The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are: whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve the application of Progress Energy Florida (PEF) to certify and license the construction and operation of a 2200 megawatt (MW) (nominal) nuclear electrical generating facility and associated facilities, including electrical transmission lines; and, if so, what conditions of certification should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Background Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), provides electricity and related services to approximately 1.7 million customers in the state of Florida. PEF's retail service area spans 35 counties over about 20,000 square miles in central and west Florida. In Florida, PEF operates and maintains more than 43,600 miles of distribution and transmission lines that serve a population of more than 5 million people. PEF owns and operates a diverse mix of electrical generating units in Florida, including approximately 47 combustion turbines, 5 combined cycle units, 12 fossil units, and one nuclear unit at PEF's Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC). The CREC is located in northwest Citrus County approximately four miles west of U.S. Highway 19 on the Gulf of Mexico. There are five generating facilities within the CREC; four units are coal-fired and one is a nuclear unit. PEF considered locating new nuclear generating capacity at the CREC, but determined that would concentrate too much electrical generation at one site. PEF proposes to build and operate a two-unit nuclear- powered electrical generating facility in Levy County (LNP). Directly associated facilities include a heavy haul road used for construction (Levy County), two site access roads (Levy County), and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines (Levy and Citrus Counties). PEF also seeks certification of nine transmission corridors associated with eleven electrical transmission lines: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed LNP to proposed Citrus Substation, two 500-kV Transmission Lines (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LPC" Lines; Crystal River Transmission Line — proposed LND to existing CREC Switchyard, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LCR" Line; Sumter Transmission Line — proposed LNP to proposed Central Florida South Substation, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter and Lake Counties and Municipalities of Wildwood and Leesburg), also referred to as the "LCFS" Line; Levy North Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-High Springs Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County), also referred to as the "IS" Line; Levy South Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-Ocala Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County and Town of Inglis), also referred to as the "IO" Line; Brookridge Transmission Line — existing CREC Switchyard to existing Brookridge Substation, one 230 kV Transmission Line (Citrus and Hernando Counties), also referred to as the "CB" Line; Brooksville West Transmission Line — existing Brookridge Substation to existing Brooksville West Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Hernando County), also referred to as the "BBW" Line; Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed Citrus Substation to existing Crystal River East Substation, two 230-kV Transmission Lines (Citrus County), also referred to as the "CCRE" Lines; and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line — existing Kathleen Substation to existing Lake Tarpon Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Polk, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and municipalities of Tampa, Plant City and Oldsmar), also referred to as the "Kathleen" Line. Need for the Project The PSC issued its Final Order determining the need for the Project on August 12, 2008. The PSC found: "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for fuel diversity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for base-load generating capacity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost"; "[t]here are no renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to PEF which might mitigate the need for Levy Units 1 and 2"; and "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide the most cost-effective source of power." The PSC also found a need for the associated transmission lines. New transmission lines are required to interconnect and integrate the proposed plant into PEF's existing transmission grid and to reliably deliver bulk power to PEF's load centers. Load flow studies were conducted by PEF system planners to identify the appropriate transmission end- points and voltages. The proposed transmission lines in PEF's proposed corridors satisfy the need for transmission lines as determined by the PSC. Public Notice and Outreach PEF has engaged in extensive public outreach for the selection of the LNP site and for the transmission line corridors. With regard to the plant portion of the Project, PEF's outreach efforts have included communications with local community leaders, press releases, communications with state and federal legislators, dissemination of information to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the plant via mailings and open houses, and participation in community and advisory groups. With regard to the electrical transmission line portion of the Project, public involvement has been key to the corridor selection process. PEF developed a Community Partnership for Energy Planning (CPEP) process to gain feedback from members of the community in a manner that would most effectively involve the community in the transmission line corridor selection process. Through the CPEP process, PEF established leadership teams in three geographic regions: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Polk Counties; Citrus, Hernando, and Levy Counties; and Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The leadership teams identified and selected more than 100 community representatives to participate in regional Utility Search Conferences. The Utility Search Conferences involved intensive two-day discussions of local issues and the future of electricity supply in the region. The purpose of the conferences was to inform the participants about the Project, to gain public input, and to allow participants to nominate community members to become part of the Community Working Groups for the remainder of the Project. PEF formed the Community Working Groups to further study and refine the recommendations of the conferences as well as to provide ongoing input to PEF throughout the Project. PEF also held open houses in February and March 2008 to involve the public in the transmission line corridor selection process. PEF used newspaper advertisements, press releases, and direct mail letters to facilitate public awareness of the open houses. Over 2,900 people attended the open houses, and PEF received completed written questionnaires from 2,071 attendees. The goal of PEF's public outreach program (with regard to both the plant and transmission lines) was to provide information in a transparent manner to the public and to provide ample opportunity and many avenues for the public to provide input during all phases of the Project. In total, PEF has conducted over 40 public presentations and sent communications to more than 125,000 property owners and stakeholders regarding the Project. Many of PEF's outreach efforts have been beyond the efforts required by law. Pursuant to Section 403.5115(6), Florida Statutes, PEF provided direct notice by mail of the filing of the SCA to all landowners whose property and residences are located within: three miles of the proposed main site boundaries of the LNP; one-quarter mile of a transmission line corridor that only includes a transmission line as defined by Section 403.522(22), Florida Statutes; and (3) one-quarter mile for all other linear associated facilities extending away from the main site boundary. PEF timely submitted a list of the landowners and residences notified to DEP's Siting Coordination Office (SCO), as required by Section 403.5115(6)(b), Florida Statutes. PEF made copies of the SCA available at two of its offices and ten public libraries. In addition, PEF provided copies to all local governments and agencies within whose jurisdiction portions of the Project will be located. DEP made an electronic version of the document available on its website. On June 19, 2008, PEF published notice of the filing of the SCA in the Ocala Star-Banner, the Hernando Today, the Tampa Tribune, The Lakeland Ledger, The Villages Daily Sun, the Levy County Journal, the Orlando Sentinel, the Gainesville Sun, the Citrus County Chronicle, the Sumter County Times, the Hernando Times, and the North Pinellas Times, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(3). On December 18, 2008, PEF published notice of the certification hearing in the same newspapers, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(7). PEF published amended notices of the site certification hearing in the same newspapers on February 17, 2009. DEP also published notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All notices required by law were timely published and/or provided in accordance with Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes. Agency Reports and Stipulations Agency reports and proposed conditions of certification on the plant-related facilities of the Project were submitted to DEP by: (1) the PSC; (2) DCA; (3) SWFWMD; (4) Levy County; (5) FWC; (6) the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council; and (7) DOT. All of these agencies either recommended approval of the Project or otherwise did not object to certification. Although Citrus County did not file an agency report, it recommended approval of the LNP in the prehearing stipulation of the parties. Affected state, regional, and local agencies reviewed the SCA and submitted to DEP reports concerning the impact of the transmission lines on matters within their respective jurisdictions and proposed conditions of certification, as required by Section 403.507(2), Florida Statutes. None of the agencies involved in the review process have recommended that the proposed electrical transmission line corridors be denied or modified. On September 25, 2008, DEP issued its written analysis on the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a compiled set of conditions of certification. The conditions of certification were subsequently revised to reflect agreed-upon language. DEP recommended that the PEF proposed transmission line corridors be certified subject to the conditions of certification. On January 12, 2009, DEP prepared a Staff Analysis Report (SAR) compiling all of the agency reports on the power plant, proposing conditions of certification, and making an overall recommendation. DEP recommended certification of the Project subject to conditions of certification. The conditions of certification attached to the SAR have been superseded by the Fourth Amended Conditions of Certification filed by DEP as DEP Exhibit 1 on March 23, 2009. PEF is committed to constructing the LNP in accord with these conditions. Plant and Associated Facilities2 Project Overview PEF's proposed nuclear-powered electric generating facility (the LNP) will be located in Levy County. The LNP site is east of U.S. Highway 19 and approximately four miles north of the Town of Inglis and the Levy-Citrus County border. The LNP site contains approximately 3,105 acres, with the two reactors and ancillary power production support facilities located near the center of the site. The majority of the LNP site is currently active silviculture and is unimproved. The proposed heavy haul road and pipelines will be located in corridors south of the LNP site. Two site access roads will tie into U.S. Highway 19 west of the site and proceed east to the main plant area. PEF also owns a second 2,000-acre tract contiguous with the southern boundary of the LNP site, which provides access to a water supply in the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as well as containing the heavy haul road and electrical transmission line corridors that exit the LNP site. Project Description The LNP will include two 1,100 megawatt (MW) (nominal) generating units (LNP 1 and LNP 2) designed by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). The reactor design has received an official design certification from the NRC and is referred to as the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor (AP1000). The AP1000 is a standardized, advanced passive pressurized-water nuclear reactor. PEF proposes to place LNP 1 in commercial service by 2016 and LNP 2 in commercial service by 2017. In the AP1000, the reactor core heats water which flows through the reactor cooling system in the primary loop. The reactor coolant pump circulates water through the reactor core. A pressurizer is used to maintain a constant pressure in the primary loop. The heated water flows to the steam generator and through a combination of U-shaped tubes, transferring heat to a separate, independent closed-loop water system, or the secondary loop. Inside the steam generator, the water in the secondary loop boils and is separated in dryers which produce high quality steam. The reactor, the four coolant pumps, and the two steam generators are contained in the containment shield building for each unit. Within the shield building, a steel containment structure surrounds the reactor and steam generators. A passive cooling water tank, which will provide emergency cooling, sits in the top of the containment shield building. The steam in the secondary loop is routed to the adjacent turbine building where it goes into a high-pressure turbine and then three low pressure turbines. The steam produces the force to turn the turbines, which then turn the electrical generator. Electricity is then sent to the on-site switchyard for transmission. The steam exhausting from the turbines moves into the condenser where it comes into contact with the cold surfaces of the tubes in the condenser, which contain water circulating from the cooling tower. The steam condenses back to water. The condensed water is collected in the bottom of the condenser and pumped back into the steam generator. The cycle then repeats. Other components of the AP1000 design include an annex building which contains the main control room; a fuel handling area where new fuel is received and spent fuel is stored; and a diesel generator building. Two cooling towers, three stormwater runoff ponds, and one electrical transmission 500 kV switchyard serving both units are also to be located near the generating units. Each LNP unit will be equipped with a recirculating cooling water system, including a cooling tower, that supplies cooling water to remove heat from the main condensers. The cooling tower makeup water system supplies water to the cooling tower to replace water consumed as a result of evaporation, drift, and blowdown. The LNP's cooling water intake will be located on the CFBC. Cooling water will be conveyed to the LNP site via pipelines. The proposed corridor for the cooling water intake and wastewater discharge pipelines is approximately 13 miles long and 0.25 miles wide. The intake pipeline corridor extends south from the LNP site to the CFBC. The wastewater discharge corridor then turns westerly along the CFBC for six miles before turning south along the western side of an existing PEF transmission line and enters the CREC. As part of its pending application for an NPDES permit, PEF has proposed that LNP wastewater be released into the existing CREC discharge canal. Materials needed to construct the LNP will be delivered via: (1) U.S. Highway 19; and (2) a barge slip on the CFBC in conjunction with the heavy haul road for large components. The heavy haul road, to be used primarily during construction, will be co-located with the makeup and blowdown pipeline corridor south of the LNP site. Federally-Required Approvals The LNP is also subject to the construction and operation approval of the NRC. As part of the federal permitting process for nuclear power plants, PEF has submitted a Combined Operating License Application (COLA) to the NRC. PEF submitted the COLA for the LNP on July 30, 2008. The NRC's review is in progress, and a decision on the application is expected in late 2011. PEF has also requested a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) from the NRC. The LWA request covers the installation of a perimeter diaphragm wall and preliminary foundation work for the two units, and related buildings that are not nuclear safety-related items. An NRC-certified design for the AP1000 allows an applicant for NRC COL approval to avoid readdressing matters that the NRC has already considered when reviewing an individual COLA that uses that standard design. This approach is expected to provide more predictability and reduce the NRC's licensing review process. For PEF, the advantages of a standard design include the ability to apply lessons learned from other projects being constructed ahead of the LNP, as well as improved performance in cost and scheduling. PEF is seeking certification under the PPSA prior to completion of the NRC approval because state site certification will allow PEF to begin early site preparation (such as access roads) and will allow PEF to proceed to acquire property rights within the electrical transmission corridors. The NRC regulates radiological effluents and monitoring at nuclear power plants. The state of Florida does not have regulations specifically applicable to regulation of spent nuclear fuel. Under NRC regulations, nuclear power plants are required to have radiological environmental monitoring programs (REMPs). Part of the REMP is an offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM). The Florida Department of Health (FDOH), Bureau of Radiation Monitoring, performs much of the monitoring in the ODCM at nuclear power plants under an agreement with the NRC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b); Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-5. The FDOH also monitors groundwater wells in the vicinity of a nuclear plant for numerous parameters, including radiological releases. In addition to the separate NRC approvals, PEF has filed applications with DEP for [a federally-required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air construction permit under the federal Clean Air Act, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)] permit under the federal Clean Water Act, and (in accordance with 403.506(3), Florida Statutes) a state-required environmental resource permit (ERP) from DEP for construction of a new barge slip on the CFBC. DEP issued the final PSD air construction permit on February 20, 2009. DEP has not taken final agency action on the pending NPDES permit application. Federally-required permits issued by the DEP under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are not subject to the PPSA. The PPSA provides that federal permits are reviewed and issued separately by the DEP, but in parallel with the PPSA process to the extent possible. Upon issuance, these federal permits will be incorporated into the conditions of certification. The separate DEP-issued ERP will also be incorporated by reference into the final site certification. Water Use The LNP has two primary needs for water: (1) saltwater to cool the steam condensers (circulating water); and (2) freshwater for power generation and component cooling (service water). Freshwater will be drawn from the upper Floridan aquifer. Saltwater will be supplied from the Gulf of Mexico via the CFBC. A circulating water system can be designed to use either freshwater or saltwater. Common design practice is to use the most abundant source; so saltwater was selected for the LNP. The service water system components for the LNP are established by Westinghouse for the AP1000 standard design and require freshwater. The service water system for the AP1000 reactor has been designed to provide an efficient means of cooling plant components with a relatively small demand for freshwater. Most of the water to be used at the LNP site will be needed for steam condenser cooling which will take place in two cooling towers; one for each unit. The source for cooling tower makeup water will be surface saline water withdrawn from the CFBC. Approximately 122 million gallons per day (mgd) will be withdrawn from the CFBC for cooling water needs. A new intake structure would be constructed on the canal bank at a site south of the LNP site and west of the Inglis Lock on the CFBC, approximately 6.5 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. Saltwater will be pumped from the CFBC and directed into the cooling tower basin. The circulating water system is a closed-cycle cooling system and is the primary heat sink for the plant during normal operation. Circulating water pumps direct water to the steam condenser to cool the steam after it passes through the main turbines. The heated saltwater is then returned to the cooling towers where it is cooled by air flow and returned to the cooling tower basin. The LNP recirculating cooling water will be cooled by induced draft, counter-flow, mechanical cooling towers. For each unit's cooling tower, there are 44 cooling tower cells, grouped into two banks of 22 cells each. Each of the cooling tower cells will be approximately 75-feet tall. The total length of each 22-cell cooling tower is approximately 1,200 feet. The LNP will have a continuous need to utilize cooling water. Most of the water loss in the cooling towers is a result of evaporation of the water being cooled in the cooling towers. A small amount of circulating water is lost from the cooling towers as liquid droplets entrained in the exhaust air steam. This is known as "drift." When water evaporates from the cooling tower, minerals and solids are left behind. As more water evaporates, the concentration of these materials increases. This concentration is controlled by continuously releasing and replenishing some water from the tower. Accordingly, both saltwater and freshwater are continuously discharged from the plant to help maintain proper water chemistry. This continuous release of water is called "blowdown" and, as proposed in PEF's pending NPDES application, it will be discharged to the discharge canal for the CREC and then into the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III marine water. The LNP will require up to 1.58 mgd, annual average, of freshwater. This freshwater will be used for plant operations, fire suppression, potable water needs, and demineralized water needs. Groundwater will be withdrawn from four supply wells at the south end of the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. The AP1000 service water system requires freshwater for use in component cooling. The service water system provides cooling water for the nonsafety-related component cooling water heat exchangers. Demineralized water is processed to remove ionic impurities and dissolved oxygen and is used for plant operations that require pure water, primarily the feed water and condensate systems used in power production. When operational, the LNP site must be capable of supplying potable water to approximately 800 employees and visitors daily. Potable water will also be needed for onsite construction. The fire protection system will be capable of providing water to points throughout the plant where wet system fire suppression could be required. The fire suppression system is designed to supply water at a flow rate and pressure sufficient to satisfy the demand of automatic sprinkler systems and fire hoses for a minimum of 2 hours. Cooling Water Intake Structure The LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) will be located on the berm that forms the north side of the CFBC approximately 3 miles south of the LNP, downstream of the Inglis Lock. The CWIS will withdraw surface water into four intake pipelines (two for each nuclear unit) that will convey water to the cooling tower basins for use in the cooling towers. These 54-inch diameter pipelines will generally be buried to a minimum depth of five feet. The pipelines will cross over the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel located north of the CFBC on an approximately 33-foot-wide utility bridge. For each of the LNP units, the CWIS will contain three 50 percent capacity makeup pumps, each with a design flow rate of 23,800 gallons per minute (gpm). Two pumps will provide normal cooling tower makeup flow requirements for each unit. The third spare pump will be in standby mode and automatically start if one of the operating pumps shuts down for any reason. A dual-flow traveling screen upstream of each makeup pump will screen floating and suspended materials in the CFBC water. The screen opening will be 3/8-inch. The screens will be sized to ensure that the through-screen water velocity is no more than 0.5 feet per second (fps) to reduce the impingement and entrainment of aquatic life that could enter the pump bay. The velocity of the water in the intake bay upstream of the traveling screens (the approach velocity) will be about 0.25 fps. Upstream of the traveling screens will be trash racks (also referred to as bar racks). These are a series of steel bars (4 inches apart) to prevent large objects from entering the CWIS. Potential Impacts of Surface Water Intake Cooling water will be withdrawn via the CWIS from a section of the CFBC that extends approximately 7 miles from the Inglis Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico. Operation of the Inglis Lock was discontinued in 1999; the lock separates Lake Rousseau (to the east) from this section of the CFBC. This section of the CFBC has a continuous opening to the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC bisects the Withlacoochee River, severing the original hydraulic connection between Lake Rousseau and the Lower Withlacoochee River. To maintain flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River which is north of the CFBC, the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel and associated Inglis Lock Spillway were built adjacent to the Inglis Lock (north of the CFBC). Flows in the CFBC are primarily a result of tides coming in and out from the Gulf of Mexico and, to a lesser extent, rainfall. Periodically, freshwater is released from Lake Rousseau into the CFBC via the Inglis Dam. Also, there is some groundwater seepage into the CFBC as well as minor leakage from the Inglis Lock. Residence time for water in the CFBC near the proposed CWIS is currently over 200 days; there is very little outflow. Waters in the CFBC downstream of the Inglis Lock vary in salinity seasonally, with tidal influences, and depending on freshwater releases from the Inglis Dam. On average, the salinity in the area of the CFBC where the intake structure is proposed to be located is approximately 10 parts per thousand (ppt). As the CFBC approaches the Gulf of Mexico, salinity increases, averaging over 20 ppt and as high as 30 ppt. The CFBC ranges from approximately 200-to-260 feet wide. There is vegetation along the banks, as well as riprap, the latter consisting of huge rocks to limit erosion. The upper end of this section of the CFBC has algal blooms during the summer and muddy, silty bottom conditions that limit biological activity. The CFBC does not have seagrass beds that serve as aquatic habitat, except downstream where it joins with the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC does not serve as significant habitat for endangered fish species, such as the Gulf Sturgeon or Smalltooth Sawfish. Although freshwater and saltwater species may use the CFBC occasionally, it does not serve as significant spawning habitat for any migratory, sport, or commercial fish species. Pursuant to the proposed conditions of certification, pre- operational monitoring and sampling in the CFBC will be used to identify any changes in the use of that canal by such fish species. With regard to the remnant section of the Withlacoochee River between the Inglis Dam and the CFBC (Old Withlacoochee River, or OWR), the biota in the middle and lower reaches of that waterbody currently show the effects of variable salinity levels; these areas are characterized by organisms typically found in marine conditions. The upper reach of the OWR has species normally found in freshwater systems. Aquatic species in the OWR are affected by periodic releases from the Inglis Dam. The LNP CWIS hydraulic zone of influence on the CFBC extends about 5 miles to the west down the approximately 7-mile long CFBC. The hydraulic zone of influence defines the point at which the flow of the CFBC would be affected by the CWIS, under static conditions. In its biological analysis, PEF assumed that potential intake impacts would extend beyond this hydraulic zone of influence. After installation and operation of the LNP CWIS, the dominant forces affecting flow conditions in the CFBC will continue to be primarily tidal activity and releases from Lake Rousseau. The CFBC will become more saline. However, installation and operation of the LNP CWIS will improve flow conditions in the CFBC by adding consistent and very slow upstream movement of about 122 mgd. The LNP CWIS will cause the saline-freshwater transition zone to move up the remnant channel of the OWR, south of the CFBC. The increased salinity is not expected to affect the small enclave of freshwater organisms living in that upper segment of the OWR. Potential adverse impacts from a CWIS include entrainment (when organisms smaller than the screen openings enter the cooling water) and impingement (when organisms larger than the screen openings become trapped on the screen). Potential impacts of entrainment and impingement will be minimized because the LNP CWIS will utilize a closed-cycle recirculating cooling water system which will reduce the amount of cooling water required by approximately 90 percent; the through-screen velocity will be 0.5 fps or less; and the LNP will not disrupt thermal stratification in the CFBC. Under federal law, DEP will make the final determination of compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requirements in the NPDES permit. The LNP CWIS is not expected to pose a threat to threatened or endangered species or migratory, sport, or other fish species. Monitoring for fish species in the CFBC will be undertaken under the FWC's proposed conditions of certification to identify any actual impacts to such species and the need for any mitigation for such impacts. Locating the CWIS near the Inglis Lock on the CFBC will result in less entrainment and impingement impacts compared to potential locations closer to the mouth of the CFBC or in nearby off-shore waters. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a post-certification survey and monitoring plan for the CFBC and Withlacoochee River to assess actual impacts of the withdrawals for the LNP on these water bodies. If, after review of the annual reports required by these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a CFBC and/or Withlacoochee River mitigation plan to mitigate those impacts. As part of its pending NPDES permit application, PEF submitted a "316(b) Demonstration Study" to address compliance with intake standards applicable to the LNP CWIS. Final agency action on the NPDES permit application, including a determination of compliance with Section 316(b) regulations, has not been taken by DEP. Under 40 C.F.R., Subpart I, Sections 125.80-125.89, if pre- and post-operational monitoring demonstrates unacceptable adverse impacts associated with the CWIS, operational and technological improvements to the CWIS may be required. Under the proposed conditions of certification, the final NPDES permit for the LNP will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Operation of the CWIS is expected to have a negligible impact on saltwater intrusion in the area bounded to the south by the CFBC and to the north by the Lower Withlacoochee River. The waters of the CFBC are marine waters. There currently is stratification in the CFBC, with higher salinity along the bottom of the water column. The change in density of water in the CFBC as a result of the increased salinity due to the LNP's proposed water use in the CFBC is not expected to affect freshwater resources. The tide in the CFBC currently fluctuates 2-3 feet twice per day. The construction of the CFBC and the bisection of the Withlacoochee River have resulted in reduced freshwater flows in the lower portion of the Withlacoochee River north of the CFBC. There is no direct connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River (north of the CFBC). The flow in the By- pass Channel provides less freshwater from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River than historically flowed into the lower portion of the River. This has caused saltwater to move up the Lower Withlacoochee River, particularly during periods of low flow. SWFWMD has evaluated restoration of the River to its original condition, but has not advocated reconnection. Reconnection of the Withlacoochee River or downstream impoundment of the CFBC probably would not prevent the impacts of increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River during periods of low freshwater flow. Although no agency is currently pursuing a project of this type, DEP has proposed a condition of certification to address future public projects for the maintenance, preservation, or enhancement of surface waters requiring modifications to the CFBC. Potential Impacts to Manatees Manatees use the Withlacoochee River and the CFBC year round, but primarily during the warmer months. The CFBC, including the area of the LNP intake, is not listed as critical habitat for manatees under the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction activities in the CFBC can take place in a manner reasonably likely to avoid adverse impacts to manatees. The FWC has proposed conditions of certification designed to protect manatees from adverse impacts of in-water construction through monitoring and mitigative measures. Compliance with these conditions will minimize impacts to manatees. The operation of the LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) is not likely to adversely impact manatees. The potential impacts of the LNP CWIS on manatees will be minimized by the system design and location. Additionally, DEP and FWC have proposed conditions of certification requiring PEF to submit a final CWIS plan for review by FWC prior to construction of the CWIS with regard to manatee safety issues. Potential impacts to manatees from barge traffic on the CFBC related to delivery of Project components and materials for the construction of the LNP is not expected to adversely impact manatees. FWC has proposed conditions of certification to protect manatees during in-water construction. Compliance with the proposed conditions of certification will minimize potential impacts to manatees. Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals The LNP's proposed groundwater use meets all of the SWFWMD's water use criteria. To demonstrate that the proposed groundwater withdrawals associated with LNP operations will comply with the SWFWMD water use criteria, including not causing unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, PEF performed a groundwater modeling analysis using the SWFWMD's District-Wide Regulation Model 2 (DWRM2) groundwater flow model. The DWRM2 is an acceptable groundwater flow model for evaluating the effects of groundwater withdrawals. The DWRM2 modeling demonstrated that the proposed groundwater withdrawals would not lower surficial aquifer levels to the point of causing unacceptable adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, or interfere with existing legal users. Groundwater pumping for the LNP is not expected to adversely impact Lake Rousseau, the Withlacoochee River, or other streams or springs in the Project area. Groundwater withdrawals for the LNP are likewise not expected to induce saline water intrusion, cause the spread of pollutants in the aquifer, adversely impact any offsite land uses, cause adverse impacts to wetland systems, or adversely impact any other nearby uses of the aquifer system. To confirm the values used in the groundwater flow model supporting the application, proposed certification conditions require that an aquifer performance testing plan be submitted by PEF, approved by the SWFWMD, and implemented. If leakance and transmissivity values derived from actual onsite well tests differ more than 20 percent from values determined through earlier modeling, PEF is required to revise its groundwater model to incorporate the aquifer test results and undertake further modeling. Updated groundwater modeling results will be used to determine whether alternative water supplies or additional mitigation will need to be implemented. To help ensure that the proposed groundwater use does not cause unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, SWFWMD and DEP recommended that conditions be included in the site certification requiring an environmental monitoring plan to evaluate the condition of surface waters and wetlands in areas that could potentially be affected by groundwater withdrawals. Monitoring will continue for a minimum of five years after groundwater withdrawals reach a quantity of 1.25 mgd on an annual average basis. Annual monitoring summaries will be submitted. If, after five years, this monitoring demonstrates that no adverse impacts of groundwater withdrawals are occurring or predicted, PEF may request that monitoring be discontinued. Groundwater withdrawals will be metered and reported to DEP and SWFWMD on a monthly basis. Proposed conditions of certification require periodic water quality sampling be performed on the withdrawn groundwater to ensure no adverse impacts to water quality. Proposed conditions also address ongoing monitoring and compliance by requiring a full compliance report every five years throughout the life of the LNP, to demonstrate continued reasonable assurance that the groundwater use is meeting all of the applicable substantive water use requirements set forth in SWFWMD rules. The SWFWMD has not established water reservations or minimum flows or levels for any waterbody in the vicinity of the LNP. Therefore, the use of water from the CFBC and from the ground will not violate any currently established water reservation or minimum flow or level. Fracture sets (also called solution channels) are small openings through which groundwater moves. Fracture sets are only an issue in groundwater flow if preferential flow paths develop near one of the solution channels. Preferential flow paths tend to develop near existing springs. There are no springs on the LNP site, and subsurface investigations did not reveal any evidence of solution channels under the site. PEF also proposes to withdraw groundwater as part of the dewatering needed for plant construction. PEF proposes to install an impervious diaphragm wall around and below the foundation excavations for each nuclear unit to minimize water flow into the construction site. It is anticipated that dewatering at each unit could last as much as two years. Additional construction dewatering will also be necessary in some locations for installation of the pipelines and other linear facilities. Naturally-occurring groundwater collected during dewatering and excavation activities will be directed into stormwater runoff ponds and allowed to filter back into the ground to recharge the surficial aquifer. Dewatering is expected to cause only a modest amount of drawdown of the surficial aquifer. Construction-related dewatering activities will be approved by DEP and SWFWMD on a post-certification basis after final construction designs are submitted. Potential Surface Water Discharge Impacts The LNP will have a combined wastewater discharge comprised of several wastewater streams. Blowdown from the cooling towers will comprise about 98 percent of the LNP wastewater. The blowdown will be combined with significantly smaller quantities of plant wastewaters, treated plant sanitary wastewater, and occasionally stormwater. LNP wastewaters consist of effluents from process equipment, floor drains, laboratory sample sinks, demineralized water treatment system effluent, and treated steam generator blowdown. Wastewaters will be processed before discharge. The treatment systems include oil separators (to separate oily wastes from the rest of the waste stream) and a wastewater retention basin (to settle out suspended particles). The combined LNP wastewater, as proposed by PEF in its pending NPDES permit application, will be piped to the CREC and released into the existing CREC discharge canal which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The cooling tower blowdown discharges from the LNP will include saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system and freshwater blowdown from the service water cooling system; the vast majority of this will be saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system. The normal 2-unit recirculating water blowdown rate is expected to be 57,400 gallons per minute (gpm) or 81.4 mgd, and the maximum blowdown rate is expected to be about 59,000 gpm or 84.9 mgd. The 2-unit service water blowdown rate is expected to vary from about 130 gpm during normal operation, to a maximum of about 400 gpm. The CREC currently has two NPDES permits authorizing discharges to surface waters of the State. CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 are cooled with once-through cooling water from the CREC intake canal that is then discharged into the Gulf of Mexico via the existing CREC discharge canal. Once-through cooling water is cooling water that is released after condensing the steam, without being recycled in a cooling tower system. CREC Units 4 and 5 have cooling towers that receive make-up water from the CREC discharge canal and release blowdown into the discharge canal. The discharges for all five CREC units are released to the Gulf of Mexico through a single discharge canal at the CREC site. PEF has proposed to utilize the CREC discharge canal for the LNP discharge; however, the final location will be subject to approval as part of DEP's final agency action on PEF's pending application for an NPDES permit. The wastewater flow at the CREC is limited under the existing CREC NPDES permits to 1,898 mgd during the summer and 1,613 mgd during the winter. The expected day-to-day total wastewater flow from the LNP will be 83.4 mgd, with a conservative maximum total flow rate of 87.9 mgd. The proposed LNP discharge would be equivalent to 4-5 percent of the permitted discharge from the CREC. The design temperature of the LNP wastewater discharge is 89.1ºF, which is expected to be met more than 99.5 percent of the time. This LNP design temperature is cooler than the existing permitted temperature of the existing combined CREC discharge (96.5ºF). Even the expected worst case temperature of the LNP discharge (96.4ºF), will be cooler than the existing temperature limit applicable to CREC. With the addition of the LNP discharge, the CREC is expected to continue to meet its existing thermal permit limit. The addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to significantly change the existing area of thermal impact associated with existing CREC discharges. Evaluation of the Project wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to flora and fauna, including seagrasses and shellfish beds, will be minimized. PEF has committed to a condition of certification requiring the post-certification submittal of a surface water monitoring plan to DEP to ensure there will be no adverse impacts to seagrasses. The finding related to shellfish beds is supported by a letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to the DEP stating that "[r]eclassification of the shellfish harvesting areas will not be necessary if the Project is built as proposed." The LNP wastewater is projected to meet the limits defined under 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater discharge in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to surface water quality will be minimized. Adding the LNP discharge to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to have an adverse impact on manatees. The LNP discharge structure at the CREC is likewise not expected to cause adverse impacts to manatees that may be present in the CREC discharge canal. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to benthic invertebrates, fish, and other organisms in the Gulf of Mexico will be minimized. The discharge is not expected to have adverse impacts on endangered fish species. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a discharge monitoring plan to ensure that the addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge does not cause adverse impacts. If, after review of the annual reports required under these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a mitigation plan to address those impacts. DEP's final agency action on PEF's application for an NPDES permit for the LNP, if issued, will include final action on compliance with water quality standards and will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Surface Water Management System The LNP surface water management system consists of pipes and ditches that collect and convey stormwater from the plant area into onsite wet treatment ponds before discharge. Stormwater along the heavy haul road will be collected in roadside swales. The plant area will be raised approximately eight feet. Stormwater will drain from this area into three stormwater ponds. Any cross-flows from the plant site toward the raised areas will pass around the site through culverts or ditches. The stormwater ponds and swales are sized to treat stormwater releases to meet SWFWMD rules. In addition, all construction-related surface water management facilities will comply with SWFWMD's surface water management criteria. The design and proper construction and operation of the surface water management system will satisfy SWFWMD's water quantity and water quality criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D- 4.302. PEF has committed to a post-certification submittal of detailed stormwater design information to address floodplain impacts as required by section 4.7 ("Historic basin storage") of the SWFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (adopted in Rule 40D-4.091, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 62-330.200(3)(e)). Solid Waste Disposal There will be no onsite disposal of hazardous waste during construction of the LNP. All hazardous waste will be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Contractors will be responsible for having detailed procedures in place to handle hazardous waste. During operation, hazardous waste will be managed and disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. PEF has procedures in place for management and control of hazardous materials; such materials will be disposed of offsite through permitted facilities. All solid waste generated during construction will be disposed of at a permitted offsite landfill. There will be no onsite disposal of solid waste. Non-nuclear solid waste generated during operation of the LNP will be disposed of offsite at a permitted landfill. A proposed condition of certification precludes processing or disposal of solid waste onsite. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts The LNP is a nuclear-fueled power generating facility that will use uranium dioxide pellets in fuel rods. The LNP will also use a relatively small amount of diesel fuel in its emergency diesel generators, ancillary generators, and fire pump engines. Therefore, the LNP will not emit the typical types and quantities of air pollutants from fossil-fueled power generation such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates or carbon dioxide (CO2). The sources of air emissions at the LNP will include the two banks of mechanical draft cooling towers and diesel- fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines. Air pollutants that will be emitted during normal facility operation will be limited to particulate matter (PM), both more than and less than 10 microns in diameter, which will be emitted from the low profile cooling towers. There will be a small amount of air emissions from the diesel-fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines; however, these emissions are only expected to occur during the few hours per month when the engines are run for maintenance and testing purposes. There will be no other significant sources of air emissions from operation of the LNP. PM emissions from the draft cooling towers will occur as a result of the entrainment of a small amount of water, as small-diameter droplets, in the exhaust stream from the towers. Particulate matter, consisting of the naturally occurring dissolved solids that will be present in the cooling water, will be contained in these entrained droplets. The droplets and the associated suspended solid particulate matter are known as cooling tower "drift." The amount of cooling tower "drift" is controlled through the use of very high efficiency mist eliminators that will be in the cooling tower. The use of high efficiency mist eliminators on the LNP cooling towers is consistent with state and federal regulations that require the use of Best Available Control Technology to limit such air emissions. The LNP will be located in Levy County which is currently attaining all ambient air quality standards for all pollutants. The LNP will not have an adverse or discernible impact on ambient air quality at the LNP site, or at any location, for any regulated air pollutant. The LNP will not generate power by combusting any fuel. Therefore, there will be no measurable greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, during normal plant operation. The estimated CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility capable of generating the same amount of electricity as the LNP is approximately 6.4 million tons per year. For comparison, the estimated CO2 emissions from the LNP, which result from periodic testing of the facility's diesel-powered emergency equipment, is only 618 tons/year. Visible plumes from the cooling towers will remain very close to the cooling towers (within approximately 300 feet) under most meteorological conditions. The occurrence of visible vapor plumes at offsite locations is expected to be infrequent. The operation of the cooling towers is expected to have no significant or adverse impacts due to ground level fogging on any roadway or at offsite locations during plant operation. The maximum predicted offsite solids deposition rate from operation of the LNP cooling towers is six pounds per acre per month immediately adjacent to the nearest LNP property boundary. This is below the de minimis adverse impact threshold of nine pounds per acre per month published by the NRC. The rate of deposition is predicted to decrease rapidly and significantly with increasing distance from the plant. Operation of the LNP cooling towers is not expected to cause discernible impacts on any natural resources, including surface waters or wetlands. Noise Impacts of Construction and Operation The noise limits applicable to the LNP site are set by the Levy County Code of Ordinances. The noise limits defined by the County ordinance for the area surrounding the LNP site are 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. There are no other local, state, or federal noise regulations that apply to the plant. PEF conducted noise impact evaluations for construction and operation of the LNP. Ambient noise levels were measured at six locations around the LNP site. Noise levels were conservatively estimated by adding the composite average noise levels that would be generated by construction equipment during the loudest phases of construction. Equipment sound propagation factors were obtained from industry references. The noise model known as CADNA/A was used to predict noise levels at onsite and offsite locations, including the nearest residences for both construction and operation. The noise levels during construction activities and during normal maximum operation of the LNP plant site are projected to be below the Levy County noise limits for all hours at all offsite locations, including the locations of the nearest residences. Due to the large buffer surrounding the developed area of the site, and the relatively low noise levels associated with the LNP, there are not expected to be any significant or adverse noise impacts during construction or operation of the LNP. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology (Plant and Transmission Line Corridors) The proposed LNP site has been used for many decades for the production of pine. The clearing of native vegetation, furrowing, bedding, planting, and harvesting (primarily for pine) has altered the site from a natural Florida landscape into a monotypical landscape in both upland and wetland areas with reduced functional attributes. There are no open water bodies or streams on the LNP site. There are some flow-way connections between some of the wetlands, but they are not of the kind that will support long- term fish habitat or aquatic insect communities. Due to the silvicultural nature of the site and recent clearing, the ideal complement of biodiversity on the LNP site is no longer present. The predominant wildlife species are those that tolerate a mono-specific pine tree habitat, such as deer, turkey, and wild hogs. While pre-application surveys indicate that protected species occur at and in the vicinity of the LNP site, several of Florida's listed species are not likely to extensively use the LNP site. Impacts to State-listed and important wildlife species that have been documented or may occur on the LNP site and adjacent uplands will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results and needed measures to avoid and mitigate such impacts. Historically, the 3,105-acre LNP site was dominated by forested cypress wetland systems. However, over the last century or more, those have been harvested and allowed to re- grow, so that many of the wetlands are no longer dominated by cypress trees. Today, most of the forested wetland systems in the footprint of development have been cleared of trees. The anticipated maximum wetland impacts for the entire Project, including the impacts from associated facilities and electrical transmission lines, are estimated to be 765 acres. These impacts are estimated to be: 13.3 acres of open water; 638.4 acres of forested wetlands; and 113.0 acres of herbaceous wetlands. Approximately one-half of the wetland impacts are expected to occur on the LNP site and one-half are expected to occur offsite. The Project's 765-acre wetland impact is a conservative estimate, including long-term and short-term impacts that are the result of direct dredging and filling as well as temporary disturbance. It is likely that the actual impact will decrease as the routing of facilities is refined within the electrical transmission and other corridors and on the LNP site. Based on these anticipated wetland impacts and the functions being provided by these wetlands, PEF calculated the proposed maximum wetland functional loss for the LNP to be 410.9 functional units, as determined under Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) contained in Rule Chapter 62-345. The UMAM scoring indicates that, on average, the wetlands being impacted have approximately one-half of the functional ecological value of an ideal wetland system. To comply with the applicable SWFWMD ERP rules under the PPSA process, PEF must offset the wetland impacts caused by the construction and operation of the LNP, associated transmission lines, roads, and pipelines. PEF submitted to DEP a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Progress Energy Levy Nuclear Plant and Associated Transmission Lines (WMP). A primary value of the WMP is an overall increase in ecological function provided across several thousand acres in a regionally-significant location. This regional landscape-level ecosystem benefit substantially augments the value of local-scale mitigation activities. The proposed mitigation for the LNP will potentially achieve greater offset of wetland impacts from a regional perspective and is expected to provide significant long-term ecosystem benefit. The WMP identifies a series of possible scenarios from which the appropriate and ultimate mitigation can be derived. Because impacts are still being refined as corridors are narrowed into actual routes, the information in the WMP is designed to demonstrate that there is available and desirable mitigation to affect the final degree of wetlands impacts, once calculated. The comprehensive mitigation plan, as described in the WMP, is an acceptable alternative to traditional "in-basin" mitigation. DEP conceptually approved this WMP with the understanding that more detailed information will be submitted when final routes are established and actual wetland impacts are known. The amount of mitigation PEF will undertake will be based on the amount of wetlands actually impacted. A condition of certification has been included to require submittal of refinements to the mitigation plan for DEP's approval following final certification. PEF looked at ways to reduce and eliminate wetland impacts at several levels, including site selection, routing of roadways, and commitments through discussions with agencies to further reduce impacts as transmission line routes are selected within the transmission corridors. The Project is designed to comply with SWFWMD ERP criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 4.302. There are not expected to be unacceptable secondary wetlands impacts due to the construction of the Project. Under SWFWMD rules, as long as a disturbance is at least 25 feet from a wetland, secondary impacts are deemed avoided. For the LNP site, unimpacted wetlands are dozens to thousands of feet away from Project development. Further, the rural and remote location of the facility, along with the high level of security associated with a nuclear facility (i.e., fencing, buffering, and reduced public access) makes causally-connected offsite development unlikely (with regard to the LNP site). The LNP will comply with the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The conceptual WMP is designed to be regionally significant and provides ecological benefits beyond the calculated UMAM functional value increase. For example, the WMP has the potential to connect the Goethe State Forest to the historic floodplain of the Withlacoochee River, which will maintain and enhance a large natural wildlife corridor. The LNP is not anticipated to adversely affect the value or functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species, including any aquatic and wetland species, or other related-water resources. There are no documented listed aquatic or wetland-dependent species that might be adversely affected by construction at the plant site. Impacts to wetland dependent species will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results. PEF has addressed all of the wildlife issues subject to the site certification process. The FWC has recommended certification, subject to conditions related to surveying of development areas and appropriate buffers for species prior to clearing, construction, and development to ensure appropriate relocation or mitigation opportunities and implementation of management activities to ensure the long-term well-being of the species. Project wetlands impacts are not expected to adversely affect the quality of receiving waters with respect to the applicable water quality criteria for those receiving waters, or adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. Through implementation of the WMP, construction of the Project is not expected to adversely affect the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by wetlands. Transportation The primary roadways in the vicinity of the LNP are U.S. Highway 19 (U.S. 19) and County Road 40 (C.R. 40). U.S. Highway 19 is a Florida DOT-maintained, four-lane arterial roadway west of the Project site. C.R. 40 is a Levy County- maintained, two-lane roadway approximately five miles to the south of the plant site. The Levy County Comprehensive Plan has adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roadways within Levy County. While LOS standards do not apply to temporary construction traffic, PEF evaluated the impacts of both LNP construction and operation traffic on adjacent roadways. This evaluation shows that future traffic levels with the addition of the Project construction and operation traffic are projected to be less than one-half the adopted LOS standards for U.S. 19 and C.R. 40. Roadway links during construction and operation of the LNP are projected to operate within adopted LOS standards. Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits There is an approximate population of 4,700 persons within a five-mile radius of the LNP site. This equates to a population density of approximately 60 people per square mile. The closest towns to the LNP site are Inglis and Yankeetown, which are located approximately 4.1 miles and 8.0 miles southwest of the LNP site, respectively. The total cost of the LNP, including the proposed electrical transmission lines, is approximately $17 billion. The LNP construction workforce is expected to peak at approximately 3,300 workers in 2014. The operation workforce will consist of approximately 800 employees, with an additional 800 workers needed every 18 months for between 20 and 30 days to refuel the facility. PEF sees retention rate benefits when hiring locally and would like to employ the local workforce for construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has programs in place to train local residents to become part of the future workforce for the LNP. These programs focus on both construction and operation personnel and include programs or potential programs at Bronson High School, Chiefland High School, Dixie County High School, the Withlacoochee Technical Institute, and Santa Fe Community College. PEF is also working in partnership with Dunnellon High School (which draws students from Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties) on a Power Academy to prepare students for the construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has a successful nuclear engineering program partnership with the University of Florida to train both nuclear engineers and plant operators, including the use of a first-of-its-kind digital training simulator. PEF has provided grants to modernize the nuclear facilities at the University of Florida. In 2005, there were approximately 395,000 workers in the region (defined as a 50-mile radius around the LNP, including Levy, Citrus, Marion, Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hernando, and Sumter Counties). Specific to construction of a nuclear power plant, there were 4,900 heavy construction workers in the region in 2006. It is probable that more of these 4,900 workers will be available due to rising unemployment rates across the region. Unemployment rates for the three counties immediately surrounding the LNP site have risen from around four percent in 2005 to eight percent in late 2008. There is sufficient housing available in the region to accommodate both LNP construction and operation employees. Construction of the LNP is not expected to significantly increase the number of pupils in the surrounding school systems. The school systems in the region of the LNP will be able to accommodate the increased number of pupils as a result of LNP operations workers and their families. Public services and facilities in the region of the LNP are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. Construction of the LNP will have little, if any, impact on recreational facilities and uses in the area around the LNP site in Levy and Citrus Counties. During LNP operation, recreational facilities and uses will not be impacted. There are no officially-designated landmarks within five miles of the LNP site. The peak construction workforce in 2014 will result in approximately $152 million in annual earnings. Construction earnings in other years will also be substantial. In addition to jobs and earnings, the construction of the LNP will contribute an estimated $263 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. The direct social and economic impacts of the LNP operation are expected to include approximately 800 direct jobs; 1,100 indirect or induced jobs; and associated increases in sales, property tax, and output revenues. These operations workers are expected to generate over $53 million in annual payroll. The LNP overall is expected to contribute nearly $521 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. Local property tax collections will begin when Unit 1 is brought on-line, resulting in approximately $63 million in tax revenue to Levy County in the first year of operation. Annual property tax collections in Levy County of approximately $18 million are projected to increase by $104 million once both LNP units are operational. Archaeological and Historic Sites Construction and operation of the LNP will not adversely impact archaeologically significant sites or historic standing structures. The Project complies with all federal and state standards for identification and protection of archaeological sites. Field surveys of the plant site, the corridor extending south to the CFBC, and the pipeline corridor to the CREC did not reveal any archaeological sites or historic standing structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with PEF's survey methodology and the determination that no sites are NRHP- eligible. PEF has guidelines designed to protect historic sites, landmarks, artifacts, and archaeological sites in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The Florida SHPO has concurred with PEF's approach to protect inadvertent discoveries during land-disturbing activities. Land Use PEF filed applications with Levy County for a comprehensive plan amendment and special exception zoning approval for the LNP. Those applications were approved and are now final. The majority of the existing land use on the LNP site is silviculture, and the property is unimproved. The primary existing land use of the property to the south of the LNP, where the heavy haul road, water pipelines, and other facilities will be located, is likewise silviculture and otherwise unimproved. The properties along the blowdown pipeline corridor to the CREC are primarily vacant and largely unimproved. The nearest residence to the LNP is approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest of the power block generating facilities, measured from the edge of the nearest power block to the residence. The electrical generating facilities are designed with a minimum 1,000-foot setback from the property line of any property not under the control of PEF. A natural 100-foot vegetative buffer is required to be maintained around the LNP's perimeter where the adjacent property is not under PEF's control. Given the setbacks, the perimeter vegetation, and the 250-foot maximum height limitation under Levy County's special exception for the LNP, the physical structures at the LNP site will not be visible from surrounding properties at ground level. The location of the LNP is consistent with the existing and future land uses surrounding the site. The cooling water blowdown pipelines are located to have the least impact on the existing land uses in the area. The LNP will have little impact on land uses in the vicinity. The LNP is consistent with the Levy County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations (LDRs), the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, and the State Comprehensive Plan contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Electrical Transmission Lines Project Description Generally, the purpose of electrical transmission lines is to transmit large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. Transmission lines operate at voltages above 69 kilovolts (kV). Bulk power, generally operating at 230-kV or 500-kV, is transferred from the generating plant to the substation. At the substation, the voltage of the electricity is changed through transformers and other electrical equipment for further transportation or distribution directly to customers. PEF is seeking certification of nine proposed corridors for transmission lines associated with the LNP. A proposed corridor is associated with each of the proposed transmission lines identified in Findings of Fact 182-189. All of the proposed transmission lines will directly support the construction and operation of the LNP. Corridor Selection Methodology PEF established a multi-disciplinary team to identify a corridor for each of the proposed transmission lines. The role of this team was to select a proposed corridor for certification for each line based on an evaluation of environmental, land use, socioeconomic, engineering, and cost considerations. The multi-disciplinary team was composed of experts in transmission line design, land use planning, system planning, real estate acquisition, corporate communications, and environmental disciplines as they relate to transmission lines. The multi-disciplinary team engaged in four major steps in this process. The first was to establish and define a project study area for each transmission line. The second step was to conduct regional screening and mapping. The third step was to select and evaluate candidate corridors using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The fourth step was to select the proposed corridors and identify the boundaries of those corridors. Data collection was performed in connection with this effort from the databases of federal, state, regional, and local agencies and organizations, as well as from the public in a series of conferences and open houses described in Findings of Fact 8-11. A number of field studies, internal meetings, and individual and small group meetings were held with members of the public as a part of the process. In defining the project study area for each transmission line, the multi-disciplinary team considered the starting and ending points for the lines and other linear facilities in these areas. Within each study area, the multi-disciplinary team gathered regional screening data from a variety of sources to identify the different types of opportunities and potential constraints for siting a transmission line in the project study areas, such as various environmental and land use features, existing infrastructure, archeological and historical sites, roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and similar features. The multi-disciplinary team evaluated each corridor using quantitative environmental, land use, and engineering criteria. Relative weights for each quantitative criterion were developed and validated with input from agency representatives and the public during the public outreach portion of the corridor selection process. The weights were applied to the quantitative values for the criteria for each candidate corridor segment and the scores were tabulated for all candidate corridors. The candidate corridors were then ranked in order from best to worst based on quantitative weighted scores. The high-ranking candidate corridors were then evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria which do not lend themselves easily to quantification, such as the types of wetlands and vegetation present, safety, constructability considerations, and other similar considerations. Based on the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the high-ranking candidate corridors, the multi-disciplinary team ultimately chose the nine proposed corridors. Once the proposed corridors were selected, the multi-disciplinary team refined the boundaries of each of the PEF proposed corridors. The team developed corridor boundaries of varying widths by narrowing the corridor to avoid siting constraints where practicable or widening the corridor to take advantage of siting opportunities. Transmission Line Design A transmission line generally consists of a steel or concrete structure, the conductor, which is attached to the structure by an insulator, and overhead groundwires used for lightning protection and communications for the protection and control systems located in the substation. Access roads and structure pads are also associated with transmission lines. The Project’s 230-kV and 69-kV transmission lines will be constructed using single-shaft tubular steel or spun concrete structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with braced line post or V-string insulators. The braced line post arrangement is a compressed construction design which minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed. The V-string insulator design allows longer span lengths due to the increased strength of this assembly. Typical heights will range from 80 to 145 feet for the 230-kV structures and 60 to 90 feet for the 69-kV structures. The 500-kV transmission lines will be constructed using tubular steel H-frame or monopole structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with V-string insulators which provide the necessary strength and minimize the amount of right-of-way needed. Structure heights will range from 110 to 195 feet. The span length between structures and the pole height will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, waterbodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. The typical spans between structures supporting 230- kV transmission lines will range from approximately 500 to 700 feet for the braced line post structures and 700 to 1,400 feet for the V-string structures. The typical spans between structures supporting 69-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 250 to 600 feet. The typical spans between structures supporting 500-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary. When new roads are required, they will typically be 18 feet wide and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. Generally, the existing ground will be leveled, a geotextile fabric will be installed, and compacted sand and gravel will be added to arrive at the desired road elevation. Culverts will be installed as required to maintain preconstruction waterflows. Structure pads will typically be 70 feet wide and 100 feet long and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. The size of the structure pads will vary depending upon the heights of the structures supported and other site-specific factors. The designs for these access roads and structure pads have been used by PEF in the past and have been previously approved in Florida. Design Standards The transmission lines will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes and standards. These include the National Electrical Safety Code, the standards of the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation, DEP's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, applicable local government requirements such as noise ordinances, and the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual. PEF's own internal design standards incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Transmission Line Construction PEF will work with the regulatory agencies and landowners to determine where the rights-of-way, transmission structures, access roads, and structure pads should be located. As rights-of-way are being selected, they will be surveyed to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests. After the right-of-way is established within the certified corridor, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the right-of-way. Where the proposed right-of-way is in uplands, the right-of-way clearing for the project will consist of vegetation and tree removal as necessary. Where the proposed right-of-way is in wetlands, vegetation will be cleared utilizing restrictive clearing techniques as necessary for specific sites. Restrictive wetlands clearing will be done by hand, with chainsaws or low ground-pressure shear or rotary machines, to reduce soil compaction and damage to vegetation. The cut material will be removed from the right-of-way utilizing either low ground-pressure equipment or temporary construction mats. Care will be taken to minimize rutting and disturbance of root mat. After the right-of-way is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Existing access roads and structure pads will be used whenever practicable. Where a transmission line will be constructed adjacent to an existing transmission right-of-way, improvements to the associated access roads and paths may be made. Where adequate access roads or structure pads do not exist, new roads and pads will be constructed. The next phase of construction will involve the erection of the structures. All structures will be supported with engineered foundations. Tangent structure foundations will normally consist of either direct buried structures with concrete backfill or reinforced-concrete drilled piers. Structures may also utilize guys and anchors at angle and deadend structures to help support the load. Transmission structures are generally delivered to the site using semi-trucks with open trailers and are assembled onsite as close as possible to the foundation. Typically, the structures are framed with the structure arms and insulator assemblies while lying on the ground. During the assembly process, poles are maneuvered into place using cranes and other lifting equipment to facilitate connections. Once assembled, a crane is used to lift the structures for final placement on the foundation. After the structures are erected, conductor installation will commence. The process of installing conductors involves stringing a pilot line into each structure stringing block to form a continuous connection between stringing end points. This pilot line is then used to pull the conductor into position. The conductor is then tensioned to design specifications, transferred to the support clamp, and clipped into position. The operation is performed on all overhead ground wires and conductors. Typical equipment used in the conductor installation operation includes bucket trucks, wire pulling equipment, guard structures, wire reels, trailers, tensioners, and support vehicles. The final stage of construction will be right-of-way restoration which includes removal of all construction equipment and supplies, grading the right-of-way if needed, and planting or seeding of the disturbed area if needed. During all stages of construction, PEF will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state, or federal roadways in compliance with DOT regulations. Sedimentation management techniques, including turbidity screens, temporary culverts, silt fences or staked hay bales, and the seeding or mulching of side slopes, will be utilized to minimize potential impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. Corridor Descriptions The LNP will add approximately 185 miles of new 69- kV, 230-kV, and 500-kV transmission lines to be placed within nine proposed corridors. The proposed corridors provide significant opportunities for collocation with other linear facilities such as roads and transmission lines which provides the opportunity to reduce costs, the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. The width of the proposed corridors varies along the routes to provide flexibility within the corridors to avoid impacts to existing developments, large wetland areas, and other features. After certification, and following the selection of rights-of- way, the boundaries of the corridors will be reduced to those of rights-of-way. The first proposed corridor is associated with the Citrus 1 and 2 lines. The Citrus lines are also referred to as the "LPC" transmission lines and the proposed corridor is referred to as the LPC corridor. The Citrus lines are two 500- kV transmission lines that will connect the LNP to the proposed Citrus Substation, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Citrus 1 and 2 lines will be located in Levy and Citrus Counties. This proposed corridor is approximately seven miles long and one mile wide. The LPC Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LPC Corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Crystal River 500-kV lines, the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the LPC Corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Crystal River lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line at some locations. The LPC corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island (which is wedged between the LWR and the CFBC), and will terminate at the proposed Citrus Substation located just north of PEF's existing Crystal River Central Florida transmission line in Citrus County. The second proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River line, which is also referred to as the "LCR" transmission line and the corridor is referred to as the LCR Corridor. The Crystal River line is a 500-kV transmission line that connects the LNP to the existing CREC switchyard in Citrus County. The Crystal River line will be located within Levy and Citrus Counties. The LCR Corridor is approximately 14 miles long and one mile wide. It begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LCR corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 500-kV lines, and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line in some locations. The LCR Corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and will enter the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At this point, the LCR Corridor turns west and follows the general alignment of the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida Transmission right-of-way into the CREC where it terminates at the CREC 500-kV switchyard. The third proposed corridor is associated with the Sumter line, which is also referred to as the "LCFS" transmission line. This corridor is referred to as the LCFS Corridor. The Sumter line is a 500-kV transmission line that will connect the LNP to the proposed Central Florida South Substation in Lake and Sumter Counties, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Sumter line will be located in Levy, Citrus, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The LCFS Corridor is approximately 59 miles long and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile wide. For most of its length, the 500-kV LCFS Corridor is collocated with the existing PEF transmission lines, except in the vicinity of the Central Florida South Substation, where it is collocated with the Florida Turnpike. The LCFS Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. It will be collocated with the proposed Citrus 1 & 2 and Crystal River 500-kV lines and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line. The LCFS Corridor crosses C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and continues south until reaching the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At that point, the LCFS Corridor turns east and follows the existing transmission line right-of-way through Citrus and Marion Counties for approximately 45 miles. The corridor turns southeast crossing into Sumter County and crosses S.R. 44 and I-75. The remaining five miles of the LCFS Corridor follows the general alignment of the Florida Turnpike to the southeast and terminates in the area of the proposed Central Florida Substation near Wildwood. The fourth proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River East 1 & 2 lines, which are also called the "CCRE" transmission lines. This is the CCRE Corridor. The Crystal River East lines are two 230-kV transmission lines that will connect the proposed Citrus Substation to the existing Crystal River East Substation in Citrus County. The lines will be located entirely within Citrus County. The CCRE Corridor is approximately 2.7 miles in length and one mile wide. The west end of the north boundary of the corridor is approximately one- half mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east approximately one-half mile north of West Dunnellon Road (CR-488). The west end of the south boundary of the corridor starts approximately 1 mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east along the northern boundary of the existing PEF transmission right-of-way. At a point approximately 0.3 miles east of U.S. 19, the corridor shifts south approximately one-half mile and continues east for another mile. The corridor also includes five existing 115-kV, 230-kV and 500-kV transmission lines and the Crystal River East Substation. The fifth and sixth proposed corridors are associated with the Levy North and South lines, which are also referred to as the "IS" and "IO" transmission lines. The Levy North and South lines are 69-kV transmission lines required to supply power for the construction and administration of the LNP. These lines will be located entirely within Levy County, and are mostly located on property owned by PEF in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP. The IS Corridor is approximately 373 feet in length and 400 feet wide. The IO Corridor is approximately 4.5 miles in length and one mile wide. The IO Corridor will begin at the south boundary of the LNP site and extend south to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line located south of C.R. 40 in Levy County. The IS Corridor will begin at the west boundary of the LNP site and extend west to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line that is located parallel to and east of U.S. 19 in Levy County. The seventh proposed corridor is associated with the Brookridge line, which is also referred to as the "CB" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the CB Corridor. The Brookridge line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing CREC to the existing Brookridge Substation in Hernando County. The Brookridge line will be located in Citrus and Hernando Counties. The overall length of the CB corridor is approximately 38 miles and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile. The corridor begins at the CREC switchyard and proceeds east towards the existing Crystal River East Substation then southeast to S.R. 44. The corridor collocates with existing transmission line rights-of- way. At S.R. 44, the corridor turns south, following the existing PEF 115-kV transmission right-of-way. Approximately one mile south of Centralia Road, the corridor turns east and ends at the existing Brookridge Substation. The eighth proposed corridor is associated with the Brooksville West line, which is also called the "BBW" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the BBW Corridor. The Brooksville west line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Brookridge Substation to the existing Brooksville West Substation in Hernando County. This line will be located entirely within Hernando County. The overall length of the BBW Corridor is approximately three miles and one-half mile wide. The BBW Corridor exits the Brookridge Substation, collocated with PEF's existing 500/230/115-kV transmission line right-of-way, and travels along Sunshine Grove Road to the south. It terminates at the Brooksville West Substation. The ninth and final proposed corridor is associated with the Kathleen line, which is also called the "PHP" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the PHP Corridor. The Kathleen line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Kathleen Substation in Polk County to the existing Lake Tarpon Substation in Pinellas County. The Kathleen line will be located in Polk, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties. The overall length of the PHP Corridor is approximately 50 miles, and it ranges in width from approximately 300 feet to 1000 feet. The corridor begins at the Kathleen Substation and travels west. It crosses U.S. 98 and turns south along the existing transmission line right-of-way to the Griffin Substation. At the Griffin Substation, the corridor turns west paralleling C.R. 582. The corridor crosses U.S. 301 and turns north and then west and crosses I-75, continuing northwest and following the existing transmission right-of-way, and then crosses I-275 and the Veteran's Expressway to the Lake Tarpon Substation. No alternate corridors were proposed for any of the nine proposed transmission line corridors. For each PEF- proposed transmission line corridor, the proposed corridor is the only corridor for the respective line that is proper for certification in this proceeding. For each of the proposed corridors, engineering features of interest, natural resource features, and land use features have been identified and depicted on maps, aerial images, and photographs, which have been utilized in the analysis of the corridors. Operational Safeguards The operational safeguards for each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Each transmission line will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including: the National Electric Safety Code; the North American Electric Reliability Corporation; the American National Standards Institute; applicable local government requirements; the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide; and PEF's internal design standards, which incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the applicable standards which regulate the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements has been calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements contained in DEP's Rule 62- 814.450(3). The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields and for the magnetic fields are within the values set forth in the rule. The calculations were performed in accordance with the rule requirements, using the maximum voltage and current for each configuration. Operation of any of these transmission lines at maximum voltage and current is not a likely condition. At normal operating levels of voltage and current, the electric fields produced by the transmission lines will be less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions, and the magnetic fields produced will be about 50 percent less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions. The levels of electric and magnetic fields at the edge of the rights-of-way associated with the transmission lines are similar to levels that are experienced by exposure to common household appliances. Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of build-up of particles on the conductor. This is known as corona. During periods of fair weather, particulate matter can collect on the conductor causing low levels of audible noise. During rain events, the particles are washed off and replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that can result in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary and masked by the sound of rain falling on vegetation and other surfaces, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise have been calculated using an industry standard software program known as the Bonneville Power Administration Corona Field Effects Program. The calculations performed for each of the transmission lines demonstrate that the maximum audible noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way will be less than the noise levels from most rainfall events or conversational speech at a distance of five feet. The calculated noise levels are expected to comply with all applicable noise ordinances. The operation of the proposed transmission lines is expected to cause minimal interference with radio and television reception in the vicinity of the transmission lines. Radio and television interference can be produced by corona on transmission line conductors or as a result of faulty equipment. Based upon the studies that have been performed, it is not expected that significant interference will occur. Beginning on July 12, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission has directed all television station operators to convert their transmissions to digital format. Digital signals are unaffected by electric fields or weather disturbances. In the event any homeowner or business experiences abnormal interference as a result of the transmission lines, PEF will investigate the complaints and mitigate impacts appropriately. Part of the BBW Corridor has an existing natural gas pipeline and a proposed additional natural gas pipeline that will be operated by Florida Gas Transmission Company. Safety concerns will be addressed in a licensing agreement allowing the pipeline company to utilize the right-of-way. Such collocation is common throughout Florida. The licensing agreement will require that the pipeline company comply with all applicable safety requirements for pipeline operation and will require that the pipeline design be reviewed by an independent engineering company to ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated given the constraints of the design and the proximity of transmission lines. This will ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated near the transmission lines and the electric current. Compliance with Nonprocedural Standards of Agencies The construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the proposed transmission lines in the proposed corridors is expected to comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The parties have agreed that the conditions of certification found in DEP Exhibit 1 are the applicable nonprocedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the transmission lines. PEF has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the transmission lines in the proposed corridors in compliance with the conditions of certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of these transmission lines. Consistency with Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Land Development Regulations There are a number of different land uses within the nine proposed corridors ranging from open lands, recreational lands, mining and agricultural lands, public and conservation lands, commercial uses, and residential. The construction of the transmission lines in the respective proposed corridors is not expected to impact the existing land uses or change those land uses. The location of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors is appropriate from a land use perspective. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the respective corridors are compatible with all types of existing land uses occurring in the vicinity of those corridors. Each of the proposed transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridors consistent with applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. After certification of the LNP, each proposed transmission line will be located and constructed established rights-of-way, including easements acquired after certification of the respective corridors. Construction of transmission lines on such established rights-of-way is excepted from the definition of "development" contained in Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. To the extent that comprehensive plans or land development regulations of the local governments crossed by the transmission lines include provisions that are applicable to non-development activities, the transmission lines in each of the designated corridors will be consistent and in compliance with those requirements. Meet Electrical Energy Needs of the State In an Orderly, Timely and Reliable Fashion Each proposed transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor to meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The anticipated schedule for the transmission line portion of the Project calls for the permitting, licensing and engineering activities, right-of-way acquisition, and construction to be carried out such that the transmission lines are constructed and operating in 2015 in advance of certain construction and start-up activities for LNP Unit 1. The proposed corridors maximize collocation opportunities for the transmission lines, enabling the collocated transmission lines to be constructed in a more timely and efficient manner. PEF will make all practicable efforts to minimize the impacts to traffic from the proposed transmission lines. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to facilitate the orderly construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors. Reasonable Balance Between the Need and the Impacts Each of the transmission lines is essential to meet the need identified by the PSC. PEF has a long history of reliably constructing, operating, and maintaining similar transmission lines throughout Florida. Each of the transmission lines is designed to comply with stringent reliability standards such as the National Electrical Safety Code and the standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will meet the need identified by the PSC. The PSC determined that there is a reliability need for additional base-load capacity by 2016. Levy Units 1 and 2 will add 2200 MW of capacity, and new transmission lines are necessary to accommodate this capacity on the electrical power system. The required transmission facilities include those necessary to connect the LNP to PEF's existing grid and to reliably integrate the additional capacity into the existing transmission system. PEF cannot meet the need identified by the PSC without these proposed transmission lines. PEF's proposed corridors were chosen using a multidisciplinary team of experts to minimize impacts on the environment. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the designated corridor with minimal adverse environmental impacts. The corridor selection process involved regional screening to minimize inclusion of areas of ecological constraints. Each corridor maximizes utilization of previously disturbed areas, where possible. The corridor width has been selected for each corridor to provide flexibility for selection of the final right-of-way to provide the ability to avoid ecological resources within the corridor to the extent practicable. No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated as a result of the construction or operation of the transmission lines. Each of the transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal, if any, adverse impact to water quality. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to fish and wildlife, including protected animal species. The presence of protected animal species was an important consideration during the corridor selection process, and each corridor avoids areas with known concentrations of protected species occurrences to the extent practicable. The agreed-upon conditions of certification require that preconstruction surveys be conducted, and the results will be submitted to the FWC for analysis. Mitigation, as appropriate, may be required. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to water resources, including wetlands. Water resources, including wetlands, were an important consideration during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Structures will not be constructed in major water bodies. The spans between structures will be varied to avoid wetland areas and other sensitive areas, where practicable. Herbaceous wetland communities, including marsh and wet prairie wetlands, can continue to grow underneath the proposed transmission lines. Best management practices will be utilized during construction to ensure that impacts to water bodies and other water resources are minimized. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impacts to other natural resources, including protected plant species and wildlife habitat. The presence of protected plant species and wildlife habitat were important considerations during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of each of the corridors with collocation opportunities has been altered from its natural state for construction and maintenance of the linear facility already there. This will minimize potential impacts. Minimize Adverse Effects Using Reasonable and Available Methods PEF will use reasonable and available methods during construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors to minimize adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the designated corridors will comply with the limits for electric and magnetic fields established by DEP in Rule Chapter 62-814 and by the National Electric Safety Code and related standards. In the corridor selection process, collocation opportunities were considered to be a significant criterion, and the corridors were chosen in a way that maximizes collocation with existing linear facilities. This is advantageous because existing linear facilities often provide existing access, and collocation can minimize the need for new access roads and structure pads and the need for new clearing, generally minimizing impacts. PEF will avoid wetlands and water bodies to the extent practicable by varying the length of the spans between structures. PEF will use restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands, removing vegetation selectively. In cases in which fill is required, PEF will install culverts to maintain water movement. PEF will allow certain vegetation to re-grow, or re- vegetate, in the rights-of-way of the transmission lines following construction, which will maintain suitable habitat for certain listed species. Wetland impacts that cannot be avoided will be appropriately mitigated. Prior to final rights-of-way determination and the beginning clearing in the rights-of-way for the transmission lines, surveys for protected plant and animal species will be conducted to verify their presence or absence in the proposed transmission line right-of-way for each of the lines. In the event that protected plants or animals cannot be avoided, efforts will be made to relocate the individuals in consultation with the FWC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or to provide appropriate mitigation in accordance with the conditions of certification. PEF has agreed to comply with the conditions of certification in the construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines. The conditions require measures to eliminate or minimize potential impacts to the environment, including impacts to the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and Protect the Broad Interest of the Public The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will serve and protect the broad interests of the public. The public's interest is served through the provision of safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric service. The transmission lines are essential for providing that service. The public outreach program carried out by PEF provided the public with an avenue to voice their concerns. Concerns expressed were considered in the selection process. The corridor selection process maximized collocation opportunities for the selection of each of the corridors, where practicable. By following existing linear features where possible, the corridors and the ultimate rights-of-way can conform to existing development patterns and minimize intrusions into surrounding areas. Collocation reduces costs and impacts. The existing land uses found within the corridors are compatible with each of the proposed transmission lines in part because the corridors are collocated with linear facilities to the extent feasible. The transmission lines that are proposed can coexist with the types of development that are found along each of the corridors. As a result of the process utilized by the multidisciplinary team, the corridors minimize the number of homes that may be affected and avoid public and conservation lands to the maximum degree practicable. The transmission lines will minimize the impacts on cultural and historical resources by avoiding those areas where practicable and by performing a preconstruction survey in consultation with DEP and the Division of Historical Resources to determine the appropriate action should such resources be found. Disruption to traffic during the construction of each of the transmission lines is expected to be minor. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to ensure minimization of traffic impacts. Radio and television interference as a result of the operation of the transmission lines will be minimal, and any impacts will be addressed by PEF. The expected noise levels from the transmission lines will be similar to the noise levels resulting from rainfall events and conversation at five feet. The calculated noise levels will comply with all applicable noise ordinances and requirements. The electric and magnetic fields produced by the transmission lines will comply with the applicable standards established by the DEP. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Following the withdrawal of the other intervenors in this proceeding, SACE was the only remaining party opposing certification of the Project. In the prehearing stipulation of the parties, SACE appears to raise five basic issues: (a) there must be express conditions in the agency reports to address impacts to wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and necessary mitigation should the Project not be completed; (b) adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources; (c) business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment"; (d) risks to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation; and (e) agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. SACE did not offer the testimony of any witnesses or present any evidence in this proceeding on these or any other issues. With regard to SACE's first issue, SACE has failed to identify which of the reviewing agencies neglected to propose appropriate conditions or what additional conditions are necessary. In any event, the record shows that DEP, FWC, and SWFWMD all proposed extensive conditions in their agency reports related to protection of wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and/or mitigation of Project-related impacts. With regard to wetlands mitigation, if the Project is not completed, PEF will perform mitigation necessary to compensate for wetlands actually impacted. See Finding of Fact 126. SACE's second contention is that the Project will cause adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources. As detailed in Findings of Fact 73, 115-131, 133-134, PEF has presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands or to water resources that are not fully offset by mitigation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Further, as indicated in Findings of Fact 124-126, 130, and 134, PEF has proposed a comprehensive wetlands mitigation plan that will offset any adverse impacts to wetlands caused by the construction of the LNP. SACE did not present any evidence that this mitigation plan, which has been conceptually approved by the DEP, is inadequate to protect wetlands or meet regulatory requirements. SACE's third contention is related to business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment." These matters are not relevant under the PPSA criteria, Section 403.509(3), Florida Statutes, but are instead addressed by the PSC. A petition for a determination of need for a new nuclear plant must include a cost estimate, base revenue requirements, and information related to joint ownership discussions. See § 403.519(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The PSC has already determined that the Project is needed, specifically finding that "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide adequate electricity at a reasonable cost." Under Section 403.519(4), Florida Statutes, the PSC is the "sole forum" for a determination of need. Reconsideration of factors already considered by the PSC in this proceeding is improper. Further, the record does not support SACE's contention regarding alleged business risks. PEF presented uncontroverted evidence that LNP Units 1 and 2 are on schedule to be in service in the 2016/2017 timeframe and that procurement activities have begun. See Finding of Fact 21. SACE's fourth issue relates to adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. As detailed in Findings of Fact 51, 56, 61, 62, 69–72, 88–92, and 131-133, PEF presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, or vegetation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Finally, SACE contends that the agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. Again, SACE has failed to identify which agency reports failed to address these alleged risks. SACE likewise has not identified any specific regulatory requirement for such evaluations of environmental risks beyond the evaluations provided by the agencies. The record shows that DEP, FWC, SWFWMD, and Levy County all addressed risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and/or vegetation in their agency reports and proposed conditions of certification related thereto. Public Comment and Public Testimony Sworn oral public testimony was received from approximately 69 individuals and unsworn public comment was received from approximately 16 individuals during the portion of the final hearing devoted to that purpose. Many of the individuals who provided public testimony also submitted written comments. Three written comments were received from members of the public who did not attend one of the public comment sessions. Thirty hours were devoted to allowing members of the public to comment on the Project over six separate sessions. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the Project. Several members of the public commented on the benefits of nuclear power in general and the economic benefits of the LNP specifically. Many others spoke in favor of the extensive public outreach conducted by PEF on the Project. Numerous members of the public spoke of PEF's history of being a good corporate neighbor. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of questions and concerns. Many of these concerns and questions are addressed by the evidence and are discussed by reference to the relevant Findings of Fact. However, several were outside the scope of the matters considered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the Project is not needed, is too costly, and should be deferred in favor of other energy alternatives. But the PSC already considered those issues in certifying a need for the Project. The PSC's determinations are binding, and those issues were not reconsidered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns related to radiological safety, storage of nuclear waste, and radioactive effluent contamination of groundwater via "fracture sets." Radiological issues raised by SACE were stricken because they were preempted by federal regulation under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, radiological safety issues were not considered in the certification hearing. The LNP must be approved by the NRC which regulates radiological safety of nuclear power plants. However, there was evidence that the Florida Department of Health monitors groundwater and other media in the vicinity of nuclear plants, and PEF's subsurface investigation did not reveal any evidence of fracture sets below the LNP site. See Finding of Fact 79. Some members of the public expressed concerns regarding potential infrastructure and lifestyle changes to the Town of Inglis. Specifically, members of the public raised concerns related to strain on local public services; traffic impacts; limits on development due to the LNP; and concerns that financial benefits will go only to Levy County and, more specifically, not the Town of Inglis. First, it should be noted that, along with other affected local governments, the Town of Inglis was provided a copy of PEF's nine-volume SCA on June 2, 2008. The Town of Inglis did not file a notice of intent to be a party to this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.508(3), Florida Statutes, and thus waived its right to be a party. In addition, the Town had the opportunity to submit an agency report or to propose conditions of certification pursuant to Section 403.507, Florida Statutes, but did not. As acknowledged in public testimony by one of the Town Council members, the Town of Inglis's Council is unanimously in favor of the LNP. Nonetheless, as detailed in Findings of Fact 143-146, PEF presented competent substantial evidence that public services and facilities in the region of the LNP (which includes the Town of Inglis) are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. PEF also presented evidence that roadways in the vicinity will continue to operate at or above their adopted level of service capacities. See Findings of Fact 135-137. Further, there is no evidence that development will be restricted as a result of the LNP. Current limitations around the CREC related to increases in density are the result of Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan, not the CREC or state regulatory requirements. Finally, while significant tax revenues will go to Levy County, PEF presented evidence that the LNP's operation will contribute $521 million annually to the regional economy, which includes the Town of Inglis. See Finding of Fact 148. By way of comparison, although PEF's CREC is in Citrus County (and outside the Crystal River city limits), the Crystal River City Manager testified that PEF has been good for the Citrus County school system, has provided jobs for residents, and has been very helpful to efforts in the community. Other members of the public expressed concerns that the new jobs created by the LNP will not go to local residents. As indicated in Finding of Fact 141, PEF has and will continue to make efforts to train and employ local residents at the LNP. Other members of the public expressed concern that increased salinity in the CFBC would cause saltwater intrusion in the Lower Withlacoochee River. There is no connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River. While the LNP's withdrawals from the CFBC will increase salinity in the CFBC somewhat, it will not cause increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River. See Findings of Fact 66-67. A member of the public expressed concern that PEF's proposed location for the CWIS would prevent future reconnection of the Withlacoochee River in an effort to provide more freshwater to the Lower Withlacoochee River.3 As detailed in Finding of Fact 68, options for reconnection of the Withlacoochee River have been evaluated by SWFWMD, but would not provide adequate increased freshwater flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River. Another issue raised during the public testimony sessions was the impact of cooling tower drift on vegetation surrounding the LNP. As indicated in Findings of Fact 103-104 and 110-111, PEF presented uncontroverted expert testimony that cooling tower drift will not adversely impact natural resources, including wetlands and surface waters. Several residents of Hernando County expressed concern that a portion of the BBW transmission line as proposed along Sunshine Grove Road is incompatible from a public safety standpoint with existing and proposed natural gas pipelines in this same area. PEF presented evidence, however, that this type of collocation of transmission lines and gas pipelines is commonplace throughout Florida. Further, it was not demonstrated that such collocation is prohibited under or contrary to applicable law or agency regulation. Some of these residents focused their concern on whether locating the BBW transmission line in proximity to a natural gas pipeline would be inconsistent with PEF's internal collocation guidelines, which these residents believe prohibit such collocation because an unsafe operating condition will result. As noted by Hernando County’s attorney and DEP's Siting Administrator, there is no basis in statute, ordinance, or rule to require PEF to comply with its internal guidelines. In any event, PEF presented evidence that the purpose of its internal collocation guidelines is to ensure the safety of persons involved in the construction and installation of a pipeline in proximity to an existing transmission line. Further, PEF is bound by the conditions of certification to comply with requirements of the National Electric Safety Code as they relate to induced currents that might affect a gas pipeline. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 76, Condition XLII(H). Other residents were concerned that construction of the BBW transmission line would be unsafe due to the presence of an existing natural gas pipeline. The conditions of certification require, however, that PEF comply with applicable federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards during construction of each of the transmission lines. The conditions of certification also require PEF to contact the Sunshine State One Call service to locate underground utilities prior to construction activities. Finally, after PEF selects its ultimate location for the BBW transmission line, Hernando County and other agencies will have the opportunity to review the proposed location and notify the DEP Siting Coordination Office if it believes that the construction of the transmission line within the selected right-of-way cannot be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of certification. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 65-66, Condition XXXV(A).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Brooke E. Lewis, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Gigi Rollini, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 For the Department of Environmental Protection: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For Levy County: Anne Bast Brown, Esquire Levy County Attorney 380 South Court Street Bronson, Florida 32621-6517 For Hillsborough County: Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney's Office 601 East Kennedy Boulevard, 27th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 For City of Tampa: Janice McLean, Esquire Office of the City Attorney Old City Hall, 5th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 For the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy: E. Leon Jacobs, Esquire Williams & Jacobs 1720 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5506
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order: Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain a two-unit nuclear powered electrical generating facility in Levy County, Florida, including a heavy haul road, site access roads, and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines, subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended; and Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain each of the following electrical transmission line corridors as associated facilities, as described above and subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, Crystal River Transmission Line, Sumter Transmission Line, Levy North Transmission Line, Levy South Transmission Line, Brookridge Transmission Line, Brooksville West Transmission Line, Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this portion of the proceeding is whether the Siting Board should issue a final certification to the Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) to construct and operate the Treasure Coast Energy Center (TCEC) Unit 1 and an ultimate site capacity determination of 1,200 megawatts of steam electric generating capacity to be located at the TCEC, in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: FMPA is a joint action agency created under the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 (Section 163.01, Florida Statutes) and the Joint Power Act (Part II, Chapter 361, Florida Statutes). FMPA comprises twenty-nine municipal electric utilities across Florida and was created to allow its member utilities to cooperate with each other on the financing, construction, ownership, and operation of electrical generating resources. FMPA is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of one representative from each of the twenty-nine member cities. Within FMPA, the All-Requirements Project (ARP) was formed in 1986 and currently has fifteen municipal members serving approximately 280,000 customers. Under the ARP, both generating and non-generating members purchase all of their capacity and electrical energy needs from the ARP. Additionally, ARP members with generating plants commit their capacity to FMPA. FMPA will own the TCEC and act as the project manager for construction. The FPUA will operate Unit 1 for FMPA. FMPA's proposed TCEC will be located in the County, approximately five miles west of the City of Fort Pierce and eight miles north of the City of Port St. Lucie. Much of the site's northwestern boundary is determined by a Florida East Coast Railroad line that parallels Glades Cut- Off Road. To the south, the site is bordered by the North St. Lucie River Water Control District's Canal 102 with a Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) electrical transmission line right-of-way across the southern part of property and adjacent to Canal 102. The parcel north of the proposed site is owned by the FPUA and is proposed for a mainland wastewater treatment plant. The land directly east of the site is largely undeveloped industrial park. The proposed plant site itself is located within the Midway Industrial Park. The site is approximately one-half mile east of the Florida Turnpike and one-half mile north of Midway Road. The site contains approximately 68.1 acres. Land use and vegetation at the site consist primarily of pasture used for cattle and horses. Within the pasture land are areas of wet prairie, freshwater marsh, and Brazilian Pepper. The site was historically and most likely pine flatwoods or savannah, based on the characteristics of the surrounding vicinity. However, due to past clearing and agricultural activities, the site has been significantly altered from its natural state and has little native vegetation. Current vegetation reflects the disturbed condition of the site. There were no observations or indications of protected plant or wildlife species on the site. The site is located in an area outside the 500-year flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The future land use map in the County's Comprehensive Plan indicates no expected changes in the land use patterns for the site or the adjacent land area in the future, indicating that the site will continue to be compatible with the predominant land use in the immediate Project vicinity. As part of its land development approvals for the site, the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners determined that the Project was compatible with surrounding land uses. FMPA proposes to construct a nominal 300-megawatt combined cycle electrical generating unit at the site known as Unit 1. FMPA is also requesting an ultimate site capacity determination for a total of 1,200 megawatts of generating capacity to be located at the Project site. Any future electrical generating units after the first two units up to the proposed ultimate site capacity of 1,200 megawatts will require additional zoning review and approval and any other applicable County development authorization at the time those units are proposed for approval. Unit 1 will be dual fuel, with natural gas as the primary fuel and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel oil as a backup fuel. The Project will be a "one-on-one" combined cycle unit. Unit 1 will be comprised of a combustion turbine, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), and a single steam turbine generator. In the combustion turbine, fuel is combusted in the form of hot gases which expand through the turbine. The combustion turbine spins the electrical generator that is directly connected, producing power. About half of the energy of the hot gases is extracted when expanded through the combustion turbine. The remainder of the heat is exhausted into a HRSG. These hot gases flow through the HRSG which turns water into steam. The steam flows into a steam turbine, spinning a second electrical generator. The steam is then exhausted into a condenser, where it is condensed back into water and pumped back to the HRSG. The HRSG will also be equipped with duct firing to provide peak power by increasing the steam production in the HRSG, which increases the output from the steam turbine generator. The Unit will also be able to operate in a steam turbine bypass operation where the combustion turbine and HRSG will operate normally but the steam will bypass the steam turbine. This mode of operation will be employed during startups and will also allow unit operation when the steam turbine/generator is not available. Combined cycle generation technology is very efficient because it generates electrical energy from the fuel input, both directly through the combustion turbine and indirectly through capture of the energy in the combustion turbine exhaust gas in the HRSG. This captured energy is used to produce steam to drive the separate steam turbine electrical generator. By reheating the steam between sections of the steam turbine, additional improvements and cycle efficiency can be achieved. Combined cycle technology makes the most of the input fuel, achieving increased efficiency in the generation of electrical energy. It achieves efficiencies of 55 percent in converting fuel into electricity. For these reasons, the modern combined cycle power plant is one of the most efficient power cycles available. If properly maintained and operated, the life expectancy of a combined cycle unit is indefinite. Combined cycle units operating on natural gas, such as Unit 1, are one of the cleanest sources of fossil generation. These units also use considerably less water than traditional steam turbine units, requiring approximately one-half the amount of water used by a steam cycle only unit with similar electrical output. The ultimate site arrangement for the Project allows for the installation of three future similar-sized combined cycle units for an ultimate site certification capacity of approximately 1,200 megawatts. FMPA will clear and develop the entire Project site during the construction for Unit 1. A cooling tower used to cool the steam turbine condenser will be located to the north of Unit 1. The cooling tower will consume approximately 95 percent of all the water used by the Project. For this Project, reclaimed water will be supplied from FPUA's soon-to-be constructed water reclamation facility, which will be located just north of the site. The reclaimed water will be used as cooling tower makeup. Until the water reclamation plant comes online, the new Unit 1 will utilize water withdrawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for cooling. The cooling tower design will be a multiple cell, mechanical draft, counter flow cooling tower. Access to the site will be over Energy Drive, which is an access road in the adjacent industrial park. Unit 1 will be interconnected to the FPL electrical transmission system. A new electrical switchyard will be constructed on the site. Two new transmission lines will connect the site to an existing nearby FPL electrical substation and electrical transmission system. The new transmission lines will be installed on new structures for the entire length of each transmission line. Each of the two new lines will be approximately three miles long. One line will parallel Glades Cut-Off Road to the southwest and connect to the existing FPL Midway/Turnpike transmission line. The second line will go west from the Project site, cross Glades Cut-Off Road parallel to an existing road and FPL transmission line, cross over the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95, and then turn south into the FPL Midway electrical substation. Each corridor is one-fourth mile wide for most of its length. It is expected that a final right- of-way will be acquired parallel to Glades Cut Off Road for one transmission line and a final right-of-way will be acquired for the second transmission line parallel to the existing FPL right- of-way. The new transmission line structures will be self- supporting concrete tubular steel or hybrid concrete-tubular steel poles or a combination of these options. The typical aboveground height of the transmission structures will be approximately one hundred feet. The structures will be placed approximately four hundred to eight hundred feet apart along the route. The lines will be designed to meet the clearance requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code for the minimum ground clearance of twenty-six feet. The two lines will also comply with the Department's electric and magnetic fields limits in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. These two transmission line corridors were selected as the most direct means with the least impact for connecting into the FPL transmission network. The transmission lines are located in areas zoned for commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. No housing units will be moved as part of the Project and no residential areas will be impacted. The transmission lines will be constructed completely within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way which provide minimal ecological value. A new natural gas pipeline up to sixteen inches in diameter is proposed to connect the site with the Florida Gas Transmission gas pipeline. This existing gas main is located approximately 3,700 feet southwest of the site, near the Florida Turnpike. A 1,320-foot wide corridor centered on Glades Cut Off Road from the Florida Turnpike to the site is proposed for certification. A seventy-five-foot wide temporary easement for pipeline installation and a permanent forty-foot right-of-way are anticipated. It is expected that the natural gas pipeline will be constructed within or adjacent to the existing Florida East Coast Railroad corridor or adjacent to Glades Cut Off Road. The pipeline will be manufactured according to American Petroleum Institute standards and will be built in accordance with United States Department of Transportation and FPSC safety requirements. The proposed gas pipeline corridor is located in areas zoned for commercial and utility uses. No residential areas will be impacted during construction of the underground pipeline. The existing railroad right-of-way is expected to be maintained as a transportation corridor and provides minimal ecological value. There will be minimal impacts to vegetation in the gas pipeline right-of-way as there will be only minor clearing required for construction. Disturbed lands will be returned to maintained right-of-way condition following construction. Fuel oil for use in the unit will be delivered by truck. A complete fuel unloading, storage, and supply system will be installed at the site. The unloading station will be designed for containment of a fuel spill. Double-walled piping will be used for underground piping running through the unloading station to the storage tank and from the tank to the combustion turbine. A one-million gallon aboveground storage tank will be installed to provide approximately three days of fuel oil at full load operation for Unit 1. This will be a single wall tank fabricated from carbon steel and will be installed inside a dike containment area. The containment area will be provided with a synthetic liner sufficiently impermeable to ensure no oil can escape by infiltrating through the liner into the soil or into surface or groundwaters. The major water use during operation of Unit 1 will involve cooling tower operation. This is the highest volume water consumer for the Project. The cooling system will use approximately 2.52 million gallons per day of treated wastewater, most of which is evaporated to the atmosphere in the cooling process. Other plant non-cooling water uses will include the plant service water system. This system supplies fire water, miscellaneous process uses, and makeup water to the demineralizer system. The demineralizer system provides boiler makeup water and provides water for control of nitrogen oxides when firing oil in the unit. Treated sewage effluent or reclaimed water will be used for cooling tower makeup water. This reclaimed water will be provided by the FPUA wastewater treatment plant proposed to be located north and adjacent to the site. This treatment plant is expected to be online in late 2009. The reclaimed water will be supplied via pipeline across the site. It will be necessary to utilize groundwater for cooling purposes until the wastewater treatment plant is online. Groundwater will also be used when the wastewater treatment is offline and unable to supply treated effluent in the future. Three new onsite wells pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will supply fire water and service water. The wells will supply water to the steam cycle and makeup treatment system and the evaporative cooling makeup. They will also provide a temporary water supply for cooling tower makeup. The wells will be sized so that two of the wells will be able to provide the required water flow at full load with a third well as a backup. An average of 2.95 million gallons per day of groundwater will be used prior to the availability of reclaimed water. An average of approximately 129,000 gallons per day of groundwater will be needed under average annual conditions for non-cooling water needs of the plant. Cooling tower blowdown from Unit 1 will be conveyed to the FPUA wastewater treatment plant for treatment and disposal. Approximately 586,000 gallons per day of cooling tower blowdown wastewater will be returned to the FPUA system for disposal. The cooling tower system will operate at three cycles of concentration when using groundwater, which is considered the maximum practical limit to prevent scaling of heat transfer systems within the cooling system. When reuse water is available, the cooling towers will operate at four cycles of concentration, which further minimizes the amount of water needed for cooling. The cooling system is also designed to minimize the amount of cooling tower blowdown and makeup that is required. Potable water for the site will be provided through an extension from the FPUA municipal water system. This connection will also supply the evaporative cooler needs on the Unit and backup water supply to the plant service water system. Water treatment and other water uses in Unit 1 will generate various process wastewaters. Wastewaters from the onsite demineralizer system, including filter backwash and reverse osmosis reject wastewater, will be routed to an onsite wastewater sump for disposal to the FPUA wastewater treatment plant. The HRSG and boiler piping will be chemically cleaned during commissioning of the new unit and the steam generators will be cleaned infrequently over the life of the unit. Chemical cleaning solutions will be neutralized onsite if required and transported offsite by a licensed waste disposal contractor. Sanitary wastewater will be routed to the FPUA municipal sanitary treatment system for treatment and disposal. The TCEC design contains several features to minimize impacts of project wastewaters to surface and groundwaters. The cooling system design will minimize the amount of cooling tower blowdown and makeup required. There will be no process wastewater discharge to groundwater or surface waters at the plant site. All process and sanitary wastewaters will be returned to FPUA for final disposal. Further, the use of reclaimed and treated wastewater in the cooling system will reduce the quantity of wastewater that would otherwise have to be disposed of to surface and groundwaters. Groundwater consumption will also be reduced through the use of treated wastewater for cooling and by recovering and pumping blowdown water from the HRSG to the cooling towers as makeup rather than sending the blowdown to the wastewater collection and disposal system. Groundwater withdrawals during initial operation of Unit 1 are proposed from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for cooling tower makeup until future sources of treated wastewater become available for the Project to displace groundwater withdrawals. Analyses were performed to determine the impact of these groundwater withdrawals from the non-potable Upper Floridan Aquifer. A three-dimensional aquifer analysis computer model was developed to model these impacts. The computer model was one developed by the United States Geological Survey and approved by the SFWMD. The drawdown in the Floridan Aquifer was simulated for the condition of groundwater withdrawals for Unit 1 of 3.2 million gallons per day. This assessment indicates that the onsite pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer would have a small impact on existing legal groundwater users in the area. This modeling predicts that the additional two- and one- foot drawdowns in the Upper Floridan Aquifer due to the plant withdrawals at maximum withdrawal rates would occur at 1.8 and 5.8 miles, respectively, from the Project. This limited impact in drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer and the magnitude of the drawdown increase are not considered significant. The proposed groundwater pumping is not expected to cause salt water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer. Due to the presence of a 600-foot thick Hawthorne formation and the upward gradient from the Upper Floridan Aquifer to the land surface, no adverse effects to surface wetlands are expected. The SFWMD agreed with these conclusions as indicated in its report submitted to the Department. Impacts on the Upper Floridan Aquifer after the Project begins operation using reclaimed water will be significantly reduced and also cause no adverse impacts. Project construction may require dewatering for placement of subsurface facilities, such as piping, electrical trenches, sumps, and foundations. Dewatering impacts for construction were estimated using site specific geotechnical information. Due to the short duration of the onsite dewatering, it will not affect existing users and will have a minimal and temporary impact on the surficial water table aquifer. No impact is expected to extend beyond the project site boundaries. Of the 68.1-acre Project site, 11.96 acres constitute wetlands. Three onsite wetlands will be lost due to the site development, comprising 11.25 acres of wetlands. The onsite wetlands were delineated in accordance with state and federal guidelines for such delineations. These onsite wetlands are low quality herbaceous wetlands, mainly disturbed wet prairie and freshwater marshes. Cattle have access to the entire site including these wetlands. Natural vegetation and wildlife have been largely eliminated from the Project site and much of the surrounding vicinity due to onsite grazing and past development activities, including residential, industrial, and commercial development. Based on these considerations, the loss of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat at the Project site will be insignificant. FMPA must mitigate for the unavoidable wetlands impacts due to site development. FMPA has entered into a mitigation credit purchase and sale agreement with the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank (located in the County) to compensate for those wetlands impacts subject to state jurisdiction. There will be no impacts to surface waters from operation of the facility. The Project will not withdraw or discharge wastewaters to surface waters. The onsite stormwater management system will be designed to comply with all applicable state and local regulations regarding discharge into offsite surface waters. The stormwater management system will meet the water quality treatment requirements of the Department and SFWMD, as well as the standards of the County. Runoff originating from potentially contaminated areas, such as miscellaneous plant drains and drainage from oil containment areas, will be routed through an oil/water separator. Oil and grease will be removed from the contaminated stormwater, and the treated effluent will be collected and discharged to the FPUA wastewater treatment plant. Captured oil and grease will be properly disposed offsite. Runoff from other potentially contaminated areas, such as storage tank containment areas, will be contained locally. All runoff from the fenced site will be directed to the onsite stormwater detention basin for treatment and discharge in accordance with applicable stormwater rules. Peak stormwater discharges from the Project area are less than the peak stormwater discharges from the pre-Project site for the same storm event. Therefore, the potential for local flooding will not be affected by the Project. During construction, a combination of silt fencing, straw bale sediment barriers, and a stormwater detention pond will be used to control erosion on the site and to reduce the potential for transport of loaded sediment offsite. Grading will be accomplished in phases and each graded area will be seeded and mulched after construction is completed. During operation, stormwater ditches will route stormwater to the onsite stormwater detention area. This basin will meet the stormwater treatment quality and quantity requirements of the Department, SFWMD, and County. Thus, there will be minimal adverse impact from the management and storage of surface waters on the site. Air emissions from the Project are subject to review under federal and state regulations, primarily the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. The Department regulates major air pollution facilities, such as Unit 1, in accordance with the PSD program under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-212.400. The PSD pre-construction review is required in areas currently in attainment with the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The County is an attainment area for those air quality standards. The state PSD regulations are designed to assure that the air quality in existing attainment areas like the County does not significantly deteriorate or exceed the ambient air quality standards while providing a margin for future industrial and commercial growth. The PSD regulations apply to major stationary sources and major modifications at major existing sources undergoing construction. A major stationary source is defined for PSD permitting purposes as any one of twenty-eight listed major source categories which emits or has the potential to emit one hundred tons per year or more of any regulated pollutant. The Unit 1 Project is one of the twenty-eight major listed category types, a fossil fuel-fired steam electric plant, and has the potential to emit greater than one hundred tons per year of at least one of the PSD regulated pollutants. Unit 1 also exceeds the PSD significant emission levels for several pollutants and is thus subject to PSD review as a major stationary source. The emissions from Unit 1 subject to PSD review include nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and sulfuric acid mist. The PSD review requires an analysis of best available control technology (BACT), an air quality impact analysis, and an assessment of the Project's impacts on general commercial residential and commercial growth, soils and vegetation, and visibility, as well as impacts to air quality in Class I areas. BACT is defined as an air emission limitation based on the maximum degree of pollutant reduction for emissions, determined on a case-by-case basis, considering technical, economic, energy, and environmental factors, as well as other costs for the control of each pollutant. The facilities at the Project subject to BACT review include the combustion turbine, the fuel oil storage tank, a diesel driven fire pump and oil storage tank, a safe shutdown generator and storage tank, and the mechanical-draft cooling tower. A BACT analysis was performed for each of these emission sources. The analysis was conducted using the "top down" methodology described by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Based upon this analysis, best available control technologies for controlling NOx emissions from Unit 1 were determined by the Department during its PSD review to be the use of dry low NOx burners within the combustion turbine and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) installed in the HRSG to achieve an emission limit of 2.0 parts per million of NOx when burning natural gas. The Department also determined during its PSD review that when burning fuel oil, BACT to control NOx emissions was the use of water injection with a SCR to achieve an emission limit of 8.0 parts per million. The Department agreed with FMPA's proposed NOx emission limit for this Project. For carbon monoxide emissions, BACT control was determined by the Department during its PSD review to be good combustion controls and practices. Carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as natural gas and fuel oil. Most combustion turbines incorporate good combustion practices based on high temperature and other techniques to minimize emissions of CO. The Department further determined during its PSD review that the BACT for CO was 4.1 parts per million for natural gas firing and 8.0 parts per million for fuel oil firing. A continuous limit of 8.0 parts per million CO on a twenty-four hours basis will also be implemented for both gas and oil firing with or without the duct burner in operation. In addition, an annualized limit of 6.0 parts per million of CO will also be included to recognize that Unit 1 will be operated in the normal natural gas-fired mode. BACT for particulate emissions, both PM and PM10, was determined by the Department during its PSD review to be a fuel selection of natural gas and ultra low sulfur fuel oil and good combustion controls. Sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid mist control was determined by the Department in its PSD review to be the use of low sulfur fuels, including the limited use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. The cooling tower can produce PM emissions in the small amounts of water entrained in the air passing through the cooling tower that can be carried out of the tower, known as "drift" droplets. These droplets contain impurities from the cooling water which can be classified as an emission. FMPA proposed, and the Department accepted during its PSD review, that use of high-efficiency mist eliminators with a maximum guaranteed drift rate of 0.0005 percent constitutes BACT for these drift emissions. Modeling of the impacts of the emissions and plume from the cooling tower indicates that there would be no environmental impact. Finally, the Department concluded during its PSD review that the use of ultra low sulfur fuel oil and limited hours of operations (five hundred hours or less) insures that emissions from both the onsite safe shutdown generator and the diesel engine fire pump will be minimal. An air quality impact analysis was also conducted for the Project-related air emissions, in accordance with the Department's and EPA's air dispersion modeling guidelines. The ambient air quality impact analysis conducted for Unit 1 demonstrates that this Project will not have a significant impact on air quality near the Project site or in the nearest Class I air quality areas, including the Everglades National Park. There are no predicted air quality impacts greater than the PSD significant impact levels. Therefore, under the PSD program, no further air quality impact analysis was required for the Project. The Project is not expected to cause any adverse impacts on vegetation, soils, or visibility in the Project area or at the nearest Class I areas. The Project construction activities may produce air emissions during onsite construction of buildings and from construction equipment exhaust. Particulate matter would be the major source of air pollution during construction. These emissions are expected to be intermittent, short term, and composed of relatively-large particles. These particles tend to settle out quickly and will not generally leave the Project site. Particulate matter emissions will be controlled by watering and application of dust suppressants or ground covers as necessary in active work areas. Construction and operation of the Project will result in significant economic benefits to the County, the region, and the State of Florida. No significant permanent adverse socioeconomic impacts are expected. The anticipated benefits of the Project include primarily the direct and indirect employment and earnings impacts that will be realized in the area from construction and operation. The Unit 1 construction will create approximately 286 temporary jobs, with an estimated payroll of $23.6 million over a twenty-two-month period. It is expected that most of these jobs will be filled by workers already residing in or near the County. The in-migration of construction employees will be small and should not increase the demand for services from local governments and nearby service providers. Information gathered for the Project indicates that more than enough service capacity is available to accommodate the construction work force. Individuals temporarily relocating to the area during construction should not have a problem securing affordable housing. The indirect socioeconomic impacts from construction of the Project include the creation of service jobs in the area to accommodate construction workers. Using an accepted economic multiplier, it is expected that 762 additional jobs may be created as a result of the construction. Expenditure of the construction payroll in the local economy will be passed along to local businesses through spending by construction workers and the governments in the form of taxes. Benefits from operation of the Project will occur from the sixteen operational personnel needed to operate the combined cycle units. The annual payroll for these employees is estimated to be $1.38 million. It is expected that these employees will come from the existing FPUA work force. Since operational personnel tend to live near the facility they operate, the majority of the annual payroll will remain within the local economy. Indirect socioeconomic impacts will include the creation of up to sixteen additional fulltime indirect jobs as a result of the operation of the combined cycle project. By its Order dated July 27, 2005, the FPSC found that there is a need for the proposed Unit 1, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity. The FPSC found that Unit 1 was required to maintain FMPA's winter and summer reserve margins. The FPSC also found that Unit 1 will enhance the reliability and integrity of FMPA's electric system through the use of the highly efficient combined cycle technology with the ability to burn two different types of fuel. The two interconnections to FPL's transmission system would also be a benefit to Unit 1 and allow FMPA to better serve its members in the FPL transmission grid. FMPA's analysis of five proposals from other potential bidders indicated that Unit 1 is the most cost-effective option available. There were no conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to FMPA which would mitigate the need for the proposed Unit 1. Unit 1 was further found by the FPSC to provide the most cost-effective solution to satisfy FMPA's forecast capacity requirements beginning in 2008. The Department, DCA, FPSC, SFWMD, FDOT, FFWCC, TCRPC, and the Cities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie each prepared written reports on the Project. The Department has proposed Conditions of Certification for the Project, which FMPA has agreed to accept and comply with in construction and operation of the Project. No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the Project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant final certification to the Treasure Coast Energy Center Project under Part II, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction, and operation of the Project, representing a 1,200 megawatts combined cycle unit site with Unit 1 being a nominal 300- megawatt combined cycle unit, as described in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at the certification hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in Department Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th 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 30th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 28, 1987 Hy Kom filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a .0126 MGD Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant on Emerson Point, Snead Island in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Terra Ceia Bay in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Tampa Bay in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Manatee River in Manatee County. The waters of Terra Ceia Bay have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by the Department. On or about April 27, 1989 the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial concerning Hy Kom's permit application. The parties stipulate the Intervenor, Manasota-88, has standing to intervene as a party Respondent and to object to the issuance of the permit. Petitioner's evidence can best be summarized by what was not submitted. First, the expert witness called to identify the application had not prepared any part of the application or verified any of the studies presented therein. Similarly Petitioner's expert on the proposed treatment plant did not testify that Petitioner was committed to using this plant, or that the construction of the plant and the operation of the plant would comply with statutory and rule requirements. The only witness called by Petitioner to testify to the effect the discharge from the proposed advanced waste water treatment plant would have on the receiving waters was also Respondent's expert; and this witness testified that the effluent discharge from this proposed plant would have an adverse effect on the receiving waters, would seriously degrade the receiving waters as a nursery habitat for both crustacea and fishes endemic to the area, and that no reasonable assurances that this would not happen were ever presented by the Petitioner. This witness further testified that no discharge into these receiving waters would be acceptable not only because of the nitrogen level (which was the most significant reason for denying the permit) but also because even a discharge of absolutely pure water would upset the salinity of the receiving waters at the critical time the receiving waters act as a marine nursery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of Hy Kom Development Company, for a permit to construct and operate an advanced waste water treatment facility at Emerson Point, Snead Island, Manatee County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this _15th_ day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: JAMES W. STARNS ESQ 501 GOODLETTE RD SUITE D-100-24 NAPLES FL 33940 W DOUGLAS BEASON ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL K. N. AYERS 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 _15th_ day of September, 1992. DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 THOMAS W REESE ESQ 123 EIGHTH ST N ST PETERSBURG FL 33701 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Island Village Condominiums, prepared and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation a completed application for construction of its extended aeration sewage treatment plant. The relative distance and direction from the proposed treatment plant to major bodies of surrounding surface water are depicted in an aerial photograph which accompanied the application. The elevation of the surrounding waters in all directions is 39 feet. When the treatment plant is operated in compliance with its design features, the effluent from the plant will exceed the Department's standards for effluent discharge. The zone of discharge will be confined to the owners' property. Surface waters will not be involved in discharge. There will be no adverse impact upon ground waters. The treatment plant would not create a hazzard to the deep water wells of Point O' Woods Utilities, Inc. The treatment plant, as designed, meets or exceeds the engineering standards established by the Department. The likelihood of geologic subsurface failure is remote. Ground water levels are included on the schematic plan which accompanied the application to the Department. The tops of the holding ponds are above the 100-year flood level. The treatment plant will produce no noticeable odor. No exterior lights are to be used with the plant. The noise from the plant's operation would not travel more than 200 feet. The holding ponds would be more than 120 feet from the nearest surface water. The estimate of the cost is accurate at $98,000. Martin I. Gunn, Inc., is the developer of the property, which is also owned by the corporation, Island Village Condominiums, also known as Island Village of Inverness. The treatment plant will become the property of the home owners association and will be operated by the association from maintenance fees paid by the home owners. Martin I. Gunn/Island Village is not a public utility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the permit for the construction and operation of an extended aeration sewage treatment plant be issued to Island Village Condominiums subject to the general and specific conditions stated in the Department's original notice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Post Office Drawer. B Winter Park, Florida 32790 Donald F. Perrin, Esquire New Bank of Inverness Building Highway 41, South Post Office Box 1533 Inverness, Florida 32650 William W. Deane, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Jerry L. Seymour owns lot 220A in Pine Tree Estates, a parcel of slightly over one acre, approximately 140 feet by 330 feet, situated in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner's lot is substantially overgrown with vegetation, including swamp cabbage, myrtle, sawgrass, ferns, palmetto and cypress. The soil consists of cap rock, muck, sandy loam, humus and sand. On June 13, 1977, the day before the final hearing, standing water a few inches deep covered major portions of lot 220A, including the southern one-third and eastern edge of the lot. In short, lot 220A lies in a low, swampy area. The ground water level varies directly with rainfall. On June 13, 1977, the ground water was not quite as high as the crown of the road adjoining the lot. Rainfall in the area on June 12 or 13, 1977, if any, was not extraordinary. Historically, annual rainfall in Broward County has averaged 60 inches, but annual rainfall since 1970 has been below this average. According to petitioner's testimony, the water table has dropped a foot in the past year. After Petitioner's initial application for a permit for installation of a septic tank on lot 220A had been turned down, he filed an amended application in which he proposed to remove impervious materials from an area approximately 130 feet by 140 feet and to refill the excavation, to a height of 42 inches above the adjacent road, with soil of a kind that would facilitate drainage. In his letter denying petitioner's amended application, Mr. Hillyer, on behalf of respondent, wrote: Inasmuch as the lot in question does not comply with the above referenced code requirements we can not issue a septic tank permit at this time. However, if Mr. Seymour wishes to remove the muck in the area of the drainfield and fill the property as outlined on the survey submitted to the 42" above the crown of the road mentioned in your letter, this department will be in a position to re-evaluate this property as to whether or not a septic tank permit can be issued. Petitioner's amended application also indicated that a "Chromaglass Model CA-900 Aerobic Treatment Unit" together with a chlorinator and chlorine contact chamber would be installed, instead of a conventional septic tank; and that the installation would be in an absorption field of at least 300 square fee, and at a distance of at least 125 feet from the well petitioner proposed to drill on the lot. In addition, petitioner proposed to dredge a swale as a means of draining lot 220A. Petitioner also owns lot 220B in Pine Tree Estates, which lies immediately west of lot 220A, and shares a north-south boundary with lot 220A. The lots are about the same size and about equally swampy, although the soil in lot 220B is slightly less sandy. When petitioner's application for a permit to place a similar aerobic treatment unit on lot 220B was denied, he petitioned for an administrative hearing. The recommended order which resulted was accepted in evidence at the final hearing in this matter. That recommended order concludes: Wherefore, the Hearing Officer finds that if the planned drain field is installed on a 100' x 140' pad filled an additional 23 inches above its current pad level it will be 42 inches from the October, 1974 high water table measure, meeting the criteria established by law and I would recommend its approval. Jerry Seymour v. Broward County Health Department, State of Florida, No. 75-1059 (DOAH; October 10, 1975) No final order in Case No. 75-1059 was offered in evidence at the hearing in the present case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for a permit for construction of a septic tank, with leave to petitioner to refile an application if changed circumstances warrant. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Christopher B. Knox, Esquire Suite 302A, Medical Towers 303 Southeast 17th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Howard L. Braynon, Esquire 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 241F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
The Issue Are Petitioner’s outside water supply connections in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should Petitioner be assessed an administrative fine for such violation?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is permitted by the Department in accordance with Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, to operate the Peace River Campground, (Campground) which is a Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park (182 spaces) and a Mobile Home (MH) Park (15 spaces), annual permit number 14-010-97. The Campground’s water is supplied by a community public water utility company. Each RV and MH space has an outside water tap as required by Chapter 10D-26, Florida Administrative Code. Many of the outside water taps do not have a backflow or back-siphonage prevention device installed on them. On February 6, 1997, the Department conducted a routine inspection of the campground and determined that the campground was in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the required backflow or back-siphonage prevention. The citation required Petitioner to install backflow or back-siphonage prevention by February 28, 1997, the next scheduled inspection date. On February 28, 1997, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the Campground’s water system and determined that the alleged violation had not been corrected. Petitioner disagreed with the Department’s determination that the Campground’s water system was not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water system designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. On February 28, 1997, the Department issued a citation of violation (citation) to Petitioner alleging a violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water supply connection designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. The Campground’s water connections at each RV and MH site have water taps which are above ground and have standard water shut-off valves. The Campground’s water system has good water pressure of approximate 70-100 pounds pressure per square inch (psi). The Campground’s outside water taps are neither constructed nor designed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage in the event the water pressure drops to a point which would allow backflow or back-siphonage, such as if the water main feeding the Campground’s water system broke. If the water pressure in the Campground’s water system should drop allowing backflow or back-siphonage, hazardous material could possible be injected in the water system. Although there has never been a recorded incident of backflow or back-siphonage into the Campground’s water system, without the some type of backflow or back-siphonage preventer being installed there remains a potential for this to happen. The Campground’s outside water connections would not prevent backflow or back-siphonage under certain conditions and are not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. There are six basic types of devices that are recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the engineering profession which prevent backflow and back-siphonage. These devices are: (a) air gaps; (b) barometric loops; (c) vacuum breakers--both atmospheric and pressure type; (d) double check with intermediate atmospheric vent; (e) double check valve assembler; and (f) reduced pressure principle devices. The Department does not mandate which device the Petitioner must install, only that a proper device be installed which will prevent backflow or back-siphonage. A hose bib vacuum breaker such as Department’s Exhibit 3 provide the minimum protection against backflow or back-siphonage and is considered acceptable for compliance with Rule 10D- 26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $150.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Martin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 George Lempenau, pro se Peace River Campground 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The first issue is whether Petitioner, Jacqueline M. Lane (Lane) has standing. The second issue is whether International Paper Company (IP) provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to meet the conditions of the existing industrial wastewater permit for the wastewater treatment facility at the paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, pursuant to Rule 62- 620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. A final issue is whether Lane litigated this matter for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: The Parties The Department is charged with the responsibility for determining whether to approve the Application for transfer of permit number FL0002562-002-IWF/MT from Champion to IP. IP is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. IP operates a bleach kraft fine paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, formerly operated by Champion. Lane is a citizen of the State of Florida who lives on Perdido Bay. Application for Transfer of Industrial Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT In June 2000, IP notified the Department it was acquiring Champion as a wholly owned subsidiary. IP took over operation of the facility in Cantonment on January 1, 2001. At that time, the companies had fully merged. On January 19, 2001, IP timely submitted an Application for Transfer of a Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit (Application) and advised the Department that "the permittee name for the pulp and paper mill in Cantonment, Florida[,] has been changed from 'Champion International Corporation, Inc.' to 'International Paper Company.'" Several wastewater permit- related documents were submitted to the Department as part of this name change. The Department processed IP's Application to transfer the facility's permit pursuant to Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. "The parties agree that this matter is controlled by Rules 62-4.120 and 62-620.340, F.A.C., regarding the transfer of the permit. The parties [did not agree] upon what conditions of the combined permits are applicable to determine whether the Department has received 'reasonable assurances that the conditions of the permit will be met.' Rule 62-620.340(3), F.A.C." Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides: "The Department shall allow the transfer under subsection (2) of this section unless it determines that the proposed permittee cannot provide reasonable assurance that conditions of the permit will be met. The determination shall be limited solely to the ability of the proposed permittee to comply with the conditions of the existing permit, and it shall not consider the adequacy of these permit conditions." (Emphasis added). This proceeding does not involve an enforcement action or consideration of whether the wastewater permit, and related documents, should be renewed. Champion's renewal application is under consideration by the Department. The parties agree that the documents described in Findings of Fact 10-19, infra, set forth the conditions of the permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT at this time. These documents are listed below: November 15, 1995, DEP Order (combining the NPDES permit and the State- issued wastewater permit) April 22, 1996, DEP Letter (clarifying November 15, 1995, Order regarding 1983 NPDES Permit) January 3,1983, EPA NPDES Permit December 13, 1989, DER Temporary Operating Permit December 1, 1989, DER Consent Order December 12, 1989, DER Variance The Permit(s), Consent Order, Variances, and Related Permit Documents Before May 1, 1995, in order to operate the wastewater treatment facility at the mill in Cantonment, both state and federal permits were required. The Department or its predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), issued state permits pursuant to Sections 403.08 and 403.088, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulation Section 124.15. As a result of EPA's delegation of its NPDES authority to the Department in 1995, only one permit is now required. The 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department does not allow the Department to modify a permit that has been administratively continued. Modifications to permit limits have to be made through the permit renewal process. On or about January 3, 1983, the EPA issued a NPDES permit to St. Regis Paper Company, authorizing discharge from the facility, located at the paper mill in Cantonment to the receiving waters named Eleven Mile Creek (creek). This NPDES permit contains the federal permit conditions applicable at this time. (EPA has since used the facility as a benchmark model to develop effluent guidelines for its new cluster rule.) On December 1, 1989, the DER entered into a Consent Order with Champion International Corporation. This Consent Order was issued as a result of Recommended and Final Orders issued in Perdido Bay Environmental Association, Inc. et al. v. Champion International Corporation and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 F.A.L.R. 126 (DER Nov. 14, 1989). This Consent Order allowed the continued operation of the facility. As a compliance requirement, a study report was required to include "an evaluation of technologies and treatment alternatives . . . to determine the most environmentally sound and practicable means to correct identified water quality violations caused by Champion." The studies required by the Consent Order are needed to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and Perdido Bay (bay). The Consent Order has no expiration date although it is tied to the temporary operating permit (TOP) which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Extensive studies have been submitted to the Department pursuant to paragraph 14.A. of the Consent Order, which are necessary to trigger "the final compliance plan." This has been an ongoing process since the Consent Order and TOP were issued. The conditions in the Consent Order and TOP apply at this time. Various discharge limitations and monitoring requirements are set forth in the TOP. On December 13, 1989, DER issued a TOP, Number IT17- 156163, to the facility, which was issued in conjunction with the Consent Order. The TOP expressly relies on the Consent Order for authorization. It contains the effective state permit conditions at this time. On December 8, 1989, DER issued a Variance from water quality standards for color (transparency), iron, zinc, and the general water quality criterion for specific conductance. The standards in the Variance are part of the TOP and are effective at this time. The mill no longer needs the Variance for iron and zinc. As to those parameters, it currently operates at lower levels than under the Variance. On November 15, 1995, the Department combined the state and federal operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT. The TOP and NPDES permit were administratively continued when renewal applications were filed. The Department will transfer to IP the permit documents described in Finding of Fact 9, supra. The Department will also transfer the pending permit renewal applications filed by Champion. Wastewater Treatment Facility at the Paper Mill in Cantonment, Florida In the past, Champion owned and operated a 1400-ton per day bleach and kraft pulp and paper mill in Cantonment. The operation is now conducted by IP. The paper mill treats its effluent from industrial activities at an on-site wastewater treatment facility (facility). Stormwater that falls on the industrial portion of the mill is also processed through the facility. The mill is required to and takes monthly samples from the creek for a few parameters, e.g., DO and pH, to provide data to the Department for use in developing possible changes to effluent limitations in a final compliance plan. There is an installed structure that continuously measures the flow of the effluent at the end of the facility's treatment system. This point, i.e., where the flow is measured, is called the Parshall Flume which is the compliance point for the facility. The effluent at Parshall Flume is automatically sampled each day, analyzed, and reported on a monthly basis to the Department. The analyses are reviewed and compared to the effluent limitations for a particular permit. The treated effluent is discharged from the Parshall Flume through a pipe to natural wetlands. In this wetland area, the treated effluent combines with several streams, non- processed stormwater, and runoff from land south and west of the facility. Runoff from residential areas and areas west of the mill, including the City of Cantonment, also flows into this area. The IP mill is not the only source of discharge into this area. After passing through the natural wetlands, the treated effluent runs through a pipe that discharges into the creek from below the surface. This point is about a half-mile from the facility. It is called the "boil" because the water from the pipe boils up into the creek. The "boil" is not a compliance point. On occasion, a Department inspector has taken water samples at the boil. Each time, his sampling has shown water quality standards were met at the boil. At the boil, the water flowing into the creek from the pipe contains treated effluent and drainage from areas not associated with the mill. From the boil, the creek flows a distance of fourteen miles to Perdido Bay (the bay). At the boil, there is also stormwater runoff and drainage from residential areas flowing into the creek in addition to the water from the pipe. Along the sides of the creek to the bay is a large drainage basin, which includes agricultural and residential runoff that flows into the creek. The boil, which is non-processed stormwater of the creek, could be contaminated from non-IP sources. Sources of pollutants in the bay include residential and agricultural stormwater runoff, Perdido River, and the creek. The Escambia County Utility Authority (ECUA) also has a treatment plant that has a discharge into the bay. Saltwater intrusion and runoff from development are additional sources of pollutants in the bay. Lane takes samples at the boil and most recently in May and June of 2001. Her measurement of dissolved oxygen (DO) was approximately 2.6 and for specific conductance, between 1600 and 2000. Lane also samples the water at a bridge (279A) two miles down the creek from the boil. Lane testified regarding bacteriological quality at the boil or further down stream, that fecal coliforms, including the bacteria Klebsiella, were present. Lane is not a certified sampler. She does not have the required quality control/quality assurance program. Lane does not know the Department requirements to sample dissolved oxygen. She could not describe an approved standard for such sampling. Surface Water Quality Standards Unless otherwise provided through relief mechanisms, discharges into surface waters must meet the minimum water quality standards set forth in Rules 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. Relief mechanisms include variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits. The Department has issued variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits to allow permit holders time to respond to changes in water quality standards and related regulations that reflect changes in understanding of environmental impacts to water bodies. Permit Conditions The permit conditions do not require compliance with all the water quality criteria in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, for water quality parameters. The Department has not yet agreed on "final treatment solutions" it can require under the Consent Order. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 49. Specific deviations from the surface water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, are authorized by the Consent Order, TOP, variance, and NPDES permit. The specific effluent discharge limitations in the TOP and NPDES permit, are for BOD5, TSS, iron, specific conductance, pH, and zinc. (The reference to condition 12 in paragraph 25 of the TOP has not been amended.) Several of the effluent limitations (e.g., specific conductance) were granted by the Variance. Paragraph 26 of the TOP specifies the monitoring and frequency requirements for the monitoring at the Parshall Flume. This monitoring information can be used by the Department to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and in order to establish numerical, water-quality based effluent limitations for those sources. General Condition 5 of the TOP does not per se impose on the mill the duty to meet all water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. The TOP authorizes "a certain amount of pollution" and "certain relief." The TOP further established a "compliance schedule" for Champion to study the impacts of the discharge. However, the Department rules allow for reopening of the TOP and changing the permit conditions to reflect new evidence causing a concern regarding pollution. Here, the Department has not reopened the TOP. The permit, including the TOP and Consent Order, allows the mill a period of time to come into compliance with all minimum water quality standards. When a final permit is eventually issued, the facility will have to meet these standards absent some express relief mechanism at that time. IP Provided Reasonable Assurances of Its Ability to Meet Permit Conditions The Department employee who reviewed IP's Application to transfer the permit is an expert in environmental engineering. At the time he reviewed the Application, he was familiar with the existing permit conditions. As part of his review, he ascertained whether IP was satisfying the conditions of the permit and determined it was. The Department reviewed IP's annual report and other corporate brochures as part of its processing of the transfer Application. Information in these documents revealed IP has obtained other Federal-type NPDES permits for other companies at several other facilities. The Department was familiar with IP's local management at the Cantonment facility when it processed the transfer Application. IP brings considerable "capability and talent" to the mill. The Department performed inspections during the last six (6) months and was familiar with the facility and wastewater system. IP is an international company with greater financial resources than Champion. It has approximately $30 billion in annual sales. Champion, in comparison, generated about $5 billion a year. It is clear that that the operation of the mill and the facility would have less capital and financial support without IP. Since June 2000, IP has worked with the Department in a continuation of the Department's concept of relocating the facility's discharge to wetlands. The plan considers removal of the facility's treated effluent from the creek to wetlands on IP's land and effectively eliminates it as a point source discharge and removes the discharge from the creek. IP will have a greater ability than Champion to meet permit conditions due to greater financial sources, technical staff, and resources. IP's management is committed to resolving water quality issues like specific conductance and is willing to resolve outstanding water quality issues in the bay and creek. In the view of the former Northwest District Director who worked on water quality issues at the facility for twelve years ending March 31, 2001, the current plan to discharge to wetlands will be implemented and allow compliance with all water quality standards. He also opines that IP has the ability to comply with water quality standards under the plan to discharge to wetlands. In the Department's view, IP has provided reasonable assurances that it has the ability to meet the existing conditions of the permit sought to be transferred. IP Complies with Permit Conditions as Evidence of Ability According to the Department's expert, Mr. William A. Evans, a professional engineer with a Master's degree in civil engineering and an expert in environmental engineering, there have been no verifiable violations of permit conditions and no exceedances since January 2000, before IP took over operations of the mill. On the other hand, Mr. Evans, in reviewing a discharge monitoring report for IP for April 2001, advised, during cross-examination, that there appeared to be "an apparent violation, exceedance of the permit" for specific conductance pursuant to the 1500 micromhons per centimeter limit in the EPA's version of the permit. However, the Variance, which is part of the Application, was granted "because there is no practicable means known or available for the adequate control of the pollution involved," i.e., specific conductance. The Department applies the limit of 2500 micromhos per centimeter set forth in the Variance for specific conductance, which is a reasonable interpretation of the permit documents. When the permit documents, including the Variance are read in this light, IP is in compliance with this limit. IP is in compliance with the Consent Order, NPDES permit, and Variance. In making this finding, the undersigned is mindful of Lane's arguments and facts presented. The issue here is not black or white; violation or no violation. As noted by Mr. Evans: This permit is recognized since '89 is [sic] not meeting water quality standards. It has all these documents because it doesn't. And they're still working under those. And the Department agrees with Ms. Lane that they are not meeting water quality standards in the creek. And we're working under these documents to make improvements. And so is Champion and so is IP. But they are not, in our opinion, violating the conditions of the permit. There [sic] are complying with studying it, meeting the interim limits that are set forth in the permit. And that is what the Statutes require when a facility can not meet all the standards of a permit. The Department, while considering the renewal application, has not approved it yet because they have not received reasonable assurances that new permit conditions can be met. Champion, and now IP, are facing the continuing challenge of satisfying, among other requirements, water quality standards, which takes time, money, and know-how. The Department rightly believes that IP can best meet this challenge. The Department's review of the monthly monitoring reports submitted by the mill since Champion was purchased reveals the facility has complied with permit conditions. The most recent monthly report was submitted May 23, 2001, and includes data through April 2001. During inspections at the facility since June 2000, the Department found no violations of permit conditions. The mill, under IP's operation, has not exceeded the fecal coliform conditions of its permit. The mill has no significant contribution to fecal coliform in the creek because it treats its own domestic sewage and meets the fecal coliform limit at the compliance point. Runoff along the creek from agricultural and domestic sources could contribute to fecal and total coliform in the creek. The Department enforces the "more stringent" pH condition in the 1989 TOP and Variance which is controlling over the less stringent standard in the 1983 NPDES permit. The pH limit in the NPDES permit is 6.0-9.0. The Department reasonably interprets the freshwater stream pH rule to mean enforcement is not required if the permittee meets the range in the rule (6.0-8.5), more stringent than the 9.0 limit in the NPDES permit. The facility's pH data satisfies this range. If the Department were to enforce a limit of 6.5, instead of 8.5, IP has the ability to meet the lower limit by installing one of several available technologies to control the pH levels. IP's current proposal includes one of these technologies. The biological integrity provision in the Consent Order requires studies on biological components of the creek and pH impacts this condition. Permit Conditions Affecting the Creek and Bay The permit does not require the facility to meet all the minimum surface water quality standards of Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, in the creek and bay. That is because of the relief mechanisms in the Consent Order, TOP, NPDES permit, and Variance. The Consent Order provides a time frame for the facility to come into compliance with water quality standards in the creek and bay. In terms of the Consent Order, the Department considers IP to be at the paragraph 14.A. step of the compliance schedule since the Department has not yet "resolved or agreed on the final corrective action required under this [C]onsent [O]rder." The Department considers the facility to be in compliance with permit conditions because it is "working under a complying [sic] schedule and an order or a temporary operating permit." See Finding of Fact 49. As long as IP is meeting the "interim limits that are set forth in the permit," it is not violating conditions of the permit. The Department is aware of water quality exceedances from the standards in the creek and bay caused by the mill. This data was reported in the "fifth year surveys." This information serves as a basis for making improvements and finding "a new solution for the effluent as required by the consent order." See Finding of Fact 49. Proposal for Joint Project with ECUA IP and the ECUA are working with the Department on a plan than would result in the discharge of IP's treated effluent to wetlands, thereby removing the effluent from the creek. IP's financial capability, size, and technical human resources make this plan feasible. IP will propose a plan to satisfy the Consent Order which consists of three parts: upgrading IP's industrial wastewater treatment facility; allowing ECUA to locate an advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant on its land; and disposing the treated effluent from both facilities to wetlands on IP's land through a pipeline. The proposed plan to discharge the facility's treated effluent to wetlands is a suitable solution that will allow the mill to meet minimum water quality standards. Lane has no objection to the plan to discharge to wetlands. It will resolve all her water quality issues. She believes the plan, similar to a prior plan, is "feasible." Standing and Improper Purpose Lane admits the Department is not making any changes to existing permit conditions before transferring it to IP. Lane agrees that changing the name on the permit from Champion to IP has no adverse affect on her. Lane brought this proceeding because she is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Department is enforcing conditions in the facility's permit. According to Lane, "They haven't done their duty." Her main complaints are with the Department's failure to enforce the permit conditions and the lack of a permit that makes the permit holder comply with Florida law. Lane feels that Champion violated permit conditions in the past, and IP is currently violating permit conditions and, as a result, the permit should not be transferred because a decision to transfer is an implicit finding of compliance. In this light, Lane argues that past performance can be an indication of future ability or lack thereof. Lane acknowledges that in order to add conditions to the existing permit, the Department must provide notice to the mill and give it a chance to meet the proposed conditions. She further admits the Department has not provided such notice. Lane proved that the environmental situation attending Champion's, and now IP's, operation of the mill and the wastewater facility has been and is less than optimum and in need of positive changes. The Department agrees and so does IP. Lane's personal observations of the condition of the creek and bay are documented. However, Lane did not prove that she will suffer an "injury in fact" if the permit and related documents are transferred to IP. Lane is not otherwise substantially affected by the Department's decision to approve the transfer. Lane's evidence did not rebut IP and the Department's proof that IP has the ability to comply with the permit conditions. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the environment in and around the mill and the facility has a better opportunity for improvement if IP takes control of the mill and facility. On the other hand, based on this record, Lane did not bring this case for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: Lane lacks standing to challenge the transfer of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT to IP because Lane did not prove that her substantial interests were being determined by the Department's transfer of the permit from Champion to IP; IP provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to comply with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT; IP has complied with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT, as the Department construes those conditions, since assuming control of the mill on January 1, 2001; and Lane did not participate in this administrative proceeding for an improper purpose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline M. Lane 10738 Lillian Highway Pensacola, Florida 32506 Terry Cole, Esquire Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 301 S. Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Cargill, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida which owned and operated a phosphate mine near Fort Meade, located in Polk County Florida. Petitioner, Gloria Elder, owns residential property adjoining the Fort Meade Mine on which she maintains an individual water well for domestic and other purposes. The Respondent, District, has the responsibility for regulating the consumption and conservation of ground and surface water within its jurisdictional limits, including the well in question. For a period prior to December, 1990, Cargill had been operating under consumptive use permit No. 202297.04, issued by the District, which provided for average daily withdrawals of 12.0 MGD from wells on its property. In addition to the 12.0 MGD, Cargill also was utilizing an additional 3.3 MGD for mine pit and surficial aquifer dewatering activities which did not have to be reflected in the permit but which were lawful uses. In December, 1990, Cargill submitted its application to renew the existing water use permit with a modification including the 3.3 MGD previously being used but not officially permitted. No additional water would be drawn from the permitted wells as the newly applied for 15.3 MGD was the total of the 12 MGD and 3.3 MGD previously permitted and lawfully used. After reviewing the additional information requested of Cargill pertaining to this application, the District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action for approval of the permit. The proposed permit authorizes withdrawal of the amount requested in the application, 15.3 MGD, the exact same amount actually withdrawn under the prior permit. As a part of the proposed permit the District imposed two special conditions. These conditions, 12 and 13, require Cargill to conduct its dewatering activities no closer than 1,500 feet to any property boundary, wetlands, or water body that will not be mined or, in the alternative, to mitigate pursuant to conditions 12 and 13 any activities conducted within the 1,500 foot setback. There are no reasonable alternatives to Cargill's request. The mining process in use here utilizes a water wash of gravel-size phosphate ore particles out of accompanying sand and clay. The water used for this purpose is recycled and returned to the washer for reuse. The resulting phosphate ore mix, matrix, is transported with water in slurry form to the refining plant. This system in the standard for phosphate mining in the United States. Once at the plant, the slurry is passed through an amine flotation process where the sand and phosphates are separated. This process requires clean water with a constant Ph balance and temperature which can be retrieved only from deep wells. Even though the permit applied for here calls for an average daily withdrawal of 15.3 MGD, typically the Cargill operation requires about 10.08 MGD from deep wells. This is a relatively standard figure within the industry. Approximately 92 percent of the water used at the site in issue is recycled. However, recycled water is not an acceptable substitute for deep well water because it contains matters which interfere with the ability of the chemical reagents utilized in the process to react with the phosphate rock. Therefore, the quantity sought is necessary and will support a reasonable, complete mining operation at the site. The Cargill operation is accompanied by a strenuous reclamation operation. Land previously mined near the Petitioner's property has been reclaimed, contoured, re-grassed and re-vegetated. This project was completed in 1990. No evidence was introduced showing that Cargill's operation had any adverse effect on the Elders' well. Water samples were taken from that well at the Petitioner's request in May, 1991 in conjunction with the investigation into a previous, unrelated complaint. These samples were submitted to an independent laboratory for analysis which clearly demonstrated that the minerals and other compounds in the water from the Petitioner's well were in amounts well below the detection level for each. Only the iron level appeared elevated, and this might be the result of deterioration of the 18 year old black iron pipe casing in the well. Another possible explanation is the fact that iron is a common compound in that part of the state. In any case, the installation of a water softener would remove the iron, and there is no indication the water would have any unacceptable ecological or environmental impacts in the area either on or off the site. No other residents in the area have complained of water quality problems. Petitioner claims not only that Cargill's operation would demean her water quality but also that its withdrawal will cause a draw down in the water level in her well. This second matter was tested by the District using the McDonald-Haurbaugh MODFLOW model which is well recognized and accepted within the groundwater community. The model was applied to the surficial, intermediate, and upper Floridan aquifers and indicated the draw down at the property boundary would be less than one foot in the surficial aquifer and less than four feet in the intermediate aquifer. The model also showed the draw down at the Petitioner's well would be less than three feet, which is well within the five foot criteria for issuance of a consumptive use permit under the appropriate District rules. This evidence was not contradicted by any evidence of record by Petitioner. All indications are that the water use proposed is both reasonable and beneficial, is consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that WUP Permit No. 202297.05 be renewed as modified to reflect approval of 15.3 MGD average daily withdrawal. Jurisdiction will remain with the Hearing Officer for the limited purpose of evaluating the propriety of an assessment of attorney's fees and costs against the Petitioner and the amount thereof. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph N. Baron, Esquire 3375-A U.S. Highway 98 South Lakeland, Florida 33803 Rory C. Ryan, Esquire 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2600 Post office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32801 Martin D. Hernandez, Esquire Richard Tschantz, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether Permit No. DO19-101251 issued to Mr. Vail on July 11, 1985 to construct and operate an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system should be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Vail is the owner and operator of a business called the St. George Inn and Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Inn"). The Inn is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue on St. George Island, Florida. In May of 1984 Mr. Vail spoke with an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services about obtaining a permit to construct a septic tank on his property for use by the Inn for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Mr. Vail was instructed to submit a design of the septic tank for approval. Mr. Vail contracted with McNeill Septic Tank Company for the design and construction of the septic tank. The evidence failed to prove when Mr. Vail applied with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a permit. As of March, 1985, however, Mr. Vail had not received approval or disapproval of his application from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Vail, therefore, went to the Governor's office to seek help in getting a response. Shortly after contacting the Governor's office, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services informed Mr. Vail that he needed to obtain a permit from the Department and not from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about March 18, 1985, Mr. Vail filed an Application to Operate/Construct Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Department. The Application was prepared by Brown and Associates Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc., Mr. Vail's engineering consultant. The Application was certified by Benjamin E. Brown, Professional Engineer. Mr. Vail signed the Application as "owner" and indicated that he was aware of the contents of the Application. In the Application, "St. George Inn Restaurant" is listed as the "Source Name." Under Part II, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to "[d]escribe the nature and extent of the project." In response to this request, the following answer was given: This project will provide a sewage disposal system for a one hundred and fifty (150) seat restaurant on St. George Island. Sizing of the septic tank system is based on 50 GPD/seat and secondary treatment will be provided by the design proposed. Under Part III, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to provide the following information and the following answers were given: Type of Industry Restaurant . . . . 3. Raw Materials and Chemicals Used Food preparation only. Normal Operation 12 hrs/day 7 days/week . . . . If operation is seasonal, explain This restaurant will be used the most during the summer months which corresponds with ocean/beach recreation & the tourist trade. Nowhere in the Application is it indicated that the permit applied for involved anything other than a restaurant. The Application gives no information from which the Department could have known that the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system would handle waste from guest rooms or an apartment. In the Application Mr. Vail sought approval of a permit to construct and operate a wastewater treatment and disposal system to serve a 150 seat restaurant. In the Application Mr. Vail sought a permit for a system which was to have a design flow of 7,500 gallons per day based on 50 gallons, per seat, per day water usage. An employee of the Department wrote a memorandum dated May 5, 1985, recommending approval of the Application. The Department determined, however, that the size of the property on which the Inn was to be located was not large enough for the drain field necessary to accommodate a 150 seat restaurant. Therefore, Mr. Brown modified the proposed system and resubmitted application data indicating that a 108 seat restaurant would be constructed. The design flow of the new proposal was 2,160 gallons per day based on 20 gallons per seat per day. Mr. Brown had requested that the Department approve a system based upon the newly submitted design flow. The Department and Mr. Brown both agreed that this design flow was adequate; that it was reasonable to anticipate and provide for the treatment and disposal of a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day design flow. The effect of reducing the design flow and the number of seats was to allow a shortened drain field which could be accommodated by the size of the property the Inn was to be located on. On June 27, 1985, Mr. Vail arranged for a notice to be published in the Apalachicola Times. That notice provided, in pertinent part, the following: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Notice of Proposed Agency Action on Permit Application The department gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Jack Vail to construct a restaurant and on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system [sic] at Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue, St. George Island. The treatment consists of grease trap, septic tank, and sand filter followed by disposal into a drainfield. The project meets applicable standards and will not impair the designated use of the underlying ground water. There is no anticipated impact on surface waters or air quality. . . . . This notice was sent to Mr. Vail by the Department and he made arrangements for it to be published. Nowhere in the notice is it indicated that the system to be approved by the Department is for anything other than a restaurant. On July 11, 1985, less than four months after the Application was filed with the Department, the Department issued Permit Number DO19-101251 (hereinafter referred to as the "Permit"). In the cover letter sent with the Permit the Department indicated that the Permit allowed Mr. Vail "to construct and operate a 2,160 gallon per day, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system serving St. George Inn Restaurant. . . ." The Department also indicates in the Permit that it is for the "St. George Inn Restaurant." The Permit also provides, in pertinent part, the following with regard to the purpose of the Permit: The above named applicant, hereinafter called Permittee, is hereby authorized to perform the work or operate the facility shown on the application and approved drawing(s), plans, and other documents attached hereto or on file with the department and made a part hereof and specifically described as follows: Construct and operate a 108 seat restaurant with an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system. Wastewater flows shall be a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day generated by domestic facilities and kitchen wastes . . . Construction shall be in accordance with application dated March 18, 1985 and additional information submitted April 29, 1985, specifications and other supporting documents prepared by Brown and Associates and certified by Benjamin E. Brown, P.E. and submitted to the Department on June 5, June 17, and June 20, 1985. The Permit also contains the following "General Condition" number 2 and "Specific Condition" number 15: . . . . 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings and exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the department. . . . . 15. The Department shall be notified and prior approval shall be obtained of any changes or revisions made during construction. . . . . The Permit provides the following with regard to the effect of the conditions of the Permit: The terms, conditions, requirements, limitations, and restrictions set forth herein are "Permit Conditions", and as such are binding upon the permittee and enforceable pursuant to the authority of sections 403.161, 403.727, or 403.859 through 403.861, Florida Statutes. The permittee is hereby placed on notice that the Department will review this permit periodically and may initiate enforcement action for any violation of the "Permit Conditions" by the permittee . . . . During the week after the Permit was issued, Mr. Vail obtained a building permit from Franklin County for the construction of the "inn." In February, 1986, after construction of the Inn had begun, Department inspectors went to the construction site of the Inn. The Permit authorized this inspection and other inspections carried out by the Department. The Department determined that the Inn being constructed by Mr. Vail included a restaurant, an apartment on the third floor of the Inn with two bathrooms, and eight guest rooms on the second floor, each containing a bathroom. This was the first time that the Department knew that Mr. Vail's facility was to include guest rooms and living quarters in addition to containing a 108 seat restaurant. In March of 1986, the Department sent a warning letter to Mr. Vail notifying him of the violation of the General Conditions of his Permit: the use of the approved system for the treatment and disposal of wastewater from the ten bathrooms in the guest rooms and the two bathrooms in the apartment in addition to the 108 seat restaurant. On April 1, 1986, Department personnel met with Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown. The Department reminded Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown that the Permit requested and approved by the Department was for a 108 seat restaurant only. The Department had not authorized a system which was to be used for a 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. Pursuant to General Condition 14, the Department informed Mr. Vail that it needed an engineer's evaluation of the ability of the system which had been approved to handle the additional flow which could be expected from the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated April 1, 1986, the Department memorialized the meeting and indicated that Mr. Vail could operate a 100 seat restaurant and the apartment during the interim. By letter dated May 8, 1986, Mr. Brown asked for additional time to submit the evaluation requested by the Department. The Department approved this request by letter dated May 14, 1986. By letter dated May 16, 1986, Mr. Brown submitted an engineering evaluation which proposed modifications to the approved system to handle the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated June 13, 1986, the Department indicated that the evaluation was generally acceptable" but requested additional information. In January, 1987, before the additional information was submitted, Mr. Brown died in an airplane accident. No evidence was presented to explain why the information requested by the Department in June of 1986 had not been submitted before January, 1987. In March, 1987, the Department inspected Mr. Vail's facility again. In April, 1987, the Department informed Mr. Vail that the Department would take action to revoke the Permit. Before the Administrative Complaint was issued, the Department requested that certain information be provided on behalf of Mr. Vail by an engineer in an effort to resolve the dispute. Mr. Vail did not, however, obtain the services of an engineer. Instead, Mr. Vail sent the Department information purporting to show the amount of water which had been used at the Inn. That information failed to prove the ability of the system that the Department had approved to handle the maximum wastewater which could be expected from maximum use of the 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. At best, the information submitted by Mr. Vail is partial proof that the system is capable of handling the wastewater that has been generated at the Inn for the period of time for which the information relates. No competent substantial proof has been submitted to indicate that the system is capable of handling the maximum wastewater flows which may be experienced or even that the system is adequately handling the current flow. All that has been proved is that there is no apparent problem with the system in handling the current flow. In September, 1987, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint. Pursuant to this Complaint, the Department has sought the revocation of the Permit and prescribed certain orders for corrective action. No application has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr. Vail to the Department to construct and operate a wastewater treatment facility designed to accommodate the sewage flows which may be generated by the Inn as it has been constructed. Although the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and other agencies were aware that the Inn includes a restaurant and guest rooms, the Department was never so informed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order requiring that Mr. Vail comply with all of the corrective orders, except Paragraph 18, contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NUMBER 87-4242 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which Proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Conclusion of law. 2 1. 3 6. 4 10. 5 12 and 13. 6 14. 7 15. 8 18. 9 19. 10 20. 11-12 16. 13 21. 14 23. 15 24. 16 25. 17 26. 18-19 27. 20 28. 21 29 22 Hereby accepted. Mr. Vail's Proposed Findings of Fact 1A 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Hearsay and irrelevant. Although technically true, this is not the issue in this case. The evidence did not prove that the system "can in actuality handle three times the amount permitted." Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 2A Not supported be the weight of the evidence. Exhibit 6 indicates that the Department was aware that the Inn included "hotel rooms" but not the number. Irrelevant. The evidence did not prove that the Department was aware of the scope of the project. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3A Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Even if this were true, the fact remains that the Department was unaware that the Inn included guest rooms or an apartment. Irrelevant. 4A-B Irrelevant. 5A-B Irrelevant. 6A 2-4. B 5. 6 and 11. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 12. 13 and 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 7A-C Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 8A-D Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 9A-B Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 10-12 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Windsor, Esquire State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. John Vail St. George Inn Post Office Box 222 St. George Island, Florida 32328 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
