake and rope off the protected wetlands and buffer zones to prevent encroachment during construction. The stakes and ropes shall remain in place until all adjacent construction activities have been completed. Verification of staked areas by SFWMD staff shall be required prior to the commencement of and upon completion of any construction activities. Install silt screens, turbidity barriers and/or hay bales prior to any construction in or alteration of any wetlands within the project site in order to prevent adverse water quality impacts to wetlands. These barriers shall remain in place until fill material is stabilized and turbidity has returned to background levels. Mitigation Plan Prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the transmission line which may affect wetlands, the Permittee shall submit a mitigation and monitoring plan to the SFWMD for a determination of compliance with the non- procedural requirements of Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., including Appendix 7 (Isolated Wetlands Rule) of the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications in the SFWMD, in effect at the time of submittal. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following information: Locations and sizes of all proposed mitigation areas, species to be planted, planting densities, details of the proposed hydrologic regime, cross- sections showing the proposed elevations and water depths, and an estimated time schedule for completion of the construction of the mitigation areas. A wetland mitigation and/or restoration work schedule which details each specific mitigation task (e.g. grading to proper elevation, mulching, planting, regularly scheduled maintenance and monitoring, etc.) and the calendar dates for the start and completion of each task. Provisions for both quantitative and qualitative observations of wildlife utilization and the vegetative community, monthly water level readings, panoramic photographs documenting the condition of the mitigation areas, and evaluation of the success of the mitigation effort, and an annual report incorporating this information and any other relevant information. The water level readings will be taken weekly for sampling points that are accessable until demonstrated to the appropriate agency that less frequent water level readings are sufficient to demonstrate compliance. Documentation that sufficient areas have appropriately worded conditions of certification within the SFWMD and/or the SJRWMD to compensate for the proposed wetland impacts with both the water management districts. Part V Conditions Recommended by the St. Johns River Water Management District V/I. WATER SHORTAGES Nothing in this certification shall be construed to limit the authority of the SJRWMD to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statues or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 403.516, Florida Statutes, in the event of a water shortage as declared by the SJRWMD, DER may seek a modification of the terms and conditions of this certification to implement the water shortage declaration. V/II. WELL CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR ABANDONMENT Prior to the construction, modification, or abandonment of a well, OUC, et al., must obtain approval from the SJRWMD and meet the requirements of Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code. V/III. WELL MAINTENANCE Leaking or inoperative well casings, valves, or controls must be repaired or replaced as required to put the system back in an operative condition acceptable to the SJRWMD. Failure to make such repairs will be cause for deeming the well abandoned in accordance with Subsection 17-532.200(1), Florida Administrative Code and Section 373.309, Florida Statutes. V/IV. MITIGATION OF WITHDRAWAL IMPACTS ON EXISTING LEGAL USERS OUC, et al., must mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted herein on legal uses of water existing at the time of the Supplemental Site Certification Application for Stanton 2. If unanticipated significant adverse impacts occur, the DER has the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates or water allocations unless the impacts can be mitigated by OUC, et al. Adverse impacts are exemplified by, but not limited to: Reduction of well water levels resulting in a reduction of 10% in the ability of an adjacent well (other than one owned by OUC) to produce water; Reduction of water levels in an adjacent surface water body resulting in a significant impairment of the use of water (other than a use by OUC) in that water body; Saline water intrusion or introduction of pollutants into the water supply of an adjacent water use (other than a use by OUC) resulting in a significant reduction of water quality; or Change in water quality resulting in either impairment or loss of use of a well or water body (other than a use by OUC). V/V. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES OUC, et al., must mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted herein on an adjacent land use which existed at the time of Supplemental Site Certification Application for Stanton 2. If unanticipated significant adverse impacts occur, the DER has the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates or water allocations unless the impacts can be mitigated by OUC, et al. Adverse impacts are exemplified by, but not limited to: Significant reduction in water levels in an adjacent surface water body; Land collapse or subsidence off-site caused by a reduction in water levels; or Damage to crops and other types of off-site vegetation. V/VI. IDENTIFICATION TAGS A SJRWMD-issued identification tag must be prominently displayed at each withdrawal site by permanently affixing such tag to the pump, headgate, valve or other withdrawal facility as provided by Section 40C-2.401, Florida Administrative Code. OUC, et al., must notify the SJRWMD in the event that a replacement tag is needed. V/VII. MAXIMUM ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS Maximum annual withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer must not exceed 321.20 million gallons. V/VIII. MAXIMUM DAILY WITHDRAWALS Maximum daily withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer must not exceed 2.00 million gallons. V/IX. LIMITATION ON USE OF WATER Withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer wells must not be used directly for cooling tower make-up water. Reclaimed wastewater in an allocated amount of 10.19 million gallons/day on an annual average basis from the Orange County Easterly Wastewater Treatment Facility, stormwater runoff, on-site reuse water and direct precipitation shall be the source of cooling tower make-up water. V/X. DEWATERING All withdrawals from the surficial aquifer for dewatering to facilitate construction must be retained on-site within the recycle basin or the make-up water supply pond (#20 and #22, respectively, OUC, et al.'s Figure 3.2-1). V/XI. OFF-SITE DISCHARGES No off-site discharges are approved from this facility, except as provided for by the overflow structure in the make-up water supply pond (#20, OUC, et al.'s Figure 3.2-1), and the natural drainage patterns indicated on SCA Figure 3.10-1 for the duration of this certification. V/XII. DISCHARGES FROM MAKE-UP WATER SUPPLY POND All off-site discharges, as provided for by the overflow structure in the make- up water supply pond (#20, OUC, et al.'s Figure 3.2-1), must be in compliance with water quality standards as set forth in Chapters 17-4, and 17-302, F.A.C., or such standards as issued through a variance by DER. V/XIII. WELL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING Water quality samples must be taken in April and October of each year from each production well. The samples must be analyzed for the following parameters: Calcium Chloride Magnesium Sulfate Sodium Carbonate Potassium Bi-Carbonate (or alkalinity if pH is 6.9 or lower) All major ion analyses must be checked for anion-cation balance and must balance within 5% prior to submission. It is recommended that duplicates be taken to allow for laboratory problems or loss. The sample analyses must be submitted to the SJRWMD by May 15 and November 15 of each year. Prior to sample collection, a minimum of 3-5 casing volumes must be removed from each well. All sampling and water quality analyses shall be performed by organizations with approved comprehensive or generic quality assurance plans on file with the DER or a laboratory having HRS certification. V/XIV. WATER TREATMENT PLANT REPORTS By January 31 of each year, OUC, et al., must submit to the SJRWMD copies of the previous year (12 months) DER monthly water treatment plant operating report data showing total flow from the 2 Floridan wells going to the potable water treatment plant on-site. The project name and certification number must be attached to all reports. V/XV. WELL WATER FLOW MONITORING OUC, et al., must maintain the continuous recorder on the Floridan aquifer monitor well. Copies of the previous year (12 months) recorder charts must be forwarded to the SJRWMD on a yearly basis. The charts must be submitted by January 31 of each year. V/XVI. CONSERVATION PLAN OUC, et al., must implement the conservation plan submitted to the SJRWMD in accordance with the schedule contained therein. V/XVII. WELL WATER FLOW METERS All Floridan aquifer production wells must be equipped with totalizing flow meters throughout the duration of this certification. Such meters must maintain a 95% accuracy, be verifiable and be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. V/XVIII. CALIBRATION OF FLOW METERS OUC, et al., must have all flow meter(s) calibrated once every 3 years within 30 days of the anniversary date of certification issuance, and recalibrated if the difference between the actual flow and the meter reading is greater than 5%. SJRWMD form EN-51 must be submitted to the SJRWMD within 10 days of the inspection/calibration. V/XIX. MAINTENANCE OF FLOW METERS OUC, et al., must maintain the required flow meter(s). In case of failure or breakdown of any meter, the SJRWMD must be notified in writing within 5 days of its discovery. A defective meter must be repaired or replaced within 30 days of its discovery. V/XX. DELINEATION OF LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION Prior to construction, OUC, et al., must clearly delineate the limits of construction on-site. OUC, et al., must advise the contractor that any work within the Riparian Habitat Regulation Zone outside the limits of construction, including clearing, is a violation of this certification order. V/XXI. BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT PLAN Prior to commencement of construction, a Background Assessment Plan of the areas to be enhanced or mitigated must be submitted to the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD for review and joint approval. Data obtained through the Background Assessment Plan must include the following: (a) site specific topographic survey information referenced to NGVD; (b) survey of historic and existing ordinary high, normal or chronic pool water elevations referenced to NGVD based upon biological/physical wetland indicators; (c) a narrative describing the species composition, health and extent of pre-enhanced areas; and (d) quantitative information regarding the species composition including coverage and composition of understory, midcanopy and canopy species. V/XXII. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT The background assessment must be completed pursuant to the approved Background Assessment plan prior to construction. V/XXIII. INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF ENHANCEMENT MITIGATION PLAN Following completion of the background assessment, and prior to the commencement of construction associated with the transmission line or the access roads, planting and construction associated with the approved Enhancement Mitigation Plan must be initiated, and then must be completed within 12 months after initiation. V/XXIV. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS OF ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION Following completion of the background assessment, before any planting in the mitigation and enhancement areas, OUC, et al., must submit for the joint approval of SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD a plan setting forth appropriate criteria for determining success of all wetland and upland enhancement and mitigation areas. OUC, et al., shall implement and maintain the mitigation and enhancement areas to ensure that the success criteria are achieved. V/XXV. MONITORING PLAN FOR ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION Within 30 days of completion of the initial planting, OUC, et al., must submit to the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD for review and joint approval, two copies of a monitoring plan detailing the site specific methods to be used for monitoring the enhancement and mitigation areas, so that the achievement of the success criteria can be quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrated. The monitoring plan must include the location, size and number of monitoring quadrants or transect lines, the location and number of photographic stations, the location of the wetland(s) to be enhanced and mitigated, the location of staff gauges and/or piezometers, and other pertinent factors. OUC, et al., shall monitor the enhancement and mitigation areas until the approved success criteria has been achieved. V/XXVI. SURVEY OF ENHANCEMENT AREAS OUC, et al., must submit to the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD two (2) copies of an as- built survey of the enhancement areas certified by a registered surveyor or professional engineer showing dimensions of all planted areas, invert(s) elevation of the proposed culvert in enhancement area 3.6(A), and the final grade of all plugged ditches. An inventory of the planted species within the wetland enhancement areas will be shown on the survey. In areas where planting occurs, the inventory must include the type, number, distribution, and size of the planted vegetation, and must be referenced to the as-built survey. The as- built survey must be submitted to the referenced agency parties within thirty (30) days of completion of the initial planting. V/XXVII. MONITORING REPORTS FOR THE ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION AREAS Following joint approval of the plan referenced in Condition No. 26, OUC, et al., must furnish the SJRWMD, DER, and SFWMD with two copies of all Monitoring Reports for the enhancement and mitigation areas describing the status of the mitigation and enhancement areas until the enhancement and mitigation areas achieve the success criteria. V/XXVIII. REVISIONS TO ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION If it is determined that successful enhancement is not occurring based on the monitoring reports or trends, OUC, et al., must, within 30 days, provide the SJRWMD, DER and SFWMD with a narrative describing the type and causes of failure with a complete set of plans for the redesign and/or replacement planting of the mitigation and enhancement areas demonstrating that the success criteria can be achieved. Within 30 days of joint agency approval of the amended plans, OUC, et al., must implement the redesign and/or replacement planting. Following completion of such work, the success criteria as stated above or as modified by subsequent approval of the plan must again be achieved. In addition, the monitoring required by the conditions of this permit must be conducted. V/XXIX. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING CONSTRUTION OUC, et al., must select, implement, and operate all erosion and sediment control measures required to retain sediment on-site and to prevent violations of water quality standards as specified in Chapters 17-302 and 17-4, F.A.C. OUC, et al., is encouraged to use appropriate Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control as described in the "Florida Land Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management" (DER, 1988). All erosion and sediment control measures must remain in place at all locations until construction is completed and the soils are stabilized. Thereafter, OUC, et al., will be responsible for the removal of the control measures (except for the control measures in the areas of fill for the unpaved access road which shall be permanent). V/XXX. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING OPERATION Following the completion of construction, OUC, et al., must construct and maintain a permanent protective vegetative and/or artificial cover for erosion and sediment control on all land surfaces exposed or disturbed by construction or alteration of the certified project. A permanent vegetative cover must be established within 60 days after planting or installation. V/XXXI. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION PLAN The proposed mitigation plan submitted to SJRWMD by OUC for the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, Unit 2, dated June 21, 1991, July 20, 1991, September 11, 1991, September 18, 1991, and September 19, 1991 is incorporated as a condition of this certification except where specifically superseded by certification conditions. V/XXXII. COMPLETION OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Construction or alteration of the surface water management system must be completed and all disturbed areas must be stabilized in accordance with the submitted plans and certification conditions prior to use of the infrastructure for its intended purpose. V/XXXIII. RETENTION/DETENTION STORAGE AREAS At a minimum, all retention/detention storage areas must be constructed to rough grade prior to the placement of impervious surface within the area to be served by those facilities. To prevent reduction in storage volume and percolation rates, all accumulated sediment must be removed from the storage areas prior to final grading and stabilization. V/XXXIV. ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION PLANS Final Access Road and Transmission Line construction plans must be submitted to the SJRWMD at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction. The final plans must be consistent with the plans and calculations received by the SJRWMD on July 22, 1991, such that the requirements of Chapters 40C-4, 40C-41 and 40C- 42, F.A.C. continue to be met. V/XXXV. ACCESS ROAD FILL The fill material for the access roads must satisfy the soil properties assumed in the calculations received by the SJRWMD on July 22, 1991. If fill is to be acquired on site, a plan depicting the location of the area to be used for fill for the Access Roads must be submitted to the SJRWMD at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction. Access to the on-site fill material must be shown on the plan. V/XXXVI. CONTRACTOR REVIEW AND POSTING OF CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION OUC, et al., must require the contractor to review and maintain a copy of this document, complete with all conditions, attachments, and exhibits, in good condition and posted on the construction site. Part VI Conditions Recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation VI/I. CONSTRUCTION IMPACT MITIGATION PROGRAM OUC shall develop and implement at its own expense a construction traffic impact mitigation program after consultation with DOT, and report that will be submitted to DOT prior to commencement of construction of Stanton Unit 2. The program will detail the actions that OUC will take to reduce the impacts of construction traffic, which report shall address the following actions: OUC shall actively promote and encourage car-pooling by construction companies and workers, including contractors and subcontractors, from whom it obtains construction services, and OUC shall further explore with appropriate public mass-transportation providers in the area the possibility of park-and- ride service to the site. OUC shall utilize to the extent practicable the existing railway access to the Stanton site for the delivery of equipment and materials needed for the project construction. OUC will explore with its contractors and subcontractors the practicability of staggering construction employee work schedules, and encourage the staggering of shifts to the extent feasible to mitigate peak hour traffic congestion problems. OUC will consult with the appropriate Winter Park DOT personnel regarding the practicality of providing temporary traffic control devices and alteration of signal times to assist in maintaining proper traffic flow at the most affected intersections which are the intersections of Alafaya Trail with both the East-West Expressway and State Road 50. OUC shall suggest and encourage the use by construction personnel of alternate public road access to the Stanton site as appropriate to alleviate traffic congestion. Part VII Conditions Stipulated for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Management Area VII/I. RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT AREA IDENTIFICATION All lands depicted on Figure 4.2 (attached hereto) of the August 1981 red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW) Management Plan, except for the area specifically identified as "construction impact of proposed generating Units 1, 2, 3, and 4" constitute the red-cockaded woodpecker management area subject to the Management Plan specified in Condition XXXI of the Site Certification granted OUC by the Siting Board on December 14, 1982. (DOAH Case No. 81-1431) VII/II. USE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RCW AREA With regard to the RCW management area, in addition to Condition XXXI of the December 14, 1982 Order of the Florida Siting Board: OUC may conduct activities within the RCW management area described in Condition XXXI which are provided for in the Siting Board's certification orders for Units 1 and 2, including without limitation the execution of habitat restoration, enhancement, and creation required as mitigation. OUC may conduct management, including maintenance in their existing configuration and condition, of existing unpaved private roads utilized by OUC, maintenance of existing water and sewer lines, of existing transmission lines and substation, and other maintenance and management activities within the area of Condition XXXI which are consistent with its purposes. OUC shall take appropriate action to manage the RCW management area to achieve the purposes required by Condition No. XXXI with regard to the red- cockaded woodpecker, and in general to preserve the natural conditions of the area, including other protected species of native wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and particularly the tributaries and headwaters of the Econlockhatchee River. OUC may act to implement the red-cockaded woodpecker management plan, to monitor its effectiveness, and to react to fire, flood, or other unforeseeable natural or manmade disturbances. Any reports generated by OUC concerning activities within or management of the RCW management area shall be provided to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. OUC shall allow only those activities of others within the RCW Management Area which are consistent with its management in a natural state. Such activities shall be limited to environmentalrestoration, scientific research, habitat management (such as controlled burning) and nature study. Unless specifically authorized by an order of the Siting Board, dredging, filling, construction of buildings, road-ways, dumping of debris, excavation, and clearing of native vegetation shall be prohibited in the area defined by Condition XXXI. The provisions of Sections 403.516(1) (a) and (b) notwithstanding, OUC agrees that any activity prohibited in this paragraph within the area described in the RCW management area shall be authorized only by affirmative vote of the Siting Board. OUC hereby stipulates as a factual matter, which shall be binding on it, and all of its officers, agents, attorneys, and employees, that the "alternate access road" authorized by this supplemental certification completes the necessary roadway access for Units 1 and 2, to allow the full development thereof. Any additional access for electric power generation, and any additional facilities necessary for the construction of Units 3 and 4 will be the subject of a comprehensive Supplemental Certification application or applications for Units 3 and 4. If OUC determines to pursue a modification of its certification with regard to the easement recorded December 30, 1987, at ORB 3946, Page 3187, Orange County, Florida, it shall do so as a ministerial act only and shall not actively utilize its resources, funds or personnel to support such an application. [Final page of conditions of certification is a map "areas of construction impacts of red-cockaded woodpeckers" which is attached to all hard copies of this order.] APPENDIX B TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1813EPP The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Applicants, OUC, et al. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(4); 6(1); 8(2); 9(3); 10(7); 14(8); 15(9); 20-22(10-12); 24-28(13-17); 40-61(18-40); 70-82(41-53); 84- 86(54-56); 89(57); 90(58); 97-100(60-63); 109(59); 110(64); 112(70); 115-117(71- 73); 120(83&84); 121 & 122(85); 123(86); 124(87-91); 125(92);136-148(93-105); 149(108); 151(111); 191-201(114-124); 203 & 204(125 & 126); 206-209(127-130); 212(131); and 215-223(132-140). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 16-19, 23, 29-33, 38, 39, 62-69, 83, 101-108, 111, 113, 114, 118, 119, 127, 128, 150, 152, 202, 205, 210, and 211 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 7, 13, 87, 88, 91-96, 126, 129-135, 153-190, 213, and 214 are unnecessary. 4. Proposed findings of fact 34-37 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Department of Environmental Regulation 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-104(1-104) and 105- 127(114-136). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by St. Johns River Water Management District 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(4); 4-6(1-3); 9(8); 10- 13(10-13); 23(93); 34-36(93-95); 39(98); 41-44(99); 47(100); 49(102); 52(104); 53-55(105-107); 56(109); 58(109); 67-72(41-46); 73-84(46-52); 86(55); 87(39 & 40); 88(125); 90(128); and 91(40). 2. Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 7, 8, 14-22, 24-33, 37, 38, 40, 46, 48, 50, 51, 62, 63, 85, and 92 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 57 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 45, 59-61, 64, 65, and 93 are irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 66 is unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Donelan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Thomas B. Tart, General Counsel Orlando Utilities Commission 500 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Kenza Van Assenderp, Attorney at Law C. Laurence Keesey, Attorney at Law Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Benton P. O. Box 1833 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1833 Fred Bryant, Attorney at Law Moore, Williams, Bryant & Peoples 306 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32302 James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Ken Plante, General Counsel Florida Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Kathryn Mennella Senior Assistant General Counsel St. Johns River Water Management District P. O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 G. Stephen Pfeiffer, General Counsel Kathryn Funchess, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Cliff Guillet East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 Winter Park, FL 32789 Tom Wilks, Attorney at Law Orange County 201 South Rosalind Avenue 6th floor Orlando, FL 32801 John Fumero, Attorney at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Michael Palecki Bureau Chief, Electric and Gas Division of Legal Services Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Room 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Hamilton S. Oven, P.E., Administrator Siting Coordination Office Division of Air Resources Management Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 460 Highway 435, Ste. 200 Casselberry, FL 32707 William H. Roberts Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
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.
Findings Of Fact Unit No. 2 is certified to be a nuclear facility situated on 300 acres of a 1132 acre site previously cleared and filled on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The site is presently occupied by Unit No. 1, also a nuclear facility. Hutchinson Island is a typical but highly developed coastal barrier island of the Florida Atlantic Coast. The site prior to development was predominantly flat and water covered, with dense vegetation typical of coastal mangrove swamp. On the Eastern side of the island, the land rises slightly in a dune to approximately 15 feet above mean low water. The cooling system for Unit No. 2 is essentially the same as that for Unit No. 1. It is proposed that the existing intake and discharge canals, present on the 300 acre tract for Unit No. 1, will be utilized by Unit No. 2. As originally planned and presently certified, the discharge structure for cooling water from Unit No. 2 consists of an open discharge canal, excavated to elevation - 17 feet. This canal is 28 feet wide at the bottom, with a slope of to 3. The open discharge canal extends from the plant approximately 2200 feet to a point 400 feet west of the existing shoreline. From there, a 12 foot diameter concrete conduit, for each unit, is buried beneath the ground and carries the discharged water under the beach and ocean floor out to the ocean discharge structures. The conduit for Unit No. 2 will extend approximately 2800 feet from the shoreline. The Unit No. 2 ocean discharge structure consists of a multiport diffuser containing 48 ports. Each port will be 1.5 feet in diameter, spaced 22.5 feet between centers and oriented to discharge horizontally. The jets will be mounted in an alternating manner on either side of a 1,060 foot manifold. Ocean depth at the discharge point will be approximately - 35 to - 40 feet mean low water. Exit velocity of the discharged water from each port will be approximately 13 feet per second. The effects on the environment which would occur from construction of the discharge conduit with the multi-port diffuser originally planned for Unit No. 2 were thoroughly studied and were the subject of extensive testimony at the 1975 certification hearing. Paragraphs 11, 44, 46, 50, 53, 54, 55 and 64 of the Findings of Fact contained in the October 8, 1975 Recommended Order, discuss and summarize the studies and testimony. On January 11, 1980, Florida Power & Light Company filed and served on all parties a "Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification" pursuant to Section 403.516(3), Florida Statutes. The petition requests a modification to the certification previously issued to reflect proposed design modifications to the cooling water discharge system which are necessary to account for design head losses resulting from the final multi-port diffuser design and to allow a margin for greater than anticipated marine fouling effects. The petition filed by Florida Power & Light Company seeks to modify the original design from that described in paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order entered October 8, 1975 by widening the distance which the open discharge canal extends along the shoreline, increasing the size and length of the conduit, and increasing the number of ports in the diffuser. On January 28, 1980, pursuant to Sections 120.57 and 403.615(3), Florida Statutes, and proper notice published in the local newspapers and served on all parties, a formal hearing was held at the St. Lucie County Library, 124 North Indian River Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. At the hearing, Florida Power & Light Company presented three (3) witnesses who testified in support of the Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification. These witnesses, Clifford Kent, James O'Hara, and J. Ross Wilcox, described the need for, and the effects of the proposed modifications. Their testimony demonstrated that the proposed modification will result in improved availability of St. Lucie Unit No. 2, and will not result in a significant environmental impact or effect to the public that was not previously considered in the certification proceedings. Florida Power & Light Company also introduced into the record documentary evidence reflecting that it has applied for and been granted the following permits and approvals for this project: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Permit No. 79K-1019 issued January 7, 1980, and State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Department of Natural Resources) Easement No. 25624 (2670-56)A, St. Lucie County, approved January 8, 1980. The testimony and evidence were not opposed or contradicted by testimony or evidence of any other party. At the hearing on the petition to modify, the Department of Environmental Regulation presented evidence indicating that the effects anticipated from construction of the modified discharge system would increase turbidity in the ocean during construction in the immediate area of the excavation. Adequate control structures are to be used however. The construction of the canal extension would remove approximately two acres of impounded mangrove habitat. To mitigate this loss, Florida power & Light Company proposes to breach the dike on the northern mangrove area to allow approximately 50 acres of mangrove to function more normally with the Indian River estuary. The environmental effects from operation of the revised Unit No. discharge system will be approximately the same as the original proposal. The Department of Environmental Regulation has recommended that the proposed modification be certified subject to the following additional conditions: That the dike around the mangrove area north of the discharge canal be opened up to Big Mud Creek by breaching the dike in three (3) places. Each breach in the dike shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') wide at the bottom and the bottom elevation of the breach shall not be higher than one foot below mean sea level (- 1 MSL) or deeper than - 3 MSL. That the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores be allowed to inspect the dune once restored. Florida Power and Light Company has agreed to the imposition of the proposed conditions. The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County has stated that its experts have concluded that the anticipated effects on the environment from the proposed modification will not be dramatically different from those which have previously occurred. Accordingly, the Alliance does not oppose this petition to modify.
