Findings Of Fact The findings of fact set out in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 6, 7, and 8. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 2 are based upon a stipulation of the parties which is recorded in the transcript of the formal hearing, Volume III, pp. 181-182. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1 through 8, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene, Schaefer, and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 47, and 48. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 5 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 47, 48, and 49. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Conner, and Voigts; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 12, 35 through 45, 59, and 61. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 7 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 14,35, and 39 through 43. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 8 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 9 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Marin, Brown, Guillet, Lokey, Gilmartin and Watson; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibit 16. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown, Cartensen, and Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 49, 50, 51, and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 12 are based upon the testimony of the witness Brown. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown and Harp; and upon FPC exhibit 52. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witness Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 51 and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 16 are based upon the testimony of the witness Schaefer; and upon FPC exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witness Koszulinski and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 70 through 73. ENTERED THIS 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should issue certification to Progress Energy Florida ("PEF"), to construct and operate a new 530 megawatt ("MW") natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Polk County, Florida. The proposed site for the Project is located at Progress Energy Florida's existing Hines Energy Complex, southwest of Bartow, Florida.
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida (formerly known as Florida Power Corporation): Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 For Polk County: Michael Duclos, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant full and final certification to Progress Energy Florida to construct and operate a new 530 MW natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Polk County, Florida, subject to the conditions of certification contained in FDEP Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2003, 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 10th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Michael Duclos, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James McGee, Esquire Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Harold Mclean, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33930 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of the General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes, the sole issue for determination in this case is whether the proposed site for the Petitioner’s electrical power plant “is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.” (All statutory references are to the 2001 codification of the Florida Statutes.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Calpine intends to license, construct, own, and operate a new electrical power plant in unincorporated Indian River County, Florida. Calpine filed an application with DEP under the PPSA for the proposed electrical power plant, which is known as the Blue Heron Energy Center ("the Project"). The Site for the Blue Heron Energy Center The site (“Site”) for the Blue Heron Energy Center is located in southeastern Indian River County, approximately 5 miles southwest of the City of Vero Beach. The Site is approximately 50.5 acres in size and is currently undeveloped. The primary vegetation on the Site is pine flatwoods. The Site contains two small wetlands that will be preserved. The general area surrounding the Site is a mixture of agricultural, industrial, institutional, utility and residential land uses. The Interstate 95 ("I-95") corridor is adjacent to the west side of the Site. Just west of the I-95 corridor are two existing electrical transmission line corridors operated by Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL"). There is an existing natural gas pipeline owned by Florida Gas Transmission Company located between the two electrical transmission line corridors. The Indian River County Correctional Institution is located directly northwest of the Site. Farther to the north are Indian River County's landfill and several industrial (citrus processing) facilities. There also is one single-family residence located north of the Site. The eastern boundary of the Site is adjacent to 74th Avenue, which is adjacent to a drainage ditch known as the Lateral C Canal. A citrus grove and an industrial wastewater sprayfield are located on the east side of the Lateral C Canal. The southern boundary of the Site abuts the border between Indian River County and St. Lucie County. The I-95 corridor and undeveloped lands lie south of the Site in St. Lucie County. Southeast of the Site, in St. Lucie County, is a residential development known as Spanish Lakes Fairways. The Site is separated from this residential development by a drainage ditch, a berm, and an existing buffer of mature trees and dense vegetation. Description of the Proposed Blue Heron Project The Blue Heron Energy Center will involve the construction and operation of a combined cycle, natural gas- fired, electrical power plant that will generate approximately 1080 MW (nominal). The Blue Heron Project will be built in two phases, each generating approximately 540 MW (nominal). The first phase of the Project will include two combustion turbines, two heat recovery steam generators, a steam turbine, exhaust stacks, cooling towers, a treatment and storage system for process water, a treatment system and detention basin for storm water, an operations control center, transformers and related switching gear, and other ancillary structures and features. The second phase of the Project will be similar to the first phase. The Blue Heron Energy Center will connect to Florida's electrical grid with two overhead transmission lines that will extend west from the Site approximately 1400 feet (over I-95) to the existing FPL transmission lines. The Project will obtain natural gas by installing an underground pipe that will extend from the Site approximately 1400 feet to the west (under I-95) to where the Project will interconnect with the natural gas pipeline systems operated by Gulfstream and Florida Gas Transmission Company. Calpine has obtained options to purchase the land west of the Site where Calpine's gas pipeline corridor and electrical transmission line corridor will be located. The primary source of cooling and process water for the Blue Heron Energy Center will be surface water (storm water), which will be obtained from the Lateral C Canal or the County's proposed stormwater park. Potable water and domestic wastewater services will be provided by Indian River County. No groundwater will be used by the Project. The Blue Heron Project will not discharge any industrial or domestic wastewater to any surface water or groundwater. Existing Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances The Site is designated Agricultural (AG-1) in Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan. Under the Comprehensive Plan, the AG-1 designation allows for the construction of electrical power plants, like the Project, as "public facilities." Indian River County has adopted land development regulations and zoning districts that implement the intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Under the zoning code, like the Comprehensive Plan, the Site is located in an Agricultural (A-1) district. The County’s zoning code expressly allows the construction of "public and private utilities, heavy" as a special exception use in A-1 zoning districts. The County's zoning code defines "utilities, public or private, heavy" to include "all major electrical generation plants (generating fifty (50) megawatts or more)." Thus, the A-1 zoning designation for the Site allows the development of the Project as a special exception use. Special Exception Use Section 971.05 of the County Code sets forth the procedures and criteria for obtaining the County's approval of a special exception use. Among other things, Section 971.05(9) of the County Code requires an applicant for a special exception use to demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. Calpine has worked with the County to ensure that every aspect of the Blue Heron Energy Center will comply with the County's criteria. Consistent with the requirements of Section 971.05 of the County Code, Calpine filed an application with the County for approval of a special exception use and conceptual site plan for the Blue Heron Project. The Special Use Exception Application ("SUEA") fully described the Project, including the corridors for the proposed transmission lines and natural gas pipeline. The County’s staff reviewed Calpine’s SUEA and recommended approval, subject to certain conditions. On August 9, 2001, the County's Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and then recommended approval of Calpine’s SUEA, with conditions. On September 18, 2001, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ("County Commission") held a duly noticed public hearing and then approved Calpine’s SUEA, with conditions. It is "typical" for the County to include conditions as part of the County's approval for a special exception use. If Calpine complies with the County's conditions for its special exception use, the County will "automatically approve the final site plan" for the Blue Heron Project. No one appealed the County Commission's approval of Calpine’s SUEA and the deadline for filing an appeal has passed. Consistency With Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances The County staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the County Commission considered whether the Project is consistent and in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances, pursuant to Section 971.05 of the County Code, and then they approved the Project, with conditions. The evidence presented in the Land Use Hearing demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with Indian River County’s Comprehensive Plan. The evidence also demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with Indian River County’s zoning ordinances. In the Prehearing Stipulation, Indian River County, St. Lucie County, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Public Service Commission, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the St. Johns River Water Management District either agreed with or did not dispute Calpine’s assertion that the Site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. Indian River County also stipulated that it supports Calpine’s plan to construct and operate the Blue Heron Project on the Site. Public Notice of the Land Use Hearing On December 11, 2000, Calpine published a “Notice of Filing of Application for Electrical Power Plant Site Certification” in the Vero Beach Press-Journal, which is a newspaper of general circulation published in Indian River County, Florida. On October 9, 2001, the Administrative Law Judge issued an “Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Land Use Hearing” and served a copy of his Order on all of the parties to this proceeding. The Judge’s Order stated that the Land Use Hearing would be conducted on February 6, 2002. On December 14, 2001, Calpine published a “Notice of Land Use and Zoning Hearing on Proposed Power Plant Facility” in the Vero Beach Press-Journal. On December 14, 2001, the Department published notice of the Land Use Hearing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The public notices for the Land Use Hearing satisfy the informational and other requirements set forth in Section 403.5115, and Rules 62-17.280 and 62-17.281(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Conclusions For Petitioner Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P.: David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For the Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Audubon of Florida and the Pelican Island Audubon Society: Kevin S. Doty, Esquire Hatch & Doty, P.A. 1701 A1A, Suite 220 Vero Beach, Florida 32963
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Land Use Final Order in this case finding that the Site of the Blue Heron Energy Center is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Paul Bangel, Esquire County Attorney's Office 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Kathy Beddell, Esquire Harold Mclean, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kevin S. Doty, Esquire Hatch & Doty, P.A. 1701 Highway A1A, Suite 220 Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2206 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Charles Lee, Sr., Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1331 Palmetto Avenue Suite 110 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel S. McIntyre, Esquire St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue 3rd Floor Administrative Annex Fort Pierce, Florida 34952 Cari L. Roth, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Roger G. Saberson, Esquire 70 Southeast Fourth Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in this preliminary hearing are whether the South Florida Water Management District (WMD) has jurisdiction and whether Petitioners have standing. In part, the issue of WMD's jurisdiction involves sub-issues as to Petitioners' timeliness in requesting an administrative hearing.
Findings Of Fact Issuance of FPL's Permit and Waivers On May 2, 2000, WMD received an application from FPL for ROW Standard Permit to construct a parallel run of transmission lines (Parkland Transmission Line) in Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 and 35, Township 47, Range 41 East, located in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, inside the south ROW of the Hillsboro Canal. The Parkland Transmission Line was planned to carry 230 kilovolts (kV) of electricity to FPL's Parkland substation. FPL applied to place the 91-foot high poles for the transmission lines 14 feet from the top of the canal bank, on the south side of the canal, which is at least 80 feet wide. On May 5, 2000, WMD received from FPL a Petition for Waiver of Rule 40E-6.011(4), (5) and (6), which governs the placement of permanent and semi-permanent encroachments within forty feet of the top of canal bank within Works and Lands of WMD. Although not identified in the style of the Petition for Waiver, FPL also sought a "waiver from the Basis of Review Rule (L)(4)(Transmission Lines, p. 113 of Sept. 1999, Volume V, Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District.)"3 The Petition for Waiver sought permanent waivers. The District published notice of receipt of the petition for waiver from FPL in the Florida Administrative Weekly (FAW), Volume 26, Number 21, dated May 26, 2000. However, instead of giving notice that FPL was requesting permanent waivers, the notice stated that FPL only sought "temporary relief from the Rule 40E-6.011(4), (5) and (6) . . . and the Basis of Review." In addition, while the notice described Rule 40E-6.011(4), (5) and (6) as requiring a "minimum 40 foot setback requirement from the top of bank," it did not describe the criteria in the Basis of Review, which states in pertinent part: The use of the District's Works or Lands for the construction, operation, and maintenance of transmission lines has the potential to interfere with the District's operation, maintenance and allied purposes. Applicants should acquire their own right of way and should not look to the District to utilize District-controlled Works or Lands, which were acquired for water management and other allied purposes. This policy should not be construed as a prohibition against the construction of distribution or transmission line crossings, nor is it a prohibition against use of short segments of District's right of way for the construction of local distribution facilities when such facilities will not interfere with operations and maintenance and are otherwise acceptable to the District. Finally, WMD's notice did not describe FPL's project. As a result, it could not have been ascertained from WMD's notice what FPL's Petition for Waiver was for (installation of a 230 kV overhead transmission line) or what the Basis of Review provided on transmission lines. Instead, as worded, the notice implied that both Rule 40E-6.011(4)-(6) and the Basis of Review required a "minimum 40 foot setback . . . from the top of bank." The District published notice of the July 13, 2000, Governing Board meeting (in Fort Myers, Florida) in the FAW, Volume 26, Number 25, dated June 23, 2000. This notice simply stated that the agenda of the meeting was available upon written request or via WMD's website. The meeting agenda fully described both FPL's Permit application and Petition for Waiver. It also noted WMD staff's recommendation that the both be approved. WMD's Governing Board granted both FPL's Permit application and Petition for Waiver at its meeting on July 13, 2000. An Order Granting Waiver was reduced to writing and filed on July 26, 2000, effectively nunc pro tunc July 13, 2000. The Order Granting Waiver also granted FPL's Permit application and included a Notice of Rights, which advised affected persons how to seek an administrative hearing by filing "a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1)." WMD published in the FAW, Volume 26, Number 36, dated September 8, 2000, notice of the disposition of FPL's Petition for Waiver under Section 120.542, Florida Statutes. Unlike the notice of filing the Petition for Waiver, the notice of disposition described the project as "installation of 3.7 miles of overheads parallel transmission pole line inside the south right of way of the Hillsboro Canal, Palm Beach and Broward Counties." The notice of disposition did not contain a Notice of Rights or other "point of entry" to request an administrative hearing. Except as set out in Findings 3-6, supra, neither WMD nor FPL gave Petitioners any other kind of notice of FPL's Permit application or Petition for Waiver proceedings. WMD did not determine that FPL's project was of heightened public concern, or that there was the likelihood of a request for an administrative hearing, so as to require additional notice in accordance with WMD rules. First Notice to Petitioners (Except Leserra and Smith) Petitioners all own residences in the vicinity of FPL's transmission line project. While Jeff Leserra lives south of the Hillsboro Canal and across Loxahatchee Road in Broward County, the other Petitioners all live north of the Hillsboro Canal in Boca Winds, a group of related residential developments in Palm Beach County, west of Boca Raton. Some of the Boca Winds residents--Terwilliger, Tennant, Pam Danko, Larry Rosenman, Teresa Badillo, and Mike Sturm--live in homes on property adjacent to WMD's north ROW along the Hillsboro Canal. These homes are approximately between 230 and 250 from the nearest Parkland Transmission Line pole. Moreover, in late 1999, each of these Petitioners applied to WMD for a Noticed General Permit (NGP) to extend their backyard fence enclosures between 20 and 25 feet into WMD's north ROW along the Hillsboro Canal--closer to the poles. Their applications were processed primarily by Badillo and another homeowner, Gary Fishman, who is not one of Petitioners. The applications were granted and NGPs were issued to them on May 8, 2000, just after FPL's Permit application and Petition for Waiver were filed. The homes of the other Petitioners--Jose and Amalia Gutman, Frank Longo, David Weinstein, and Ballard Smith--are not adjacent to the Hillsboro Canal. The homes of the Gutmans and Smith are approximately 370 and 390 feet from the nearest pole; Weinstein's home is approximately twice as far away; Longo's home is approximately 1,100 feet away from the nearest pole. All Petitioners use their homes as their permanent residence except for Ballard Smith, whose principal residence is in Bradenton, Florida. Prior to November 2000, Petitioners had no notice or knowledge of FPL's Permit application or Petition for Waiver proceedings. FPL began installing 90-foot high poles for the Parkland Transmission Line along the Hillsboro Canal ROW on or about November 1, 2000. By mid-November 2000, all Petitioners except Leserra and Smith has seen the poles, made inquiry of various kinds, and learned of FPL's plans to construct the Parkland Transmission Line. Leserra and Smith did not see any poles and had no knowledge about the Parkland Transmission Line until later. See Findings 49-53 and 58, infra. Initial Reaction to Transmission Poles The Boca Winds homeowners who became aware of the installation of the poles just south of the Hillsboro Canal reacted in different ways. Some instantly suspected both the ultimate use of the poles for electrical transmission and that the poles were on WMD ROW. Others suspected the former but not the latter. Several made telephone inquiries of different kinds-some to FPL, some to their homeowner association. Quickly, word spread, and these homeowners, including all Petitioners except Smith and Leserra, began organizing to oppose FPL's Permit. Meetings were held, and many members of the loosely-organized opposition were involved initially, but the group soon turned to and relied heavily on a handful of its members--primarily the Gutmans, Badillo, and Gary Fishman- -to gather information and contact FPL and WMD on behalf of the group. While none of the group was particularly knowledgeable about the legal technicalities of WMD procedures, Jose Gutman was a Florida-licensed lawyer (albeit practicing in patent law), and Fishman had handled the applications of Terwilliger, Tennant, Pam Danko, Rosenman, Badillo, Sturm, and others for WMD NGPs to extend their backyard fence enclosures into WMD's north ROW along the Hillsboro Canal. Although most members of the group did not view Jose Gutman technically as their attorney during this time, Gutman asserted attorney-client privilege as to communications between himself and members of the group beginning in November 2000, and Petitioners' objections to disclosure of these communications were sustained. A meeting between Jose Gutman, Fishman, Badillo, and other Boca Winds residents and various FPL representatives was held on November 8, 2000. During this meeting, the residents essentially complained that they had no notice and asked FPL to relocate the transmission line. FPL responded that the required notice was given and said it would respond to the request to relocate the lines. The next day the homeowners put their requests to FPL in writing. They asked for proposals for relocating the transmission line, for the projected cost of putting the line underground for the 1.3 miles in the vicinity of their homes, for EMF testing of their homes, and for a statement of safety. The Gutmans then began the process of drafting a petition for circulation to residents for signature. Entitled "Petition to Halt Construction of FPL High Power Transmission Lines on the Land Adjacent to Our Homes," the petition stated that the homeowners "hereby petition our government and [FPL] to halt construction . . . [and] relocate the lines away from our communities." The petition stated that the homeowners had no notice until November 1, 2000, and did not consent to the project. It complained about "a significant loss in property value along with the additional serious concern of health risks [namely, leukemia and cancer] to our children that will be playing within the electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) emitted." The petition requested "that our government representatives and FPL engineers promptly halt construction . . . and provide in writing proposed alternative plans for moving these transmission lines away from our communities." The petition was dated November 18, 2000, but signatures were collected after that date. Meanwhile, Jose Gutman and Fishman arranged to meet with WMD representatives at WMD's main offices in West Palm Beach on November 28, 2000. Since they had a follow-up meeting with FPL scheduled for the following day, they were surprised on their arrival to find Daniel Hronec, FPL Principal Engineer on the Parkland Transmission Line project, in attendance, apparently having been notified and invited by WMD. Gutman and Fishman essentially reiterated their complaint of lack of notice and their request to have the transmission line relocated. Discussion ensued on the permitting process used by FPL and WMD. WMD's Laura Lythgoe explained that WMD rules provide for different review criteria and notice requirements depending on the nature of the request.4 She stated that no notice to affected parties is required for ROW use permits, such as the one FPL got for the Parkland Transmission Line. She went on to explain that the procedure for requesting a variance is set out in Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, which only requires notice in the FAW. Fishman complained that the FAW notice was not specific enough. Thomas L. Fratz, WMD ROW Division Director, responded that the notice was legally sufficient. Lythgoe also pointed out that the agenda item gave specifics and was available on WMD's internet web site. In testimony at the preliminary hearing, Fishman recalled a statement being made during the course of discussion that the homeowners had 21 days to petition for a hearing and that the time had expired. Gutman did not recall such a statement being made specifically, but he conceded that the thrust of the discussion was that the proper notice was given and that the homeowners were too late. During the discussion of WMD procedures, Gutman asked for copies of certain documentation being discussed. Gutman also expressed the homeowners' need for legal advice on the subject and asked for a referral to an attorney knowledgeable in the area. WMD agreed to respond to these requests in writing. Towards the end of the meeting on November 28, 2000, Gutman asked how the homeowners could proceed with their grievance. Fratz responded that the homeowners' issue was with FPL, not WMD. Gutman replied that the homeowners could only negotiate with FPL (which they already were doing) but could petition WMD, as their government, to take action to rectify the situation. Gutman indicated that he had a petition with approximately 150 signatures for that purpose. It is not clear whether the petition and signatures were physically presented to WMD at that time, but it is clear that WMD did not direct Gutman to WMD's Clerk's office, which was just down the hall from where they were meeting, to file the petition. The next day, FPL hosted a meeting with the homeowners to respond to their requests made at the meeting on November 8, 2000, and in their letter dated November 9, 2000. FPL confirmed its response in a letter dated November 30, 2000. FPL told the homeowners that there were options for relocating the transmission line but that implementing the options would cost the homeowners between $900,000 and $1.5 million, depending on the option chosen and that a $20,000 engineering deposit would be required up-front. The option of replacing the planned overhead transmission lines with underground lines would be much more expensive--approximately $15 million--and "unquestionably prohibitive." The homeowners considered FPL's proposals to be financially infeasible and unacceptable. By letter dated December 1, 2000, WMD provided Jose Gutman and Fishman documentation in response to their request during the meeting on November 28, 2000. Included were copies of the agenda for the Governing Board's meeting on July 13, 2000, and Section 120.542, Florida Statutes (2000). The letter stated that Section 120.542 applied, not Section 403.201 (applicable to the Department of Environmental Protection), which Gutman and Fishman apparently cited at the meeting. The letter also stated that there was no requirement for publishing or other notification to affected parties for issuance of a ROW permit. Attorney Walker and the Board Meeting December 14, 2000 After the meetings and letters, the homeowners decided that it would be necessary to appeal directly to WMD Governing Board. They also decided that they needed competent legal representation to assist them. Amy Gutman contacted Governing Board member Nicholas J. Gutierrez, Jr., who advised the homeowners to bring their grievances to the next Board meeting on December 14, 2000. Gutierrez put Amy Gutman in contact with the Board's meeting coordinator, Sandra Gomez, who scheduled the homeowners to participate in the public comment portion of the upcoming Board meeting on December 14, 2000. Meanwhile, Jose Gutman took steps on behalf of the homeowners to retain counsel. After considering several candidates, Gutman eventually settled on Stephen A. Walker and his law firm of Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. to represent the group of homeowners (including all Petitioners except Leserra and Smith). Walker served as General Counsel of WMD from 1985 to 1991, and was a frequent practitioner before the SFWMD Governing Board. He also has appeared in cases before the Division of Administrative Hearings. It is not clear from the evidence what documentation Walker obtained from WMD's permit files before appearing on behalf of the homeowners at the Governing Board's meeting on December 14, 2001. However, it is reasonable to infer that, as former WMD General Counsel and an attorney specializing in WMD permitting with extensive experience in that field, Walker was aware of the generally applicable 21-day time limitation for seeking an administrative hearing regarding proposed agency action. Walker also was aware of the difference between petitioning to intervene in a proceeding for the issuance of a permit and asking an administrative agency to initiate proceedings to revoke a permit that has already been issued. Whether Walker communicated this knowledge is not clear from the evidence because Petitioners objected to questions seeking disclosure of attorney-client communications, and the objections were sustained. However, it can be inferred from all of the evidence that such communications probably took place. Walker and the homeowners not only appeared for the public comment portion of the Governing Board's agenda for December 14, 2001, they also conducted a protest demonstration that caused a disturbance in the hallway outside the meeting room during an earlier part of the agenda. Attempting to ascertaining the reason for the disturbance, the Chairman of the Governing Board, Michael Collins, asked WMD Ombudsman, Richard E. Williams, to attempt to gain some understanding of the reason for the demonstration and to suggest possible solutions. When it was made known that Fratz and other WMD staff already had met with the homeowners and FPL, Collins asked that Fratz be included. Williams then met with the homeowners, FPL, and some WMD staff in the nearby WMD cafeteria. When the situation was explained to Williams, he suggested that all parties agree to give him time to gather additional facts and try to mediate an "acceptable agreement" to report back to the Governing Board at its meeting in January 2001. In the meantime, it was agreed that FPL would postpone construction in the vicinity of the homeowners and that the homeowners would postpone pursuit of their grievance. This was acceptable and agreed by all involved. When FPL and the homeowners returned to the Governing Board meeting for the public comment portion, Walker appeared on behalf of the homeowners. Walker summarized the history of FPL's Permit and waivers. He asked the WMD Governing Board to do three things: (1) have staff investigate the appropriateness of the issuance of the Permit in the first instance; (2) based upon that investigation, partially revoke FPL's Permit; and (3) have Williams continue to work with the homeowners and FPL in an effort to find a solution. The Gutmans, Tennant, Terwilliger, and Badillo also addressed the Governing Board to ask that FPL's Permit be revoked. Jose Gutman advised the Governing Board that the homeowners had a petition (by then with 256 signatures) with a cover letter that would provide the Board a summary of the issues. He offered to provide the Board with copies and was directed to hand them to Darrell Bell, a member of the staff of WMD's Clerk's office, who would make sure all Board members got a copy. The other speakers expressed their concerns about EMF, aesthetics, and property values. Collins then asked the WMD's General Counsel, John Fumero, to identify the Board's options. Fumero advised that the Board could modify, revoke or suspend FPL's Permit but that, before taking such action, the Board would want to know the facts and understand the consequences of each option. Without taking a formal vote, the Board asked staff to investigate the facts and report back at the next meeting. Walker advised the Board, and Dan Hronec on behalf of FPL concurred, that FPL had temporarily stopped construction near where his clients lived while it continued work on other portions of the transmission line. Smith's First, Incomplete Knowledge Smith saw a tall concrete structure off to the left of the main entrance to Little Palm Lane when he visited his home for approximately four days in late December 2000. He denied seeing any other poles (although all of the poles behind the Boca Winds homes were installed by then). Smith explained that he spent most of his time during this visit in the house or in the backyard where the poles would be less visible. Although Smith admitted that he was outside in front of his house, where the poles would have been more visible, at times during his visit in December and that he can now see the poles and lines from inside his house through any front window on either the first or second story, Smith's testimony as to what he saw in December 2000 is accepted and credited. Likewise, Smith's testimony that he did not realize the purpose of the pole he saw or its location on WMD ROW is accepted and credited. Walker's Review of WMD Documents As part of his representation of the homeowners, Walker or one of his subordinates obtained copies of at least parts of WMD's official agency file on FPL's Permit. Walker's files contained several partial copies of FPL's Permit; there also was a Notice of Rights form (the kind attached to the Order Granting Waiver). Walker's file also contained other materials that are found in the WMD's file on FPL's Permit, such as the standard form letter that accompanies each permit transmittal. Fishman understood that Jose Gutman had asked Walker or one of his subordinates to go to WMD and undertake an investigation regarding the issuance of FPL's Permit. Gutman did not confirm Fishman's understanding, and Walker denied that he or anyone from his staff went to WMD's main office in West Palm Beach to investigate the issuance of FPL's Permit and obtain the documentation in his file. It is possible that Walker was given the documents by one or more of the homeowners. Walker also testified at hearing that he could not recall when he obtained the documentation that was in his file. However, based on the record evidence, it is reasonable to infer that this occurred prior to January 8, 2001, as Walker sent a letter to WMD on that date which described the Permit in detail and to which he attached copies of FPL's Permit, FPL's permit and waiver applications, and several items of WMD correspondence from the permit file. Failure of Mediation; Board's Meeting February 14, 2001 After the Governing Board's December 2000 meeting, Ombudsman Williams undertook to schedule separate meetings with the homeowners and with FPL, to be followed by a joint meeting with all involved. It soon became apparent that it would not be possible to conduct all the meetings and be ready to report back to the Governing Board at its January 2001 meeting. In a letter from FPL to Fratz dated January 5, 2001, FPL confirmed that FPL would continue to postpone construction in the vicinity of the homeowners until after the February 2001 meeting of the Governing Board and that, "in return for this concession, the concerned residents have agreed to hold any further action, including comment to the Board, until the February Board meeting." Williams met separately with the homeowners and with FPL, as planned. When Williams contacted Amy Gutman to schedule a joint meeting, she asked whether anything new was being proposed. When Williams said, no, Gutman told him she did not think another meeting would be productive and declined on behalf of the homeowners to participate in one. Apparently, FPL representatives met with WMD staff, and they discussed landscaping to help mitigate the aesthetic concerns of the homeowners. Having declined to participate, the homeowners were not aware of the landscaping proposals (essentially, planting cabbage palms in the ROW.) FPL's Permit and waivers made up an agenda item at the WMD Governing Board's meeting on February 14, 2001. Fratz introduced the item with a presentation. The Board then received public comment from Walker on behalf of the homeowners and from a number of homeowners. Walker, on behalf of all Petitioners except Smith and Leserra, identified three concerns of the homeowners, one of which was the lack of notice. Specifically, Walker stated that the Administrative Procedure Act was involved, that the model rules provide for a point of entry for people wanting to object to a permit, and that his clients did not get the required point of entry. At the conclusion of his presentation, Walker asked the Board to revoke FPL's Permit. When asked by one of the Board members whether there were other options available, Walker stated that he was not aware of an available alternative other than revocation. Petitioners Tennant, Frank Longo, Terwilliger, Jose Gutman, Larry Rosenman, and Badillo also addressed the Board and provided reasons why they believed FPL's Permit should be revoked. FPL then made a presentation, after which the Board discussed the issue and entertained several motions. During the Board's discussion, staff was asked about possible interference with WMD's operation and maintenance of the Hillsborough Canal as a result of the transmission line and about the safety of WMD's workers. These questions were addressed by Fratz, by WMD's Executive Deputy Director, Joe Taylor, and by WMD's Director of Field Operations (South), John Adams. They advised the Board that WMD could adequately operate and maintain the canal with the transmission lines in place and that the safety of WMD's workers would not be compromised. Fratz noted that WMD frequently received requests for waiver of the 40-foot setback from the top of canal banks, and Adams pointed out that WMD does not operate any of its equipment, including cranes with booms, along WMD ROW in winds above 35 miles per hour. After these questions were answered, Board Chair Michael Collins again asked General Counsel, John Fumero, to list the Board's options. Fumero outlined three possible courses of action: (1) to take action relative to the Permit such as revocation, modification or suspension; (2) to take no action with respect to the Permit; or (3) to direct staff to publish notice of the Permit to create a point of entry for an administrative challenge. After some questions from the Board were answered, Board member Dr. Patrick J. Gleason moved to give the homeowners a point of entry, and the motion was seconded. After further discussion, the motion was amended in two respects: (1) the Board would delegate to the executive director the authority to initiate a proceeding to suspend FPL's Permit while the administrative challenge was ongoing; and (2) the Board's action would be based upon information received during the meeting indicating that certain WMD criteria may not be met. The motion, as amended, was defeated by a 7 to 1 vote. A subsequent motion was made for FPL to install and maintain certain landscaping over a portion of the ROW to provide a visual buffer between the homes and the transmission line. That motion passed, 7 to 1. Petitioners (except Smith and Leserra, who still had no knowledge of events taking place and did not participate in the meeting on February 14, 2001) understood that the Governing Board had refused to initiate revocation proceedings at the meeting. Although some Petitioners expressed willingness to hear more about the landscaping proposal, which was new to them, Petitioners also already knew that the landscaping alternative proposed would not be acceptable to them and that they still wanted FPL's Permit revoked. After the Board's vote, several Petitioners, including Jose Gutman, Badillo, and Rosenman (as well as Fishman) talked to Walker about other avenues to pursue in their continued opposition to FPL's Permit. This discussion included advice on seeking a formal administrative hearing. It is highly likely that, even if Walker did not have all his documentation from WMD's file on FPL's Permit by January 8, 2001, he had them by the Governing Board's meeting on February 14, 2001. During the meeting, Walker introduced exhibits that he indicated were retrieved from WMD's file on FPL's permit. These included a copy of the Notice of Rights attached to the Order Granting Waiver. Walker advised the homeowners for the last time after the meeting on February 14, 2001, before his clients left the meeting. His representation was terminated shortly thereafter. Petitioners have invoked attorney-client privilege to preclude discovery of the precise substance of the discussion with Walker after the meeting on February 14, 2001- -in particular whether the various jurisdictional time limitations were discussed. However, it is reasonable to infer that Walker shared this information with the homeowners, including the information contained in the Notice of Rights attached to the Order Granting Waiver, before terminating his representation. Leserra's Knowledge and the Petition Petitioner Leserra first learned of the installation of high-voltage transmission line poles in the vicinity of his home in approximately February 2001. The closest pole was just 69 feet away from his home, across Loxahatchee Road. Leserra contacted State Representative Stacy Ritter to complain, and his office contacted WMD and obtained information concerning the project in mid to late-February 2001. A letter sent by Representative Ritter's office to Leserra on February 28, 2001, and received by Leserra shortly after March 2, 2001, stated that the line in question was located on property determined to be owned by WMD. Leserra testified that, even after receiving this information, he did not know how WMD's ownership was determined and still did not know for certain of WMD's involvement at the time. In early March 2001, a friend informed Leserra that homeowners in Boca Winds in Palm Beach County were having a similar problem with installation of high-voltage transmission lines near their homes and gave him Teresa Badillo's name and telephone number. Leserra telephoned her and was told that there was a meeting about it at WMD in February 2001. Badillo gave Leserra Jose Gutman's name and number for additional information. Badillo testified that she also told Leserra about FPL's Permit to use WMD's ROW. Leserra does not recall her saying that. Even if she did, Leserra did not even know where Boca Winds was at the time and did not know that Boca Winds was being affected by the same transmission line project that was affecting him. On March 12, 2001, Leserra wrote to FPL and WMD and threatened that he would hold WMD responsible for any adverse impact from the FPL facilities on the Hillsborough Canal. At the time he sent the letter, he had not yet been able to speak to Jose Gutman. At some point during the next four days, Leserra was able to contact Jose Gutman by telephone. Gutman explained the Boca Winds situation in detail, including the homeowners' intention to request an administrative hearing, and Leserra agreed to be a co-petitioner. Since Petitioners objected to disclosure of communication with Gutman on grounds of attorney-client privilege, it is not clear that Gutman imparted to Leserra information as to the Notice of Rights attached to the Order Granting Waiver to FPL or the deadline for petitioning for an administrative hearing. But it can be inferred that the former was communicated and that the latter was discussed. On March 16, 2001, Amy Gutman contacted Ombudsman Williams to tell him that the homeowners no longer were represented by Attorney Walker but, along with Leserra now, wanted to petition for an administrative hearing, wanted to know their rights, and wanted assistance in understanding the process to avail themselves of their rights. On March 20, 2001, Williams relayed this information to Deputy Executive Director Taylor and General Counsel Fumero for handling. The office of WMD General Counsel responded to Williams' request by sending a letter dated March 22, 2001, to Amy Gutman, on behalf of the homeowners, enclosing a copy of the Order Granting Waiver, with Notice of Rights, which "explains the various remedies that are available to anyone substantially affected by a decision of the District." After receipt of the letter with copy of the Order Granting Waiver with Notice of Rights, Amy Gutman and some of the homeowners (including all Petitioners except Ballard Smith) decided to file a petition for administrative hearing. Suzanne Terwilliger telephoned WMD office of General Counsel to get sample petitions, which were faxed to her on April 3, 2001. Terwilliger drafted a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) and telephoned WMD to see if it could be filed by fax. She was told Sandra Gomez would call her back. Terwilliger called again on April 6, 2001, angry that she had gotten no response from Gomez and that FPL was energizing the transmission line which had been completely installed since February 14, 2001. Told that it could be filed by fax, the Petition was filed in that manner on April 6, 2001. The Petition was filed by Terwilliger, Amy Gutman, and Leserra purportedly on behalf of unnamed residents of several residential areas in southwest Palm Beach County. On April 11, 2001, FPL filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that the Petition was untimely, that WMD had no jurisdiction over the matters raised in the Petition, and that Petitioners had no standing. Smith's Knowledge and Joinder; Amended Petition There was no evidence that Ballard Smith knew anything at all about what transpired between the homeowners, FPL, and WMD from December 2000 through April 13, 2001. Smith visited his home in Boca Winds again during Easter weekend 2001. When he arrived, he was shocked to see the transmission line in place. On April 14, 2001, he talked to his neighbors, the Gutmans, who informed him of some of what had transpired between the homeowners, FPL, and WMD from December 2000 through April 13, 2001, including FPL's Motion to Dismiss the Petition. He agreed to give Gutman an affidavit to help oppose the Motion to Dismiss and to join the Petition. As set out in the Preliminary Statement, on May 3, 2001, the original Petitioners filed the Affidavit of Ballard Smith as part of their opposition to FPL's Motion to Dismiss. In it, Smith swore that he lived in Bradenton and was not aware of WMD's actions until April 14, 2001; he also swore that he "substantially agrees" with the Petition and "joins with the Petitioners in this Case No. 01-1504." While not clear from the Affidavit itself, Smith clarified in his testimony that he intended by the Affidavit to join in the Petition. On May 18, 2001, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition. The Amended Petition listed 13 individual Petitioners--those included in the above-caption (including Smith), plus one other who later voluntarily dismissed and was dropped. The Amended Petition states that Petitioners' interests in this proceeding are based on the following concerns: (i) the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF); (ii) impact on Petitioners' property values; (iii) aesthetics and loss of quiet enjoyment; (iv) structural safety; and (v) interference with radio and television. Several Petitioners testified to concerns that the transmission line would interfere with the operation of the Hillsborough Canal and cause their properties and roads to flood, and Tennant testified that the transmission line interfered with her husband's fishing in the canal. The Amended Petition did not allege that these things affected Petitioners in particular, as opposed to the community in general. But they were heard without objection and by implied consent. Likewise, Tennant's testimony about her family's canoeing and kite-flying being impacted by the transmission line were heard without objection and by implied consent. EMF Petitioners Badillo, Smith, Rosenman, Weinstein, Tennant, and the Gutmans expressed concerns about EMF generated by transmission lines (although Smith disclaimed any personal interest in the issue.) The remaining Petitioners did not express EMF concerns. The only competent, substantial evidence in the record on Petitioners' medical concerns about EMF were two booklets--one produced in 1995 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the United States Department of Energy, and another produced by the Department of Engineering and Public Policy of the Carnegie Mellon University--which FPL provides to those asking for information about EMF. These booklets did not prove that medical or health impacts on Petitioners are likely as a result of the Parkland Transmission Line. Far from proving immediate injury, these booklets at most were only enough to generate some speculation about possible medical or health impacts. Property Values and Aesthetics The Amended Petition states that the presence of the Parkland Transmission Line will adversely impact Petitioners' property values, decreasing values by 20-30 percent. This claim is coupled with claims regarding the aesthetics of the facilities. As to property values, there was no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support Petitioners' contentions. Petitioners made no attempt to substantiate their expressed concern of a drop in property values. They presented no expert evidence regarding property values, none that sales of homes in the area have been or will impacted, and none that the sale price of any home has been lower than it would have been without installation of the transmission line. As for aesthetics, the only evidence was the opinions of several Petitioners who testified that the transmission lines are unsightly. Even if this was enough to prove diminished aesthetics, at least for Petitioners closest to the transmission line, there was no evidence to causally connect diminished aesthetics to a reduction in property value, so as to be actionable in this proceeding. Structural Safety Petitioners presented no competent, substantial evidence that the Parkland Transmission Line is structurally unsound or in any reasonable danger of failure. FPL presented ample evidence to the contrary. The Parkland Transmission Line is designed to meet FPL's internal standards. FPL's internal standards are more stringent (i.e., designed to withstand heavier loads) than the present regulatory requirements for wind-loading and structural safety. FPL's internal standards are also more stringent than the voluntary standards for electric transmission facilities developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The structural strength of FPL's transmission line also exceeds the requirements of both the Broward and Palm Beach County building codes. Based largely on FPL's stringent internal standards, the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is being revised to improve the wind-loading standards for electric transmission poles. Because the new standards are based on FPL's existing internal standards, the Parkland Transmission Line structures are designed to comply with the new NESC that is currently in the final stages of development. FPL's stringent design standards make the possibility for Petitioners to be affected by a failed transmission pole or conductor extremely remote and speculative. Petitioners have expressed a concern over the effects of hurricanes on FPL's concrete transmission poles. However, it is highly unlikely that any portion of the transmission line would fail in a hurricane. FPL's experience reveals that no concrete transmission pole has ever been lost to a Category 3 hurricane, which is a 1-in-100 storm event. Hurricane Andrew, which was a 1-in-400 year storm event, was the only hurricane known to have affected such poles. Even then, 92 percent of FPL's poles stood up. The likelihood of a storm of that magnitude hitting the area where Petitioners' homes are located is very remote. Additionally, the poles along the Parkland Transmission Line are built to FPL's post- Andrew standards and have more load-bearing capacity than the poles in place during Andrew. Petitioners questioned the credibility of FPL's evidence on the structural integrity of FPL's transmission poles and lines, contending that FPL's design calculations for wind-loading failed to increase the basic design wind speed by the terrain factor for exposure category "D." According to the "Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading," ASCE Manual No. 74, Exposure D is "described as unobstructed coastal areas directly exposed to wind flowing over large bodies of water." Petitioners contend that Exposure D applies because the Hillsboro Canal "runs for miles along the transmission line." But FPL Structural Engineer, C. Jerry Wong, Ph.D., P.E., testified clearly and persuasively that the presence of the Hillsboro Canal does not place the Parkland Transmission Line in an Exposure D setting. Even if failure of a pole were to occur during a hurricane, the chance that a pole would fall and hit one of Petitioners' homes still would be remote. For all Petitioners except Leserra, the poles are too far away for that to happen. The poles, which weigh 45,000 pounds apiece, are too heavy to become airborne. Petitioners presented no competent, substantial evidence suggesting that either a pole or electric conductor could somehow become airborne and reach the property of any Petitioner except Leserra. The only record evidence on this point established that, when there is a structural failure, the pole and the conductor fall down approximately right below where the transmission line is located. The odds of one of these homes being hit by a pole or transmission line due to high winds are almost zero. Even in the case of Leserra, who is the closest to the transmission line at approximately 69 feet away, the odds of his house being hit by a pole due to high winds is less than two-tenths of one percent. Because the transmission line is designed to have higher structural capacity than required by local building codes, it is likely that any winds strong enough to have the potential to damage the line would also destroy surrounding homes. It is far more likely that Petitioners' homes would be destroyed and strike the transmission line than the other way around. In any event, if a hurricane was strong enough to topple one of FPL's transmission line poles or blow down lines, it also would be strong enough already to have destroyed Petitioners' homes. So even if by some bizarre and remote chance a pole or wires blew into one or more of Petitioners' homes, the homes probably already would have been destroyed by such a storm. Petitioners next expressed concern regarding one of the poles being struck by a vehicle, such as a fully-loaded commercial truck. For most Petitioners, even if a truck could knock down a pole, the pole would not reach their property. Only Leserra's home is close enough for there to be any possibility of this happening. Even in Leserra's case, it is next to impossible for a truck to cause one of the poles to fall. The only truck traffic near the poles is on Loxahatchee Road, which runs parallel to the pole line. The poles are separated from the road by a guard rail designed to withstand a 50 mile per hour (mph) collision. The maximum weight of a truck allowed on the road is 80,000 pounds. Such a truck would have to hit a pole at a near right angle and at over 100 mph to have any chance of causing a failure. Because the trucks travel parallel to the pole line, and there is a guardrail in the way, the chance of failure from a collision is extremely remote and speculative. In essence the truck would need to make a 90- degree turn near the pole, break through the 50-mph guard rail a few feet away, and still be traveling at over 100 mph at the time it struck the pole. Then, the pole would have to fall in the opposite direction from the impact to hit Leserra's home. The odds of something this bizarre happening are extremely remote. Finally, it is noted that FPL's Permit has an indemnity clause, which "requires that FPL hold and save the South Florida Water Management District and its successors harmless from any and all damages, claims or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction maintenance or use of the work or structure involved in the permit." Since this makes it clear that any liability resulting from the presence of the transmission line must be borne by FPL alone, any claim that a structural failure could lead to liability for WMD is speculative at best. Flooding Concerns Several Petitioners testified to concerns about flooding in the Boca Winds subdivision by blocking of subdivision drainage culverts that flow into the Hillsborough Canal or by interference with WMD's routine maintenance of the canal. But Petitioners presented no competent, substantial evidence that flooding for these reasons would be likely. There are two box culverts leading from Boca Winds into the Hillsborough Canal. But, as required by WMD rules, the Boca Winds storm water system is designed to accommodate a 3-day long, 1-in-100 year storm event, with no external outflow. In other words, the system is designed to function without the drainage culverts in even this extreme rainfall condition. There is only a one-percent chance that a 1-in-100- year rainfall event would hit Boca Winds in any given year. In any storm of this magnitude or less, the onsite system would be sufficient to accommodate the rainfall with no flooding of the floor elevation of Petitioners' homes. The possibility that any one storm event would even require drainage into the Hillsborough Canal to prevent flooding in Boca Winds is therefore remote. The culverts leading to the Hillsboro Canal essentially provide additional drainage capacity to the internal storm water management system of Boca Winds. In addition, by slowly draining ("bleeding") water from the Boca Winds subdivision to the canal, they allow the system to recover capacity for subsequent rain events. It is highly unlikely that a transmission pole, even if it was to shear off and fall toward the canal-which is in itself an extremely remote possibility--could in any way impede the functions of either the drainage structures or the canal. Even if a pole were to fall and directly strike and crush one of the two drainage structures, it probably would not appreciably affect the culvert's ability to bleed water into the canal. The drainage into the structures is controlled initially by a weir at the inflow point, not by the pipe diameter at the outflow. Even if a pole were to somehow crush the outflow pipe, water would continue to flow into the canal at roughly the same rate. A pole falling into the canal itself would not affect the ability of the canal to provide drainage. If a pole were to fall into the canal, it would most likely do so top first. Because the pole is tapered, only a small cross section would enter the canal, which would have almost no effect on the flow of water. Even assuming that a pole were to enter the canal in its entirety, it would affect only a minimal portion of the canal cross section and would not significantly affect the flowage capacity of the canal. Even multiple poles falling completely in the canal--an extremely unlikely event--would not significantly affect the function of the canal, due to the small cross-section taken up and the distance between the poles. Most maintenance of the Hillsborough Canal is done with herbicides and from boats in the canal itself. There is rarely a need to use heavy land-based equipment to maintain a drainage canal. The Parkland Transmission Line is on the south bank of the canal, and the Permit provides for the poles to be set approximately 450 feet apart and more than 14 feet from the top of the canal bank. (In many instances the poles are much more than 14 feet from the top of the canal bank). The Permit provides that the poles are to be installed with turn structures that allow at least a 14-foot passing zone around each pole. This is sufficient for the types of vehicles used by WMD to pass around the poles, assuming there was a need to drive along the south bank of the canal. Most heavy equipment can operate from the passing pad and from the space between poles. When heavy equipment is needed, a backhoe or grade- all is typically used. Both of these types of equipment can operate unimpeded from the south side of the canal. A grade- all operating from the south bank has sufficient reach to dredge the bottom of the canal should that be necessary and is the optimal piece of equipment for such an operation. The transmission line would not affect the operation of a grade- all from the southern bank of the canal. Because of the higher elevation, a grade-all would not be used from the north bank, and a crane would be used if there were a need to conduct dredging from that direction. However, because of its location, the transmission line would not impede any equipment use on the north bank. Moreover, if any extensive dredging were done, the routine method would be to operate from a barge on the canal itself, which would also not be affected by the transmission line. There also is no way that the presence of the transmission line could affect the maintenance of the outfall structures from Boca Winds. Any maintenance of those structures would be performed from the north bank of the canal-the side opposite to the transmission line-or from boats or barges operating in the canal. Petitioners introduced evidence to prove that, in some instances, the poles may not have been installed as provided in the permit, with not enough room between the poles and the top of the bank on one side or Loxahatchee Road on the other. It was not clear from their evidence whether this may have occurred in more than two instances, or in any instance other than where the transmission line intersected the canal and changed direction near a culvert. Even if proven, these would have amounted to compliance enforcement issues, not permitting issues. It was not proven that the installation design at these locations was improper; if installation was designed properly but implemented improperly, it was not proven that installation as designed was impossible at these locations. Finally, it was not proven that the installation hampered canal maintenance. Leserra also expressed concerns about flooding of his property from a north-south drainage ditch along his property line, which conveys water from the south to a box culvert under Loxahatchee Road to the Hillsboro Canal, draining a significant area in the vicinity of Parkland. There was little evidence on the operation of Leserra's drainage ditch. The little evidence presented was insufficient to prove the likelihood of flooding of Leserra's property due to the existence of the transmission line. The evidence presented about the Hillsboro Canal in general suggests that flooding of Leserra's property due to the existence of the transmission line is highly unlikely. Indeed, there was no testimony that water in the Hillsborough Canal has ever risen above its banks, even in major rain events. Recreational Use of Canal Tennant testified that her husband regularly used the Hillsboro Canal for fishing and canoeing before the transmission line was installed. The transmission line does not physically obstruct canoeing or fishing in the canal, but her husband chooses not to canoe or fish in the canal any longer due to medical and health concerns and for aesthetic reasons. He does not enjoy those activities as much any more due to the transmission line being there both visibly and audibly. (It makes a noise described as "buzzing" or "humming.") Tennant also testified that her family used to fly kites from the dirt road in the ROW along the north side of the canal behind their home. Due to the proximity of the transmission line, this activity no longer is safe and has been discontinued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of February, 2002.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's decision to reject the bid submitted by the Petitioner in response to Invitation to Bid # 03-DC-7514, Maintenance and Repair of Emergency Generators, was contrary to the Respondent's governing statutes, the Respondent's rules or policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On June 23, 2003, the Invitation to Bid ("ITB") for Bid No. 03-DC-7514 was advertised and also mailed to prospective bidders on the bidding list maintained by the Department. The ITB solicited bids for the maintenance and repair of emergency generators in correctional facilities, and separate bids were to be submitted for Regions I through IV. All Power Generators submitted its bid by the deadline of 2:00 p.m. September 15, 2003, together with four other bidders, including Pantropic. Both All Power Generators and Pantropic bid only on the part of the ITB relating to work in Region IV. When the bids were opened, the annual costs stated by the bidders for each region covered by the ITB were read and recorded. All Power Generators' cost total was lower than that of Pantropic, and All Power Generators was the apparent lowest responsive bidder. After the bids were opened, Department personnel reviewed the cost tabulations to confirm their accuracy and reviewed the other documentation required by the ITB, including the Certification/Attestation for Mandatory Statements, the Certification/Attestation of Executive Summary Statements, and the Bidder's Background Summary, to ensure the bidders' responsiveness to the requirements of the ITB. As a result of this review, the Department's Procurement Manager determined that All Power Generators did not meet the three years' business/corporate experience requirement of the ITB. The Procurement Manager recommended that the contract be awarded to Pantropic, the next lowest bidder. This recommendation was accepted, and the Department noted on the Bid Tabulation form its intent to award the contract for Region IV to Pantropic and its determination that All Power Generators did "not meet required experience criteria." In Section 1.3 of the ITB, "mandatory responsiveness requirements" are defined in pertinent part as follows: "Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. . . ." (Emphasis in original.) Section 4.3.6 of the ITB provides in pertinent part: The Department shall reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department shall also reject any or all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations: Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department. A deviation is material if, in the Department's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB's requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. (Emphasis in original.) The Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements are set forth in Section 5.1 of the ITB, which provides in pertinent part: The following terms, conditions, or requirements must be met by the bidder to be judged responsive to this ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements shall cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet responsiveness requirements will not be reviewed. * * * It is mandatory that the bidder sign, have certified by a notary public and return, under Tab 1, the "Certification/Attestation for Mandatory Statements" (ATTACHMENT 1), which includes the following statements: Business/Corporate Experience: A statement certifying that the bidder/contractor has business/corporate experience of at least three (3) years relevant to the provision of generator maintenance and repair, within the last five (5) years. Authority to Legally Bind the Bidder: A statement certifying that the person signing form PUR 7031 [the Bidder Acknowledgment] and all other forms is the person in the bidder/contractor's organization responsible for, or authorized to make, binding decisions as to the prices bid. Juan R. Garcia signed the form PUR 7031 and the Certification/Attestation for Mandatory Statements as President and owner of All Power Generators, and these documents were duly notarized. The Certification/Attestation for Mandatory Statements form signed by Mr. Garcia contains the following statement: "This is to certify that the bidder/contractor has business/corporate experience of at least three (3) years relevant to the provision of generator maintenance and repair, within the last five (5) years." Mr. Garcia also signed the Certification/Attestation of Executive Summary Statements, wherein he certified that "the bidder is a corporation" that is "registered to do business in Florida." Finally, Mr. Garcia completed the Bidder's Background Summary for All Power Generators in which he stated that All Power Generators was established in 2001 as a corporation whose primary business was to service and repair generators. All Power Generators has been doing business for approximately two and one-half years. Mr. Garcia has worked for 21 years repairing and maintaining generators. Prior to organizing All Power Generators, Mr. Garcia was the service manager for a company called Power Depot. His primary job at Power Depot was repairing and maintaining generators, and, among other technical qualifications, he is certified by Kohler to work on the generators it manufacturers. All Power Generators has five employees, including Mr. Garcia, who have between 8 and 22 years' experience maintaining and repairing generators. It is of critical importance that the Department's emergency generators be properly maintained and promptly repaired. When there is a power outage in one of the Department's correctional facilities, emergency generators automatically start and provide emergency power to operate security systems, food service operations, water wells, wastewater plants, and emergency lighting. Under the ITB, response time is 24 hours for non-emergency repairs and four hours for emergency repairs. The bidder/contractor who is awarded the contract to maintain and repair emergency generators used in the correctional facilities must have employees who are technically proficient in maintaining and repairing generators, but, because of the short response time for repairs and the numerous correctional facilities covered by the contract, especially in Region IV,1 the Department requires that the bidder/contractor also have business/corporate experience in managing contracts and coordinating the necessary maintenance, routine repairs, and emergency repairs of the generator systems. The evidence presented by All Power Generators is not sufficient to establish that its bid satisfied the mandatory requirement that the bidder/contractor have a minimum of three years' business/corporate experience. All Power Generators was organized in 2001 and has been in business only two and one-half years. Even though Mr. Garcia has many years of technical experience in the repair and maintenance of generators, All Power Generators does not have the business/corporate experience required by the ITB.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order denying the bid protest of All Power Generators Corporation and dismissing the Petition filed by All Power Generators Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2004.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the facts involved in this rule challenge. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a large corporation operating throughout the United States. It engages in the business of manufacturing electrical components and in constructing, installing and servicing electrical control systems and other phases of electrical contracting work. As its name implies, Johnson Controls' primary emphasis in the electrical field is in selling, installing, and maintaining systems for fire, security, heating, air conditioning, and energy consumption controls. Johnson Controls is presently licensed to do electrical contracting work by 23 counties and municipalities in Florida and in 49 of the 50 states. Winfred Allen Infinger holds a B. E. degree in Technology and Construction, a journeyman electrician's license in Pinellas County, and is fully qualified by training and experience to be the qualifying agent of Johnson Controls in this application. In its letter of May 8, 1979 denying petitioner's application, Respondent, through its executive director, stated the following grounds: Your application failed to meet the qualification as that of a Florida licensed electrical contractor (468.181(5)) whose services are unlimited in the Electrical Field. The review of your application reflects that Johnson Controls, Inc., is a specialty contractor and presently Florida Statutes, Chapter 468, Part VII does not provide for licensure of specialty contractors.
The Issue The principal issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether certification should be issued to the City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities (Lakeland or Lakeland Electric) to construct and operate the steam electric equipment needed to create a nominal 350-megawatt combined-cycle generating unit located at Lakeland’s McIntosh Power Plant site in Lakeland, Florida in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.502, et seq., Florida Statutes. The related issues concern whether the site for the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project is consistent and in compliance with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances of the City of Lakeland, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Project Operations and Impacts Project Overview The City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities is a municipal utility that supplies electric service to approximately 106,000 customers, which represents approximately 200,000 residents in its service area within Polk County. Lakeland’s electric utility commenced operation in 1891, making Lakeland one of only three Florida cities with electricity at that time. Lakeland currently operates power plants at two locations in the City of Lakeland with a combined generating capacity of 785 megawatts (MW). The McIntosh Power Plant site is the larger power plant site and contains six electrical generating units. McIntosh Unit 3 is a 365-megawatt, coal-fired electrical generating unit, which was originally certified under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act in 1978. In 1998, Lakeland obtained approvals to construct a new 250-megawatt, simple-cycle combustion turbine (CT) at the McIntosh site. These approvals consisted of a modification of the site certification for McIntosh Unit 3 and a separate Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit, both issued by FDEP. That modification of the site certification for the new Unit 5 CT was required because the new CT was to be located within the site certified for McIntosh Unit 3. Pursuant to FDEP rules, the approval for that new unit was required to be obtained under the PPSA’s modification rules. The new McIntosh Unit 5 CT is completing construction and will be placed into service in the near future. The original permits for the Unit 5 CT anticipated that the CT would later be converted to a combined cycle configuration. The City of Lakeland considered a number of generating options before selecting the Unit 5 project to meet the City’s required 15 percent reserve margin. Siemens Westinghouse submitted a proposal to the City that Lakeland be the host site for the first 501G simple-cycle combustion turbine. The City concluded that this proposal was the best alternative available to meet the City’s needs for additional electricity. The conversion of Unit 5 to combined cycle operation will expand Lakeland’s natural gas-fired generating capacity to 76 percent of Lakeland’s total electrical generating capacity. No energy conservation measures exist that would affect the need for the plant. The 250-megawatt CT in Unit 5 is one of the most efficient generating units currently operating. In the CT, compressed air is introduced into a combustion zone and fuel, typically natural gas, is combusted within the forward portion of the CT. The resulting hot gases expand in the turbine and turn an electrical generator. For Unit 5, this electrical generator produces approximately 250 MW of electricity. The hot exhaust gases then are exhausted out the existing stack. Under the proposed Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, the combined cycle configuration for Unit 5 involves the construction of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which captures the exhaust gas from the CT and produces steam by extracting the heat from the flue gases. In the HRSG, the hot gases are used to convert water into steam in a closed system of piping. The steam is then used to turn a new steam turbine, which then turns an electrical generator. Other equipment required for the steam cycle project includes: a new, taller exhaust stack; a new cooling tower; and other plant equipment. The addition of the new HRSG steam turbine and electrical generator to McIntosh Unit 5 will produce an incremental 100 MW of electricity produced through the use of steam. The PPSA requires an increase of steam-generating capacity at the McIntosh site to undergo the full permitting proceedings of the PPSA. Therefore, Lakeland was required to submit its application for site certification to add the steam cycle to Unit 5. The McIntosh Unit 5 will be located on a 3-acre tract of land within the larger 530-acre McIntosh Power Plant site. The site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Lakeland, along the northern shore of Lake Parker. The McIntosh plant site is generally surrounded by undeveloped lands, including reclaimed and vacant phosphate lands used, in part, as a recreational and fishing area managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). There are no residential or commercial properties adjacent to the project site. The nearest residence to the project site is over one mile away. The site for the McIntosh Unit 5 contains no significant environmental features. No wetlands are found within the site. The Unit 5 site is an open field, containing grasses and low-quality, weedy vegetation. Further, no archaeological, or historical resources were found on the site. No sensitive local, regional, state or federal parks, wilderness areas, forests, or areas of critical concern are located within 5 miles of the site. No threatened, endangered, or protected plant or animal species are known to be present at or near the project site. The combined cycle unit will be fired primarily with natural gas, with fuel oil as a backup fuel. Natural gas is supplied by a 10-mile long pipeline owned by the City of Lakeland, which connects to the Florida Gas Transmission gas pipeline system. No alterations to those pipelines are required for the project. Fuel oil for the unit will be delivered by truck and stored in an existing on-site fuel storage tank. The capture and utilization of waste heat from the CT exhaust in the new heat recovery steam generator will significantly increase the efficiency of the electrical generation process for Unit 5. Use of the waste heat will not require any increase in fuel use and will not result in any increase in air emissions from the power plant. When considered on the basis of electrical output, the amount of emissions per megawatt hour of electricity will actually decrease by approximately 30 percent. All of the air emissions from Unit 5 are associated with the operation of the combustion turbine; and the addition of the heat recovery steam generator does not result in any increase in those emissions. Water Use, Wastewaters and Other Impacts The addition of the HRSG requires the use of a cooling tower to remove the heat from the circulating steam. Once the steam exits the steam turbine, it passes through a condenser in which the heat from the steam is transferred to circulating cooling water. The steam is condensed back to water and then recycled into the HRSG in a closed loop system. The heated cooling water is then routed to the cooling tower where forced air evaporation removes the heat. Periodically, a portion of the cooling water in the cooling tower system is removed to prevent the buildup of solids and other constituents which could impair the performance of the cooling tower. Replacement of this "blowdown water" and of the water lost through evaporation will be achieved through the use of treated domestic waste water (reuse water) supplied from the City of Lakeland’s wastewater treatment plants, including a plant adjacent to the McIntosh plant site. The cooling tower will require approximately 3.24 million gallons per day (mgd) to replace water lost in the cooling process. FDEP adopted Rule 62-610, Florida Administrative Code, to encourage the beneficial use of reuse water from domestic wastewater systems as a means of water conservation. The rule sets out certain treatment and design criteria that must be met when reuse water is used, including water used in cooling towers. The Lakeland Unit 5 cooling tower meets these rule requirements because the cooling tower is located more than 300 feet from the nearest property boundary, and the reuse water receives secondary treatment by the City of Lakeland. In the event reuse water is not available because of supply or quality problems, groundwater from on-site wells will be used as a backup source of cooling water makeup until reuse water is available again. The needed quantity of groundwater, up to 3.24 mgd, has been approved by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) under the existing consumptive use permit issued by SWFWMD for the McIntosh plant site. That quantity of water has been shown to not have adverse effects on area users of groundwater. In addition to cooling water, the plant requires high quality service water to replace water lost in the operation of the HRSG and for other plant processes, including control of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions during oil firing. This water is obtained from groundwater wells and is treated in on-site water treatment facilities. Conversion of Unit 5 to combined cycle operation will reduce the use of groundwater by approximately 250,000 gallons per day during normal operations due to increased recycling of water within the unit. Wastewater from the plant is generated from the cooling tower, as a result of the periodic blowdown of the water in the cooling tower. This blowdown water is routed to an on-site collection sump and then routed to the City of Lakeland wastewater treatment system. Industrial-related wastewaters from plant operations, including wastewaters from plant water treatment, are also collected and routed to the City of Lakeland Wastewater Treatment system. There is no direct discharge of wastewater from McIntosh Unit 5 to adjacent surface waters. The project will not have any effect on area surface waters. There will be no increase in the need for potable water or domestic wastewater treatment. The addition of the new HRSG and related equipment for the steam-cycle project will not require an increase in permanent employment at the project site. The on-site stormwater management system is already sized to accommodate the addition of the steam-cycle equipment Minor amounts of solid and hazardous wastes will be generated by the project, mainly during construction. Any hazardous wastes will consist mainly of small amounts of spent solvent. Systems are already in place to dispose of these wastes in an approved manner. Electricity generated at the site is distributed from an on-site switchyard into the City of Lakeland transmission system. This system is interconnected to other Florida utilities. The addition of the Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project will not require any changes to the existing electrical transmission system. The McIntosh Unit 5 will be compatible with the other surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project site. The project represents a logical expansion of the existing power plant site. It is well buffered from residential land uses. Noise from Plant construction and operation will not adversely impact nearby residents. Existing noise levels in the residential areas near the plant are low, even with the existing generating units at the McIntosh site in operation. Noise levels during construction and operation will comply with the applicable local noise ordinance, as well as the existing noise limitations in the McIntosh site certification conditions. Construction will generally occur during daylight hours, and construction equipment has to comply with noise limits set by the manufacturers. Addition of the new HRSG and other equipment will act to buffer noise from the existing CT. Operation of the plant will not be noticeable at the nearest residence, which is almost one mile away. Air Quality Analyses Required Polk County has not been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or FDEP as a nonattainment area for any federal or Florida ambient air quality standards. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements applied to the simple cycle portion of McIntosh Unit 5. Because it was a major source of air pollution Because there were no significant net emission increases of any regulated air pollutants due to the conversion of McIntosh Unit 5 to combined-cycle operation, the PSD requirements did not apply to the addition of the steam cycle to Unit 5. Under the PPSA, air quality impacts associated with the new, taller stack and the new cooling tower associated with the combined-cycle operation of Unit 5 were required to be evaluated. However, no changes to the PSD permit itself were necessary to address the addition of the steam cycle to Unit 5, although some updated information reflecting the increased stack height and the addition of the cooling tower was provided to FDEP. Emission Impacts Under FDEP’s rules, air emissions from McIntosh Unit 5 must not cause or contribute to a violation of federal and state ambient air quality standards or PSD increments. Polk County is classified as a Class II area for PSD purposes. The nearest Class I area to the McIntosh Power Plant is the Chassahowitska National Wilderness Area, located approximately 90 kilometers (60 miles) from the Plant. The ambient air quality analysis demonstrated that McIntosh Unit 5's emissions, including operations in combined- cycle mode with the taller stack and cooling tower, will not have a significant impact on air quality near the McIntosh Plant or in the Chassahowitska Class I area. The maximum predicted impacts from Unit 5 in combined-cycle mode are below the EPA and FDEP significant impact levels. Unit 5's emissions will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any state or federal ambient air quality standards. The 250-foot stack height for McIntosh Unit 5 in combined-cycle mode represents "good engineering practice" (GEP), calculated in accordance with FDEP and EPA rules. McIntosh Unit 5's air emissions are not expected to cause any adverse impacts on vegetation, soils, or visibility in the McIntosh Power Plant site vicinity or in the Chassahowitska National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area. Air emission impacts of McIntosh Unit 5 on water bodies in the vicinity of the McIntosh Power Plant will be insignificant. No adverse air emission impacts are expected to result off-site during the construction of the steam cycle portion of Unit 5, and appropriate control methods will be used to minimize emissions during construction activities. The cooling tower plume could cause temporary and localized ground-level fog on occasion. The majority of these relatively rare instances will be of short duration and occur when fog is already naturally occurring. BACT and Emission Rates A Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis, required under the PSD program, is intended to ensure that the air emissions control systems selected for a new project reflect the latest in control technologies used in a particular industry based on a cost-benefit approach, taking into account technical, economic, energy, and environmental considerations. A BACT determination was made for emissions from Unit 5, including operation of the unit in combined-cycle mode, as part of the PSD permit previously issued for the simple-cycle operation on the Unit 5 CT. High efficiency drift eliminators are being installed on the McIntosh Unit 5 cooling tower to minimize particulate matter emissions from solids contained in the water released from the cooling tower. While the NOx emission limits in the PSD permit will not change due to the addition of the steam cycle portion of Unit 5, the projected emission rate in terms of pound-per-megawatt- hour (lb/mwhr) are actually lower when in combined-cycle mode because of the increase in electricity generated with no additional emissions being created. Compliance McIntosh Unit 5 in the combined-cycle mode will comply with all applicable federal and state air quality standards, including the conditions contained in the PSD Permit for Unit 5 and in FDEP is proposed conditions of certification. Consistency with Local Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinances The Lakeland McIntosh Unit 5 project site, as well as the entire McIntosh Plant Site, is located in a future land use map designation of "Industrial" on the City of Lakeland’s Future Land Use Map. That map is part of the locally-adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lakeland. Electrical power plants are a permitted use in that Industrial land use category. McIntosh Unit 5 meets the locational criteria in the future land use element, in that it is well buffered and served by adequate, available public facilities. The McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle project site is zoned I-3, or Heavy Industrial under the City of Lakeland’s zoning regulations. That zoning district allows electrical power plants, subject to further review under the City’s zoning requirements. This additional zoning review consists of a conditional use permit, which is intended to provide an additional layer of review for these types of facilities. On September 7, 1999, the City of Lakeland City Council issued a conditional use permit for the entire McIntosh plant site, which includes the site for McIntosh Unit 5. McIntosh Unit 5, when converted to combined-cycle operation, will be consistent and in compliance with the City of Lakeland’s land use plans and zoning designations for the project. Further, the project will be consistent with the conditional use permit issued for the project site. McIntosh Unit 5 will also be consistent with the other provisions of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan. The project meets the local Plan’s concurrency requirements, promotes the use of treated wastewater for cooling of power plants, and meets the provisions for protection of local air quality. Agency Positions and Stipulations The FDEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission each prepared written reports on the project, and all recommended approval of the City of Lakeland McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project. (Amended FDEP Exhibit 3). FDEP has proposed Conditions of Certification for the project, which Lakeland agrees to accept and comply with in plant construction and operation. The Department of Community Affairs determined that the project, if certified, would be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) did not submit a report to FDEP as part of its review of the project. However, CFRPC entered into a prehearing stipulation with the City of Lakeland in which it stated that the project would be consistent with the CFRPC’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan. DCA entered a similar stipulation indicating its agreement that the project was consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Transportation entered into a prehearing stipulations indicating it did not object to certification of the project. No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities be granted certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location and operation of the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, representing an expansion of the electrical generating capacity of the existing McIntosh Unit 5, as proposed in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in Amended FDEP Exhibit 3, and subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto; The Siting Board find that the site of the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, as described in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at the hearing, is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of the City of Lakeland as they apply to the site, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Carpanini, Esquire Polk County Attorney’s Office Drawer AT01 Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James V. Antista, Esquire Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission Gerald Gunter Building 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Frank Anderson, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Thomas B. Tart, Esquire Orlando Utilities Commission 500 South Orange Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire East Lake Parker Residents Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33845-2039 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this case, the Respondent, William Cooper, was licensed as an electrical contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number ER 0007444. In October 1986, Dr. and Mrs. Gadi Gichon contracted with a general contractor named Construction Pros in connection with the remodeling of the Gichon residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent was hired by Construction Pros as the subcontractor for the electrical work on the residence. Respondent completed a portion of the electrical work pursuant to his subcontract. Prior to July 16, 1987, the Gichons fired Construction Pros as their general contractor. On July 16, 1987, the Respondent contracted in writing with the Gichons to complete the work he had started as the electrical subcontractor for Construction Pros and to do certain additional work specified by the contract. The Gichons agreed to pay Respondent the sum of $5,345.54 to complete the work he had started as a subcontractor and to do the additional work. The contract price included labor and materials. The Gichons paid Respondent $4,500.00 on July 16, 1987, and agreed to pay Respondent the balance of the contract price upon completion of the job. Respondent's work on the Gichon residence progressed very slowly after July 16, 1987, despite repeated telephone calls to Respondent by the Gichons. In response to the telephone calls Respondent would send one or two men to placate the Gichons by making a brief appearance at the Gichon residence. These men did not do any meaningful work on the project. On October 1, 1987, the Gichons sent Respondent a certified letter demanding that Respondent complete the work in 10 days. Respondent telephoned Dr. Gadi Gichon at his office in response to the letter of October 1, 1987. Respondent told Dr. Gichon that he had not returned to complete the project because he had not been paid for certain fixtures by the fired general contractor. Respondent made no further effort to complete the work. The Gichons hired another electrical contractor to complete the work started by Respondent and to do additional work. The second electrical contractor found Respondent's work incomplete but ready for a punchlist inspection. The second electrical contractor received its takeover permit on November 24, 1987, and completed the work started by Respondent in less than a week. Palm Coast Electrical charged the Gichons approximately $200.00 more than the Gichons would have paid had Respondent completed his contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.533(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes, and which imposes an administrative fine of $1,000.00 against Respondent and which further issues a reprimand to Respondent for his violations of Section 489.533(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-738 The findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 16 of Petitioner's proposed findings are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 5, 13, 15, 17, and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings are immaterial. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 8 of Petitioner's proposed findings is unsubstantiated by the evidence. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 9 of Petitioner's proposes findings that the Gichons had live electrical wires in their home is unsubstantiated by the evidence. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 9 of Petitioner's proposed findings that the Gichons had incomplete work in their home is adopted in substance. The finding of fact contained in paragraph 12 of Petitioner's proposed finding that Respondent did not complete the Gichon's job is adopted. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 12 of Petitioner's proposed findings that Respondent did not respond to the letter of October 1, 1989, is rejected as being contrary to the evidence. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 19 of Petitioner's proposed findings is subordinate. Respondent's statement in his letter filed May 8, 1989, is rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 William Cooper 4400 Northwest 15th Street Lauderhill, Florida 33313 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Pat Ard, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
