02-000573EPP In Re: Florida Power And Light Martin Unit 8 Power Plant Siting Application No. Pa89-27a vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, March 5, 2003.

Summary: Florida Power & Light showed compliance with existing land use plan and zoning ordinances pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. Certification justified pursuant to Section 403.501 et. seq., F.S. under the Electrical Power Plant Siting Act.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT )

COMPANY MARTIN UNIT 8 )

POWER PLANT SITING )

APPLICATION NO. PA89 - 27A. ) Case No. 02 - 0573EPP

____________________________________)

RECOMMEND ED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings,

by its duly designated Administrative Law Judge, Charles A.

Stampelos, held a certification hearing in the above - styled case

on February 17, 2003, in Indiantown, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Florida Power & Light Company:

Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire

Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

For the Department of Environmental Protecti on:

Scott A. Goorland, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

For Martin County:

Krista Storey, Esquire

Martin County

2401 Southeast Monterey Road

Stuart, Florida 34996 - 3322

STATEMENT OF 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 Flor ida Power & Light Company ("FPL"), to

construct and operate a combined cycle generating unit, providing

an additional 800 megawatts, at FPL's existing Martin Plant site

in Martin County, Florida, and an associated 8.5 mile

transmission line in accordance w ith the Florida Electrical Power

Plant Siting Act, Section 403.501, et seq. , Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This proceeding was conducted pursuant to the Florida

Electrical Power Plant Siting Act ("PPSA"), Chapter 403, Part II,

Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62 - 17, Florida Administrative Code,

to consider FPL’s application for site certification for the

proposed Martin Unit 8 Project (also referred to as the

"Project").

On February 1, 2002, FPL filed its application for site

certification for the Martin Unit 8 Project with the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection ("Department" or "FDEP").

The application was found to be complete on February 18, 2002.

The application was found to be sufficient on June 5, 2002.

As required by Section 403 .508(1) and (2), Florida Statutes,

a land use hearing on the Project was held in the community of

Indiantown, Florida, on May 1, 2002. By Final Order, dated

August 13, 2002, the Siting Board adopted the undersigned’s

Recommended Land Use Order, holding th at the site of the proposed

Martin Unit 8 Project is consistent and in compliance with the

land use plans and zoning ordinances of Martin County, Florida.

On December 10, 2002, the Florida Public Service Commission

("PSC") issued its Final Order determin ing the need for Martin

Unit 8, pursuant to Section 403.519, Florida Statutes.

On December 20, 2002, the FDEP issued its written Staff

Analysis Report concerning the Project, as required by Section

403.507(4), Florida Statutes. That Report contained rep orts from

other state, regional, and local agencies and a compiled set of

proposed Conditions of Certification for the Martin Unit 8

Project, as proposed by FDEP and the various agencies which had

reviewed the Project.

On February 10, 2003, a J oint P rehear ing S tipulation was

submitted to the undersigned, which indicated that no party to

this proceeding objected to certification of the Project.

On February 17, 2003, during the certification hearing, FDEP

submitted its revised Staff Analysis Report as an exhi bit (FDEP

Exhibit 2) to update and correct various matters in the earlier

version of its analysis, and to revise the proposed Conditions of

Certification.

After proper public notice by both FPL and FDEP, a

certification hearing was held in Indiantown, Fl orida, on

February 17, 2003, as required by Section 403.508(3), Florida

Statutes. The purpose of the certification hearing was to

receive oral, written, and documentary evidence concerning

whether, through available and reasonable methods, the location,

c onstruction, and operation of the proposed Martin Unit 8 Project

will produce minimal adverse effects on human health, the

environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the

ecology of State waters and their aquatic life, in an effort to

fully balance the increase in demand for an electrical power

plant location and operation with the broad interests of the

public. See Section 403.502, Florida Statutes. The hearing

would have also considered any petitions challenging the separate

FDEP - issued p revention of significant deterioration ("PSD")

permit for the Project. However, no such petition was filed.

Prefiled written direct testimony and exhibits of seven FPL

witnesses were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings

on February 12, 2003. That testimony was filed pursuant to Rule

62 - 17.141(3), Florida Administrative Code. At the certification

hearing, FPL presented summary testimony and exhibits of three of

those witnesses, affirming their prefiled testimony and exhibits

and summarizing portions of their testimony. The prefiled

written testimony and exhibits of four witnesses have been

accepted based upon execution of affidavits from those witnesses

not attending the hearing, attesting to the accuracy of the

testimony and accompanying ex hibits. FPL exhibits numbered 1

through 8 were introduced and admitted into evidence. FDEP

presented the testimony of Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E., of the

FDEP's Siting Coordination Office, and FDEP Exhibits 1 and 2 were

admitted into evidence. Martin Co unty also attended the

certification hearing. Martin County's Agency Report was

accepted into evidence as part of the FDEP's Staff Analysis

Report. The Florida Public Service Commission, the Florida

Department of Community Affairs, the Florida Fish and W ildlife

Conservation Commission, the Florida Department of

Transportation, and the South Florida Water Management District

(SFWMD), all of which were parties to this proceeding, did not

enter appearances at the certification hearing. However, those

agenci es joined in the prehearing stipulation. The agency

reports from these five agencies and from the Treasure Coast

Regional Planning Council were accepted into evidence as part of

the FDEP's Staff Analysis Report. At the conclusion of the

hearing, members of the general public were allowed to offer

testimony on the Project.

Following the conclusion of the February 17, 2003, hearing,

a transcript of the hearing was filed on February 21, 2003. The

Joint Proposed Order of FPL, FDEP, SFWMD, and Martin County w as

timely submitted and has been considered in the rendition of this

Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background

1. Florida Power & Light Co. ("FPL") is the largest

electric utility in Florida, currently serving approximately

seven million customers i n its 34 - county service area. That

service area extends south from the northern Florida border along

the east coast of the State, and includes all of the southern

portion of the Florida peninsula. FPL currently operates 34

generating units at 14 location s in Florida, including the Martin

Plant. FPL has been supplying electricity in Florida since 1926.

2. FPL's Martin Plant site is located in the western

portion of Martin County, Florida, approximately seven miles

northwest of the community of Indiantow n, Florida. The Martin

Plant is located in the unincorporated area of Martin County.

Access is by State Road 710, which runs northwest/southeast along

the northeast boundary of the Martin Plant site.

3. The Martin Plant site contains approximately 11, 300

acres. The existing Martin Plant includes two 800 megawatt

(nominal) steam - electric generating units known as Units 1 and 2,

two 450 megawatt (nominal) combined cycle generating units known

as Units 3 and 4, and two 170 megawatt (nominal) simple cycle

combustion turbines known as Units 8A and 8B. FPL applied for

permits for Martin Units 1 and 2 prior to 1973. Martin Units 1

and 2, which use residual fuel oil and natural gas, began

commercial operation in 1980 and 1981, respectively. Martin

Units 3 a nd 4, which use natural gas and are permitted to burn

distillate or "light" oil, were certified under the PPSA in 1991

and began operation in 1994. Units 8A and 8B, which use natural

gas and light oil, were approved through modification of the

original si te certification in 2000, and began operation in 2001.

Units 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 8A and 8B, and associated facilities,

occupy approximately 400 acres of the Martin Plant site.

4. The Martin Plant site has long been identified for

additional generating ca pacity. When site certification for

Units 3 and 4 was issued, the Siting Board also recognized the

Martin Plant site’s suitability for further capacity expansion

through its "ultimate site capacity" approval for the three - phase

Martin Coal Gasification/Co mbined Cycle (CG/CC) Project. That

Project contemplated, following construction of Units 3 and 4,

two additional phases involving combined cycle Units 5 and 6,

with supporting coal gasification facilities, and then

construction of a coal gasification faci lity to support Units 3

and 4. FPL has not as yet chosen to proceed with the latter two

phases of that Project. The portion of the Martin Plant site

certified under the PPSA comprises 2,192 acres. Neither FPL, nor

any other party, has invoked, or sought to invoke, the

jurisdiction of the PPSA with respect to Martin Units 1 and 2.

The Martin Plant site has continued to be identified as a

preferred location for additional generating capacity in each of

FPL's Ten Year Power Plant Site Plans for the past de cade.

Existing Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 will remain in operation and will

not be affected by the Project.

5. The Martin Plant site contains a 6,800 acre cooling

pond (6,500 acres of water surface and 300 acres of embankment),

which provides cooling water t o the four existing steam electric

generating units at the site. Makeup water for the cooling pond

is withdrawn from the St. Lucie Canal, under a Permit Agreement

between FPL and SFWMD. Withdrawals from the St. Lucie Canal have

occurred since 1978. Make up water from the St. Lucie Canal is

currently withdrawn pursuant to the terms of a permit agreement

between the South Florida Water Management District and FPL and

the existing Conditions of Certification for Martin Units 3 and

4. The existing approvals allow withdrawals of an average of

32,000 - acre feet of water per year and a maximum of 50,000 - acre

feet in any 12 month period. Daily withdrawals are limited to a

maximum of 518.4 million gallons per day.

6. Other existing facilities on the Martin Plan t site

include residual and light oil storage tanks, water and

wastewater treatment facilities, two onsite system substations

and transmission lines, warehouses, maintenance buildings, and

administration and ancillary facilities. The balance of the

Martin site is undeveloped or utilized for agricultural

operations. This includes the Barley Barber Swamp and a 1,200

acre parcel, known as the Northwest Parcel, established as a

wetland mitigation area associated with the Martin CG/CC Project.

7. Land uses surrounding the Martin Plant site are

primarily agricultural, including cropland, pastures, groves,

three types of wetlands, scattered rural residences, and

undeveloped land. The nearest residence is approximately two

miles away from the proposed Martin U nit 8 Project area.

Project Overview

8. The Martin Unit 8 Project will combine the two

existing simple cycle combustion turbines in operation at the

Martin Plant (Units 8A and 8B) with two new combustion turbines,

four new heat recovery steam generators , and a new steam turbine

electric generator. The resulting "four - on - one" combined cycle

Unit 8 will have a generating capacity of approximately 1,100

megawatts and will increase the total installed generating

capacity of the Martin Plant by approximately 800 megawatts. The

Project also includes an optional cooling tower and two new

transmission lines to integrate Unit 8 with FPL's transmission

system.

9. Martin Unit 8 will be located south of existing Units

3 and 4, with the new steam turbine and the new CTs (8C and 8D)

adjacent to and east of existing Units 8A and 8B. The Project

Area comprises approximately 110 acres. The Unit 8 power block

will be located in an area that has already been affected by

existing uses at the Martin Plant. Approximate ly 15.5 acres will

be occupied by the Unit 8 power block. Approximately 28.4 acres

will be occupied by construction facilities (laydown, parking and

construction trailers). The Project Area is located completely

within the already certified portion of th e Martin Plant Site.

Need for Martin Unit 8

10. On December 10, 2002, the Florida Public Service

Commission ("PSC") issued its Final Order determining the need

for the FPL Martin Unit 8 Project (as well as FPL's proposed Unit

3 at its Manatee Plant). The PSC determined that FPL has a need

for additional capacity to maintain the reliability of FPL’s

electrical system. FPL was found to have a need for Martin Unit

8 taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a

reasonable cost. The Commissi on found that FPL chose a proven

technology and has the necessary experience in the construction

and operation of combined cycle units. Further, the cost

estimates for Martin Unit 8 were found to be reasonable. The

Commission concluded there were no furt her energy conservation

measures available to FPL that could offset the need for Martin

Unit 8. FPL was found to have implemented a considerable amount

of cost effective energy conservation and demand side management.

Based upon FPL’s evaluation of othe r alternatives submitted in

response to a request for proposals, the Commission found that

Martin Unit 8, along with Manatee Unit 3, are the most cost

effective alternatives available to meet FPL's need for

additional generating capacity beginning in 2005. The PSC also

found FPL had properly and accurately evaluated transmission

costs. The Commission concluded that FPL had met the statutory

requirements under Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, for the

determination of need for Martin Unit 8.

Project Sch edule and Construction

11. FPL expects to begin construction of Martin Unit 8 in

June 2003, or upon receiving final approvals for the Project.

Unit 8 is expected to be completed in June 2005, in order to meet

FPL's customer's summer needs in that year. The simple cycle

portions of the two new combustion turbines associated with Unit

8 are scheduled for completion in June 2004, to allow operation

in simple cycle mode while construction of the combined cycle

unit is ongoing. The two existing combustion tu rbines will

continue operating in simple cycle mode until the combined cycle

unit is completed.

12. Peak construction employment for the Project will be

approximately 574 construction workers, management, and staff.

Construction employment is expected to average about 250 workers

during the 24 - month construction period.

13. FPL made roadway improvements at the Martin Plant

entrance in connection with the construction of Units 3 and 4.

Construction of temporary or permanent roads that connect offsit e

is not proposed, as the existing plant entrance at S.R. 710 will

be used for Project constructionaffic resulting from Project

construction will not degrade traffic flow below established

levels of service. Major pieces of equipment will be delivere d

by truck over existing roadways, or by rail over a rail line that

already serves the Martin Plant site.

14. The Unit 8 Project Area has been previously cleared and

graded, with scrubgrass cover. The Project will require minimal

clearing. Impacts from creating material laydown areas will be

minimal, temporary, and mainly associated with grubbing and

grading to create proper drainage.

15. Soils will need to be excavated to provide support for

the Unit 8 foundation and other facilities. Foundations f or

heavy loads will be supported by spread foundations or pilings.

Subsurface excavations may require temporary dewatering by

localized pumping of the shallow aquifer to lower the water

table. The effluent from dewatering will be routed to the

cooling po nd. There will be no significant impacts from

construction dewatering on surface waters. No offsite impacts to

groundwater from dewatering activities are expected, and there

will be no impacts to underlying deeper aquifers.

16. The entire construction area within the Unit 8 Project

Area is outside the 100 year flood zone. Construction activities

will alter runoff in parts of the site but no adverse effects are

expected from these activities. Construction period surface

water runoff will be conveyed to existing stormwater channels and

ponds that can provide wet retention for all runoff from these

areas. The stormwater management system for Unit 8 has been

previously designed and constructed as part of the development of

Units 3 and 4 and Units 8A and 8 B.

17. No construction for the Project is proposed in surface

waters of the State. Impacts to offsite surface waters from

construction - related runoff are expected to be negligible.

Onsite construction activities will not cause adverse ecological

effe cts, as the Project Area is already highly altered, and

maintained as either grassy, open areas or covered with limerock.

These areas do not contain unique wildlife species and are not

considered important wildlife habitats because of their disturbed

natu re. Wetlands within the Project Area are limited primarily

to man - made ditches and stormwater basins. A small depressional

wetland area is located within the pine flatwoods parcel to the

east of the power block, but will not be impacted by the

constructi on of Unit 8. The site certification for the Martin

CG/CC Project addressed wetland impacts for the entire certified

site, and mitigation for those potential future impacts has

already been provided in the Northwest Parcel.

18. Noise during construction of the Project will comply

with the Martin County Noise Control Ordinance. Construction

noise will not affect wildlife in the vicinity of the site. The

Martin Plant site already has noise associated with operation of

the existing facility and wildlife i n the area is acclimated to

such activities.

19. Control measures will be implemented during Project

construction to minimize fugitive air emissions and its potential

impacts. Clearing will be kept to a minimum, thereby reducing

air emissions from expo sed surfaces. Watering will be used to

control fugitive dust on highly traveled areas.

20. During Project construction, portable chemical toilets

and bottled water will be utilized. Solid and hazardous wastes

generated during construction will be handl ed and disposed

offsite by contractors.

Project Description

21. The Martin Unit 8 Project will utilize the two existing

simple cycle combustion turbines ("CTs") presently operating at

the Site (Units 8A and 8B) in combination with two new CTs, four

new H RSGs, and a new steam turbine/electric generator. Each of

the existing CTs, and each of the new CTs, has a nominal

generating capacity of approximately 170 MWs. The CTs operate

much like a jet engine, in which air and fuel are combined in the

CT and then combusted. The heated gases then rotate a shaft that

drives an electrical generator. The exhaust gases from the

combustion turbines produce steam in the HRSGs, which is used in

turn to drive a separate steam turbine generator. By utilizing

the waste he at from the CTs, the resulting combined cycle Unit 8

will be more efficient than the simple cycle CTs and traditional

steam - electrical units. Martin Unit 8, with generating capacity

of approximately 1100 megawatts, will be among the most efficient

electri c generators in Florida. The Project will add

approximately 800 megawatts of generating capacity to the Martin

Plant site.

22. Duct burners are proposed for each HRSG and are fired

during peak demand periods to achieve the total nominal

generating capac ity of Unit 8. The four CTs will be equipped

with inlet air evaporative cooling which creates a cooler, more

moisture - laden air stream in the CT, allowing additional power to

be produced more efficiently. The CTs will also be capable of

power augmentatio n, in which steam from the HRSG is injected into

the CT during periods of peak electrical demand to increase

electrical output. Each CT will be capable of operation in

"peak" mode in which the firing temperature of the combustion

turbine is increased, res ulting in increased power.

23. Exhaust gases from Unit 8 will be emitted from a stack

associated with each HRSG unit. Each combustion turbine will

also be capable of operating in simple cycle mode in which

exhaust gases will be emitted either from a b ypass stack

associated with each CT or from the HRSG stack. Natural gas

heaters will be used if the CTs are operated in simple cycle

mode. The height of the four HRSG stacks will be a maximum of

150 feet.

24. Cooling water for Martin Unit 8 will be pr ovided by

either the existing cooling pond or by a new closed - cycle, wet

mechanical draft cooling tower. Wastewaters and stormwater from

the power block will be treated onsite and recycled to the

cooling pond. Other onsite facilities to be constructed as part

of the Project will include interconnections with the existing

onsite transmission facilities, a gas metering and regulation

yard, along with storage facilities for light oil and ammonia.

The new Unit 8 will also utilize many of the existing facilit ies

and infrastructure components already present at the Martin Plant

site.

25. The primary fuel for the CTs, and the sole fuel for

the HRSG duct burners and the fuel heaters, will be natural gas

delivered to the Martin Plant by pipeline. The Martin P lant site

is presently served by an existing natural gas lateral that may

supply gas to Unit 8. Natural gas will not be stored onsite.

Light oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.05 percent by weight

will be used as an alternate fuel for the CTs for an equivalent

of 500 hours per year per CT. The light oil will be delivered by

truck and will be stored in an existing two million gallon tank

or in a previously approved, but still to be constructed, two

million gallon tank.

26. Martin Unit 8 will gene rate only small quantities of

solid wastes. These will be limited to municipal solid wastes

and infrequent replacement of inlet air filters. The catalyst in

the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system will be replaced

periodically and disposed of in a ccordance with applicable

requirements. Hazardous wastes will be produced in limited

quantities. These will be collected and disposed of offsite by a

licensed hazardous waste contractor.

27. Martin Unit 8 will connect to the existing onsite

electrical system substation via a new tie line. Additional bays

will be added to the existing substation to accommodate the

interconnection to FPL's existing electric transmission system.

A new 230 kilovolt ('kV') transmission line will be constructed

between the onsite Martin Plant System Substation and the

existing FPL Indiantown Substation. The new single pole line

will be constructed across the Martin Plant site for 1.5 miles

and then will follow an existing FPL transmission line right - of -

way and existing pub lic roadways to the Indiantown substation.

The entire length of that line is approximately 13 miles. An 8.5

mile segment of this line is to be constructed in a new right - of -

way and this segment is included as part of the Project.

Air Emissions

28. Air emissions from Martin Unit 8 will result from both

the combustion process and impurities in the fuel. Nitrogen

oxides are formed through the oxidation of a portion of the

nitrogen that is naturally found in natural gas. Additional

nitrogen oxides are fo rmed through the oxidation of the nitrogen

contained in the combustion air. Carbon monoxide and volatile

organic compounds are formed by incomplete combustion of fuel.

Sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emission rates are dictated

by the amount of sul fur in the fuel. Operation of the Unit 8

cooling tower will result in emissions of particulate matter,

made up of minerals, created by evaporation of the cooling water.

These emissions are referred to as cooling tower "drift".

29. All major new or mod ified sources of regulated air

pollutants that are located in areas attaining compliance with

ambient air quality standards must be reviewed under state and

federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") review

requirements. Martin Unit 8 is cons idered a major modification

to the existing Martin Plant site because the Project's emissions

will exceed the PSD significant emission increase thresholds for

several regulated air pollutants. Based on expected emissions

from Unit 8, PSD review was requir ed for: particulate matter

("PM"), sulfur dioxide ("SO 2 "), nitrogen oxides ("NO x "), carbon

monoxide ("CO"), volatile organic compounds ("VOC") and sulfuric

acid mist. PSD review is used to ensure that significant air

quality deterioration will not result from new facilities like

Unit 8. These analyses include a review of the proposed

emissions control technology, a source impact analysis, an air

quality impact analysis, source information, and additional air

quality impact analyses.

Air Emissions Contr ol Technology

30. Air emissions from Martin Unit 8 will be minimized

through the inherent efficiency of the combined cycle design, and

the use of: natural gas as the primary fuel; advanced combustion

control technology; and post - combustion control techno logy.

Natural gas, the cleanest of fossil fuels, and light oil have

very low levels of impurities and can be burned very efficiently.

When firing natural gas, the use of dry low NO x ("DLN") combustion

design in the CTs, and low NO x burners ("LNB") in the duct

burners, will also minimize air emissions by inhibiting formation

of thermal NO x by premixing of fuel and air prior to combustion

(in the DLN), and by reducing flame temperatures (in the DLN and

LNB). Water injection will be used for NO x control whe n the CTs

fire light oil. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) will provide

additional control of emissions of NO x from Unit 8 when operating

in combined cycle mode. In the SCR system, located in the HRSGs,

ammonia is injected into the CT exhaust where NO x in the gas

stream reacts with the ammonia in the presence of a catalyst to

form nitrogen and water.

31. State and federal PSD regulations require that Martin

Unit 8 meet all applicable emission limiting standards and that

Best Available Control Techno logy ("BACT") be applied in order to

control emissions. BACT is defined in Rule 62 - 210.200(38),

Florida Administrative Code, as:

An emission limitation, including a visible

emissions standard, based on the maximum

degree of reduction of each pollutant emi tted

which the Department [of Environmental

Protection], on a case by case basis, taking

into account energy, environmental and

economic impacts, and other costs, determines

is achievable through application of

production processes and available methods,

s ystems and techniques (including fuel

cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel

combustion techniques) for control of each

such pollutant.

The BACT requirements are intended to ensure that the air

emission control systems for Unit 8 reflect the latest in control

technologies used in the electric utility industry and take into

consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of

the Project. BACT review includes a cost - benefit analysis of

alternative control technologies capable of achieving a higher

degree of emission reduction than the proposed technology.

32. In its PSD review, the Department preliminarily

determined that the air emissions control technologies proposed

for Martin Unit 8 are consistent with BACT as required under

federal an d state PSD regulations. The use of natural gas as the

primary fuel, with light oil as an alternate fuel for the CTs,

combined with advanced combustion control technology, will

provide the maximum degree of emission reduction for sulfur

dioxide, particula te matter, volatile organic compounds, carbon

monoxide, and sulfuric acid mist. The dry low NO x control

technology for the CTs and the duct burners, and water injection

when the CTs fire light oil, along with SCR in combined cycle

mode, reflect the latest available control technologies for

reducing NO x emissions from combined cycle systems. Combustion

controls also limit the formation of carbon monoxide and volatile

organic compounds. Cooling tower drift will be minimized through

use of high - efficiency d rift eliminators.

33. The emission limits for Martin Unit 8 in the

Department's recommended Conditions of Certification are

identical to the emission limits proposed as BACT by the

Department. The recommended NO x emission limit of 2.5 parts per

million for combined cycle operation during natural gas - firing is

equal to or lower than BACT determinations for other combined

cycle units in the State of Florida.

Air Quality Impact Analysis

34. Ambient air quality standards have been established by

the U.S. EPA and FDEP to protect public health and welfare. Air

quality in the vicinity of the Martin Plant currently meets all

federal and State ambient air quality standards. Martin County

is classified as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants,

and no area of Florida is currently designated as "nonattainment"

for any air pollutant.

35. In its PSD review, the Department preliminarily

determined that air quality modeling demonstrates that Martin

Unit 8 will comply with all State and federal ambient ai r quality

standards, as well as PSD Class I and II increments. The air

quality modeling conducted for the Project followed EPA and FDEP

modeling guidelines. Two air quality models were utilized to

assess air quality impacts in the area surrounding the Ma rtin

Plant site. The modeling also assessed impacts in the nearest

PSD Class I area, which is the Everglades National Park, located

approximately 90 miles south of the Project site. Local

meteorological data from the National Weather Service was used in

the modeling. The modeling incorporated maximum air emissions

from the Unit 8 in both combined and simple cycle modes, using

light oil and natural gas, and at various operating modes, loads,

and ambient air temperatures which may affect the emission rates

and dispersion from the Unit. In its PSD review, the Department

preliminarily determined that the air quality modeling results

indicated that the maximum air impacts from the Project will

comply with all ambient air quality standards and PSD Class I and

II increments. While these analyses assumed a stack height of

125 feet, a stack height of up to 150 feet would generally result

in lower impacts, and would not change the conclusions as to the

Project's compliance with all air quality standards.

36. EP A has established "Significant Impact Levels" for the

various pollutants that are subject to PSD review, and the

Department has adopted these Significant Impact Levels at Rule

62 - 204.200(29), Florida Administrative Code. The comparison of a

project’s air quality impacts with the Significant Impact Levels

represents an initial screening analysis to determine which

pollutants require a more detailed modeling analysis. In its PSD

review, the Department preliminarily determined that the

predicted impacts of t he emissions of all air pollutants from

Unit 8 are below the PSD Class I and Class II Significant Impact

Levels, except for SO 2 for the 24 - hour averaging period with the

CTs firing light oil. Accordingly, air quality impacts from Unit

8 are considered ins ignificant based upon this screening analysis

for all pollutants except for SO 2 over the 24 - hour averaging

period.

37. More refined, multi - source modeling was conducted to

assess the impacts of Unit 8's SO 2 emissions over the 24 - hour

averaging period. In its PSD review, the Department

preliminarily determined that this modeling demonstrated that SO 2

emissions from Unit 8, when considered along with other existing

and PSD sources, would be well below each of the relevant air

quality standards.

38. Nit rogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are

precursors to the formation of ozone in the atmosphere.

Emissions of these air pollutants from Martin Unit 8 are

extremely small compared to regional emissions of NO x and VOCs.

In its PSD review, the Depart ment preliminarily determined that

the emissions from Unit 8 will not cause or contribute to any

violation of the ambient air quality standards for ozone.

39. There are expected to be no air quality impacts from

associated industrial, commercial, or res idential growth due to

the Project or its location. In its PSD review, the Department

preliminarily determined that there should also be no adverse

impacts to the "Air Quality Related Values," including

visibility, soils, vegetation, or wildlife, in the c losest PSD

Class I area at the Everglades National Park. Unit 8's potential

impacts on regional haze in this Class I area were below the

screening level.

40. In its PSD review, the Department preliminarily

determined that impacts from the proposed Unit 8 cooling tower

will be minimal. Potential cooling tower impacts on visibility

(fogging) and from deposition of drift emissions were evaluated

using accepted computerized modeling methodology and conservative

assumptions based on relevant design paramete rs for the proposed

cooling tower. Results of the evaluations demonstrated that

there would be only a very few hours per year in which fogging

induced by cooling tower operation will occur. When fogging does

occur, the impacts will remain on the Martin P lant site property.

Deposition from cooling tower drift will be minimized through the

use of high - efficiency drift eliminators. Impacts of cooling

tower deposition will be minimal inside the Project Area, and

will only occur within the Martin Plant site.

Water Uses and Sources

41. Water uses for the Martin Unit 8 will include condenser

cooling, general plant service water, fire protection water, and

demineralized water. The largest water use for Unit 8 will be to

replace net evaporation from either the cooling pond or the

cooling tower due to cooling of the new Unit. Process water uses

will include demineralized water to be used in the combustion

turbine inlet foggers, for combustion turbine power augmentation,

for NO x control in the combustion turbines during light oil

firing, and for steam cycle makeup.

42. Water for Unit 8 will be taken from the existing Martin

Plant cooling pond. Makeup to that pond is withdrawn from the

St. Lucie Canal, which ultimately connects to Lake Okeechobee.

Makeup water w ill be pumped into the cooling pond at an existing

intake structure at the southern end of the cooling pond. Water

will then be withdrawn from the pond for uses in the Martin Unit

8.

43. New cooling water system structures for Unit 8 will be

constructe d in the cooling pond. There will be no other

construction in surface waters at or near the Project Area.

44. Cooling water from the pond will be circulated through

the Unit 8 condensers and auxiliary heat exchangers to remove

waste heat. This waste h eat is dissipated by the cooling pond,

primarily by evaporation, radiation and conduction to the

atmosphere. The cooled water is then recirculated through the

pond back to the units. The proposed Unit 8 will either utilize

the cooling pond in the same ma nner as the existing units or will

utilize a mechanical draft cooling tower instead. If a cooling

tower is constructed, it will dissipate the heat primarily by

evaporation and conduction to the atmosphere. Makeup water for

the cooling tower would be with drawn from the cooling pond and

blowdown from the new cooling tower will then be returned to the

cooling pond

45. The cooling pond is approximately 6,800 acres, with

6,500 acres being water surface and the balance in the

embankments. The existing Martin Plant cooling pond has been

sized, constructed, and previously approved to handle the thermal

load associated with additional generating capacity.

Mathematical modeling of the thermal performance of the cooling

pond was previously performed based on a wid e range of potential

heat loadings to the pond. Based upon that modeling, with the

expected operation of all of the generating units, including Unit

8, there is adequate water available under the permitted amounts

to operate the existing units as well as Martin Unit 8. The

Project will not require an increase in the currently - authorized

withdrawal rates of water from the St. Lucie Canal or from

groundwater sources with or without the cooling tower. With the

addition of Martin Unit 8, the Plant will conti nue to be operated

within the thermal limits and constraints that were previously

reviewed and permitted.

46. Potable water will be provided by the existing

permitted system and the potable water uses for Unit 8 will not

exceed the existing permitted qu antities. Domestic wastewater

generated by Unit 8 will be handled by the existing system.

47. Water for process water needs will be withdrawn from

the cooling pond and pretreated and used as service water. The

service water system will also feed the existing reverse

osmosis/mixed bed demineralizer system which may be upgraded for

Unit 8 within the existing area occupied by that equipment.

Waste streams from the RO treatment system will be treated by

existing plant systems and recycled to the cooling pond.

48. The design and operation of Martin Unit 8 will

incorporate a number of water conserving features. All of the

power block area contact stormwater will be recycled back to the

cooling pond, minimizing makeup requirements for cooling water.

All wastewaters will be treated and recycled to the cooling pond.

Use of the dry low NO x burners in the combustion turbines will

minimize water use when natural gas is fired. These features,

when combined with the existing water management features,

includi ng the toe drain recovery system and limited cooling pond

discharges, help minimize the use of both groundwater and surface

waters.

Wastewaters and Surface Water Discharges

49. Unit 8 will utilize the existing Martin Plant's

wastewater treatment system. The only new wastewater generated

by Unit 8 will be HRSG blowdown and equipment area stormwater and

wash waters. HRSG blowdown will be quenched with service water

and recycled to the cooling pond. Equipment area stormwater and

wash waters will be passe d through an oil/water separator and

then recycled to the cooling pond.

50. The cooling system for Martin Unit 8 requires either

chlorination or use of biocides to prevent biofouling of the heat

rejection system. A chlorine solution will be fed into th e

intake structure for the Unit 8 heat rejection system as

appropriate. If the cooling tower is installed, a scale

inhibitor will be fed into the circulating water system to

control the formation of calcium carbonate scales, which can

adhere to the heat t ransfer surfaces and impair cooling

performance. Sulfuric acid and a polymer will also be added as

necessary to the water treatment.

51. Chemical treatment will also be required in the HRSG to

prevent corrosion and scaling of the condensate piping. Th e HRSG

boiler and piping will be chemically cleaned initially during

commissioning, and periodically during the life of the Unit.

These chemicals will not be permanently stored onsite but will be

delivered by a licensed contractor at the time of the sched uled

cleanings. Wastewaters from this cleaning will consist of the

cleaning solutions and the materials removed. Chemical

wastewaters can also result from draining of chemical storage

tanks or from cleaning and maintenance operations. These wastes

will be contained and treated locally or routed to the existing

neutralization system for treatment. These flows will be

intermittent and will not contribute to the overall wastewater

flows.

52. Minimum and maximum water levels within the cooling

pond will remain within previously approved levels. Surface

water discharges from the pond will occur only during annual gate

tests and following extreme rainfalls. The spillway is

controlled by four sluice gates which allow water to discharge

automatically to pro tect the embankment from overtopping during

large rainfall events. The current operating scenario for the

cooling pond provides for approximately 6.33 feet of freeboard,

allowing the pond enough freeboard between the water level and

the top of the embankm ent to hold more than eight 100 - year

storms.

53. Based upon previous modeling of the Martin cooling pond

and predicted makeup water volumes to the pond, the estimated

concentrations of dissolved constituents within the cooling pond

were calculated. Thi s modeling indicated that there would be no

exceedances of Class III surface water quality standards in the

cooling pond water. The water quality in the St. Lucie Canal,

which would receive any discharge from the cooling pond, will not

be affected by gate testing because there is an existing mixing

zone within the intake/discharge canal between the spillway and

the St. Lucie Canal. In order to limit the impact of a

discharge, the intake pumps for the cooling pond can be run

during gate tests to return spi llway releases to the cooling

pond. Prior to annual gate tests, the cooling pond water is

analyzed in accordance with the existing industrial wastewater

facility permits. If the test results indicate any constituent

in the pond would exceed 90 percent of the Class III surface

water criteria, FPL operates the makeup pumps to prevent any

exceedance of a water quality standard in the St. Lucie Canal by

pumping the discharge water back into the pond. Gate tests will

be performed in the same manner after addi tion of Unit 8.

54. The St. Lucie Canal is a manmade canal excavated in the

1910s and 1920s to regulate the water level of Lake Okeechobee.

The Canal extends approximately 30 miles from Lake Okeechobee to

the St. Lucie Inlet near Stuart. It has a dept h of approximately

eight feet and an average flow of 748 cubic feet per second. It

is controlled at both ends by locks, which regulate the discharge

from Lake Okeechobee and into the Atlantic Ocean. Vegetation

along and in the canal is dominated by emerg ent grasses and

exotic species, as well as saw palmetto, pine, cabbage palm, and

planted citrus. The canal is considered only marginal breeding

and spawning habitat for fish. The planned withdrawals to supply

Unit 8 will not contribute to the existing ef fects from

sedimentation, nutrient loading, and salinity fluctuations in the

canal.

Surface Water Management System

55. The stormwater facilities to handle runoff from the

Martin Unit 8 Project area were designed and constructed with

Units 3 and 4. Th e surface water management system for the

Project has been designed to meet the requirements of the South

Florida Water Management District. The peak post - construction

runoff flow rate resulting from the design storm will not exceed

the pre - development pe ak flow rate. The Project drainage system

of catch basins, pipes, channels, and culverts will convey runoff

to the existing site drainage system of channels and ponds. Non -

contact surface runoff from the area disturbed for Project

construction and operat ion of Unit 8 will be collected and routed

to two existing permanent ponds. Existing drainage patterns will

be maintained, ensuring proper function of the stormwater system.

An existing, temporary construction stormwater pond will be

utilized during cons truction to prevent sediment transmission

offsite until construction of Unit 8 is complete. Prior to

beginning any earth disturbing activities, a silt fence will be

installed along the perimeter of the Project where runoff to

offsite areas is expected. T emporary erosion and sedimentation

control measures will be designed to prevent sediment from being

displaced and carried offsite by construction runoff. All

temporary sediment and erosion control measures will be removed

at the end of construction.

Gro undwater Impacts

56. The only groundwater withdrawals associated with the

operation of Martin Unit 8 will be the withdrawal of groundwater

for the potable water system. The withdrawal will be within the

existing permitted allocations of groundwater. The only known

potable water wells within one mile of the Site are those

operated by FPL.

57. The existing Martin Plant cooling pond is the principal

source of potential impacts to groundwater at the Plant. Seepage

leaves the pond beneath the western and southern edges of the

cooling pond and moves toward the surrounding canals where it

reenters the surface water regime. A significant majority of the

seepage will be intercepted by the toe drains and returned to the

cooling pond, and no significant impacts to groundwater quality

are expected. The Project is expected to meet applicable

groundwater standards. Pursuant to FDEP Rule 62 - 520.520(8),

Florida Administrative Code, the Martin Plant cooling pond is

exempt from secondary groundwater standards. Furth er, there is

an existing zone of discharge for groundwater that extends to

FPL’s property line. Monitoring of constituents in the cooling

pond which have groundwater standards is included in the existing

conditions of certification for the Martin certifie d site in

order to meet the requirements for groundwater monitoring for

this exemption.

Noise Impacts of Construction and Operation

58. A noise impact assessment was conducted for

construction and operation of Martin Unit 8. Background noise

levels wer e determined from a noise monitoring program performed

at several locations in the vicinity of the Project. These

background levels were then combined with noise levels expected

from construction and operation of Martin Unit 8. The modeling

assumed that all construction equipment would be operating

simultaneously and consistently, and therefore the impact

assessment is conservative. When the construction noise impacts

are combined with the background noise levels, the predicted

noise impacts are all less than the noise levels set in the

Martin County Noise Control Ordinance. The actual or measured

noise levels due to construction are expected to be lower than

the predicted levels. A similar analysis was performed to

predict maximum noise levels produced by operation of the new

unit, along with background noise levels. Predicted noise levels

during operation at the nearest residential receptors to the

Project are well below the maximum permissible noise levels under

the Martin County Noise Ordinance.

T ransmission Line

59. The Martin Unit 8 Project will connect to the existing

FPL transmission network at the FPL Martin system substation

within the previously certified site. Two new transmission lines

will be constructed to integrate the new generation into the

transmission network in order to meet the single contingency

planning criteria adopted by the National Electric Reliability

Council. A new 230 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line will be

constructed between the Martin Plant and the existing FPL

Ind iantown Substation located east of Indiantown. This new line

will be located partly in existing transmission line right - of - way

and partly in new transmission line right - of - way. A second 230

kV line will be constructed between the existing FPL Indiantown

Substation and the existing FPL Bridge Substation further to the

east, to be located entirely within an existing FPL transmission

line right - of - way. FPL is proposing certification only for the

portion of the transmission line from the Martin Plant to the

Indiantown Substation that will be constructed on entirely new

transmission line right - of - way. The other portions of the

transmission lines will be permitted separately.

60. The proposed transmission line route was selected after

evaluation of a number of alternative routes. Other routes,

including other existing transmission line rights - of - way, that

were evaluated were found to be infeasible or undesirable because

of a lack either of access to, or of additional land within

existing right - of - ways, addi tional crossings of more land

parcels, or increased clearing and potential wetlands impacts

when compared to the selected route. The selected route also

allows extensive use of existing transmission line rights - of - way

and, within the new transmission line corridor, co - location of

the new line with existing roads and with existing overhead

utilities along a primarily undeveloped strip.

61. The new transmission line corridor proposed for

certification is approximately 8.5 miles long. It will parallel

S.R . 76 and C.R. 726, which are adjacent to the St. Lucie Canal.

The width of the corridor along S.R. 76 and C.R. 726 will vary.

The final average right - of - way to be selected in that corridor

will be less than 25 feet wide. The new transmission line

struct ures will be single pole concrete structures, with post

insulators in a vertical configuration. The typical pole will be

about 90 to 100 feet above grade, and higher where necessary for

longer spans and for crossing over elevated roads, other overhead

uti lities, and waterways. Where the transmission line parallels

existing FPL electrical distribution lines, the distribution

lines will be co - located on the transmission structures where

transmission structures are able to replace the distribution

poles. Sp an lengths for the new line will range from 250 to 700

feet with a typical span of 500 feet. The span lengths vary to

allow avoidance of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive

features, or to coincide with property lines or existing

distribution pol es. Access is expected to be provided using

existing public roads that parallel much of the new transmission

line right - of - way. However, small sections of the line may

require construction of access roads for construction and

maintenance purposes. Acces s roads will be unpaved and can be

constructed above natural grade, using clean, compacted fill.

62. The certified segment of the transmission line will

cross lands that are used for agricultural uses; isolated parcels

of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, live oak, and pine; and

infrequent residential properties. Land uses in this area are

primarily citrus groves, pastures, undeveloped land, scattered

residences, and commercial buildings along the highway.

63. The only significant surface water body to be crossed

by the certified transmission line is the St. Lucie Canal, which

will be crossed once within the certified segment of the right -

of - way. No significant environmental features are located within

the proposed corridor to be certified. Only one p rotected

species, the American alligator (a species of special concern),

was observed along the 8.5 mile segment of the proposed

transmission line corridor. This occurred in a drainage ditch

outside of the proposed corridor itself. The new structures are

designed and located to minimize impacts to wetlands and the use

of a single pole will reduce the fill required for pole pads.

The transmission line corridor does not contain critical habitat

for any flora or fauna of the region. There are no known scen ic,

archaeological, or historic sites within the proposed

transmission line corridor

64. Construction of the new certified segment of the

transmission line will initially involve surveying and locating

property lines to stake out the limits of the right - o f - way, the

location of new roads, and the pole placement sites. The right -

of - way is then prepared through removal of all vegetation that

will conflict with construction and operation of the transmission

line alongside roadways. This will mostly entail tr imming trees

and removing conflict trees that could fall into the line itself.

Access roads will also be constructed where needed and culverts

will be included to maintain existing flow conditions. Wetlands

impacts will be minimized through pole placemen t and clearing

practices. Unavoidable wetlands impacts will be addressed

through a post - certification process. The next step involves

erection of the structures which are directly embedded into the

ground. Insulators, hardware, and overhead wires are th en

installed. The final step involves final cleanup of the right -

of - way after construction is complete. Construction and

operation of the transmission line will be in compliance with

applicable agency standards, including the National Electrical

Safety C ode, the Florida Department of Transportation Utility

Accommodation Guide, the Martin County Noise Ordinance, and the

FDEP's rules setting limits for electric and magnetic fields.

Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits

65. The Martin Unit 8 Project Area is an appropriate site

for the proposed new Unit 8. The Project consists of the

installation of a new combined cycle unit at an existing power

plant site that has been in use for that purpose since 1980. The

Project area is significantly buffered from the p erimeter of the

FPL - owned property and nearby residential uses. The vast

majority of land use in the vicinity is in agricultural use or

undeveloped land. The nearest residence is located just less

than two miles south - southeast of the Project Area. Over all, the

Project is located in a rural area.

66. The Martin Unit 8 Project will benefit the economy of

Martin County and surrounding communities. Direct benefits from

the Project include employment opportunities created by

construction and operation. The Project’s direct effects on

socioeconomic conditions will be substantially positive.

Construction employment will average 250 new jobs during the two

year construction period. It is expected that these jobs will

result in direct wages of approximatel y $75 million over the two

year period. Due to the proximity of the Martin Plant site to

large labor markets in the south Florida area, the labor demand

for both construction and operation is expected to be met by

workers in these areas. Population and h ousing impacts will

therefore be minimal because little migration into the area is

anticipated as a result of the Project. Direct economic benefits

of construction of the Project will also result from purchases of

materials and equipment, estimated to be $15 to $20 million

within the State. It is expected that the majority of the

construction wages will be spent within Martin County and the

surrounding regions, which will create additional demands for

goods and services. This will create a multiplier eff ect

generating additional jobs and earnings.

67. The operation of Martin Unit 8 will add approximately

12 new full - time employees at the FPL Martin Site. The

additional annual payroll for these employees is estimated to be

$600,000. This payroll amoun t is expected to generate an

additional $500,000 in wages and benefits to other businesses in

the region. Other fixed annual operational costs for Unit 8 will

be expended in the region at an estimated amount of $2 million

per year.

68. Property tax pay ments to Martin County resulting from

Martin Unit 8 during operation are estimated to be $6.7 million

in 2006. Based on the first five years of operation, estimated

local tax payments are expected to be $31.4 million for general

government and public scho ols in Martin County, and $900,000 in

sales tax paid to the State of Florida. The Project’s external

cost impacts are expected to be minimal and localized. The

Project is not expected to result in any significant impact to

local government services.

69 . The entire Martin Project Area, which includes the Unit

8 Project Area, was previously determined to be consistent with

the State, regional, and local comprehensive plans.

Additionally, the Martin Unit 8 Project, including its associated

transmission line, is consistent with the Martin County

Comprehensive Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the

Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the Treasure Coast Regional

Planning Council. The Project will also comply with the

applicable development standards in the Martin County Land

Development Regulations.

70. Construction and operation of Martin Unit 8 will not

adversely affect any nearby landmarks, sensitive areas,

recreational areas, archaeological sites, or historical sites.

The nearest recreational fac ility is approximately six miles

southeast of the Project. The nearest environmentally protected

land is the Barley Barber Swamp located on the west side of the

cooling pond, which is maintained under FPL’s stewardship as a

nature preserve. If archaeolog ical materials are discovered

during Project construction or operation, activities would cease.

State review of the find would be required before the Project

could proceed in the affected area.

71. Temporary external costs resulting from the Project

duri ng construction include the generation of construction

traffic. A transportation analysis of the Project indicated that

traffic resulting from construction of the Project would not

degrade traffic flow on State Road 710 below established levels

of service . FPL has already implemented roadway improvements at

the Martin Plant entrance and State Road 710, including an

extended left - hand turn lane and a south - bound acceleration lane.

Thus, no additional roadway improvements are required for

construction traf fic. Operation of Martin Unit 8 will add only

12 new employees at the Martin Plant Site. The Project will also

generate truck traffic for delivery of materials for operation

and maintenance of the Unit. However, the traffic resulting from

operation of U nit 8 will not degrade traffic volumes below

established levels of service.

Public Comment

72. Three members of the public provided testimony during

the certification hearing. They generally expressed their

appreciation for the manner in which FPL has interacted with the

community and supported various community activities. No one

spoke in opposition to the Project. One member of the public

questioned the need for another transmission line.

Agency Positions and Stipulations

73. The FDEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs,

the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission, the South Florida Water

Management District, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning

Council, and Martin Co unty each prepared written reports on the

Project. Each of these agencies either recommended approval of

Martin Unit 8 or otherwise did not object to certification of the

proposed power plant. FDEP has proposed a series of Conditions

of Certification for the Project that incorporate the

recommendations of the various reviewing agencies. FPL states

that it is prepared to accept and can comply with these

Conditions of Certification in the design, construction, and

operation of Martin Unit 8. The Florida D epartment of Community

Affairs stipulated that the Project would not conflict with the

State Comprehensive Plan. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning

Council stated in its agency report that the Project would not

conflict with its Strategic Regional Polic y Plan. Martin County

reported that the Project would be consistent with the County’s

comprehensive plan and land development code. No state,

regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification

of the Project or has otherwise objected to ce rtification of the

Project.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

74. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this

proceeding. This proceeding has been conducted in accordance

with the Florida Electrical Powe r Plant Siting Act, Chapter 403,

Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62 - 17, Part I, Florida

Administrative Code, which set out the procedures for power plant

siting reviews.

75. In accordance with Chapters 120 and 403, Florida

Statutes, and Chapter 6 2 - 17, Florida Administrative Code, proper

notice was accorded to all persons, entities, and parties

entitled to such notice, and appropriate notice was provided to

the general public by both the Department and FPL. All necessary

and required governmental agencies participated, and the general

public had the opportunity to fully participate, in the

certification process. Reports and studies were issued by FDEP,

the Department of Community Affairs, the Florida Department of

Transportation, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission, the South Florida Water Management District, the

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and Martin County in

accordance with their various statutory duties under the PPSA.

76. The Florida Public Service Commissio n has issued its

determination that a need exists for the electrical generating

facility and the electricity it will produce, in accord with

Section 403.519, Florida Statutes.

77. By its own terms, the PPSA "shall not apply" to

electrical power plants for which applications for permits were

made prior to 1973. Section 403.506(1), Florida Statutes;

Chapter 73 - 33, Laws of Florida. FPL applied for permits for

Martin Units 1 and 2 prior to 1973, and thus the PPSA does not

apply to those existing units. FPL has not in this proceeding

sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the PPSA with respect to

existing Martin Units 1 and 2, nor has FPL elected to apply for

certification of Units 1 and 2 under the optional PPSA provision

for certification of existing electric al power plants codified at

Section 403.5175, Florida Statutes.

78. Competent, substantial evidence and testimony produced

at the certification hearing demonstrates that FPL has met its

burden of proof to demonstrate that the Martin Unit 8 Project,

includ ing the proposed transmission line corridor, meets the

criteria for certification under the PPSA. Unrebutted testimony

and other evidence produced at the hearing demonstrates that the

safeguards for construction and operation of the Martin Unit 8

Project are technically sufficient to protect the public welfare

of the citizens of Florida and are otherwise reasonable and

available methods to achieve that protection of the public. The

Martin Unit 8 Project will result in minimal adverse effects on

human heal th, the environment, the ecology of the land and its

wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life.

In addition, the Project will not conflict with the state

comprehensive plan or the local comprehensive plan for Martin

County, Florida. If operated and maintained in accordance with

this Recommended Order and the FDEP's proposed Conditions of

Certification, the Martin Unit 8 Project will comply with the

applicable nonprocedural requirements of all agencies.

Furthermore, certification of the Project, including the

associated transmission line facility, will fully balance the

increasing demand for electrical power plant location and

operation in this State with the broad interests of the public

that are protected by the PPSA.

RECOMMENDATIO N

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant full and final

certification to Florida Power & Light Company, under Section

403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction,

a nd operation of the Martin Unit 8 Project, representing a 1100

MW combined cycle unit, and including an associated transmission

line as described in the Site Certification Application and the

evidence presented at the certification hearing, and subject to

the Conditions of Certification contained in FDEP Exhibit 2 and

incorporated herein by reference.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Flo rida 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, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire

Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Scott A. Goorland, Esquire

Senior Assistant General Couns el

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Krista Storey, Esquire

Tyson Waters, Esquire

Martin County Attorney's Office

2401 Southeast Monterey Road

Stuart, Florida 34996

Ross Staf ford Burnaman, Esquire

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1600

Sheauching Yu, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

Colin Roopnarine, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

Robert V. Elias, Esquire

Florida Public Service Commission

Gerald Gunter Building

2450 Shumard O ak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0850

Roger Saberson, Esquire

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council

70 Southeast Fourth Avenue

Delray Beach, Florida 33483 - 4514

Susan Roeder Martin, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

South Florida Water Managem ent District

Post Office Box 24680

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416

David B. Struhs, Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel

Department of Environment al Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florid a 32399 - 3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case.